# General Strike called!



## ska invita (Jun 30, 2010)

> Workers unite: Bob Crow rallies for mass action!
> 
> RMT leader Bob Crow responded on Wednesday to the Con-Dem cabinet of millionaires' declaration of war on workers by calling for "general and co-ordinated strikes" to stop the government's vicious assault on jobs.
> 
> The leader of 80,000 crucial transport and oil workers defiantly asserted at the RMT union congress in Aberdeen that "the government started this fight with the working class - but we are up for it."


http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/92243

I think Ian Bone has called it though:



> This is what’ll happen folks. Bob Crow calls today at RMT  conference for TUC  led general strike and formation of alliances with community and pensioners groups ( embryonic workers councils for us optimists!) The TUC  will not call a general strike ( gasp!)  but will organise a huge ‘anti-cuts defend our jobs and services’ demo in Hyde Park at end of October. This will be massive but politically will go down the usual dead end road of ‘defend this, defend that’ and more than likely- after some ritual Lib-Dem bashing- call for the return of a Labour government ‘pledged to defend…blah blah’. On the platform will be Dave Prentis, Paul Kenny,Derek Simpson, Tony Woodley, Bob Crow, John Cruddas ……plus Tony Benn…..plus more than likely….the new leader of the Labour Party. In which case we should be planning to bottle the fucker off now!
> 
> These things wil come to pass comrades believe me – it’s that predictable. But we should also be planning some more meaningful intervention than ‘having a block on the march’.Some piece of action that could push things further than the TUC  can control. After the firsy big anti-climactic march there’salways the law of less numbers for future ones. The October demo will present big opportunities to take things beyond the stultifying  – imagination and suggestions welcome comrades. See you in Hyde Park in October – just you see.


http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/huge-anti-cuts-demo-in-october/

Joking aside, I think strike action will be a serious thing in the future, just not yet. the financial crisis crisis has yet to really kick in to the extent i expect, and although this years strikes will be more modest than a general strike, who knows whats down the road...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2010)

well, it isn't like Bone to be a negative nancy. What has come over him?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2010)

The RMT will strike over the teabags being placed in the wrong cupboard. So obviously overt Tory Cuntyism isn't going to be taken lying down.

But what of the other unions?  If there's gonna be any liberal fannying about from them then thanks in advance etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2010)

a general strike would be fucking ace. Unofficial as well, just everyone going 'fuck this' for a week and watch the establishment fill thier fucking nappies.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 30, 2010)

perfect time for a strike , mortgage interest rates at an historical low, even the middle-classes might join in the fun


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2010)

Too many arse-licking fuckers and folk with no balls about though.

Unless, of course, the Tory Scum have miscalculated. And it does sound a little more harsh than mere poll tax after all.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2010)

Depends on whether people start to rise up against things as cuts hit the middle classes in more senior public sector positions, or whether they've swallowed the whole LibCon 'it's going to be tough but we have to do it' schtick.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2010)

I can't see there being much stomach for a general strike.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I can't see there being much stomach for a general strike.



wait for the cuts to kick in. Loads of people who aren't used to watching the pennies are going to take poorly to the idea that they should put a new notch in the belt.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2010)

stephj said:


> Depends on whether people start to rise up against things as cuts hit the middle classes in more senior public sector positions, or whether they've swallowed the whole LibCon 'it's going to be tough but we have to do it' schtick.



Losing your job is hard for anyone to swallow. But as for the middle classes (and working classes for that matter), it's between who will stand united against this assault and who will walk the divisive line of the far right.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I can't see there being much stomach for a general strike.



Are you making counter-revolutionary remarks only I'm taking notes right now.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Are you making counter-revolutionary remarks only I'm taking notes right now.



 

I am probably already on the list !!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I am probably already on the list !!



Well you've still got time to change your mind whilst the dying days of neo-liberalism allows you.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2010)

I can understand a lot of people being pissed off about the cuts, especially those in the public sector. It is not their fault that there is massive government debt. But in many ways it is not anybodies fault, unless New Labour knew there was a crunch coming and they continued expanding the public sector despite that. 

The downturn has happenned to everyone. 

But still, what will a general strike achieve? everybody knows people are pissed off, we hardly need reminding.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2010)

Yeah, we should all just accept it..


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2010)

stephj said:


> Yeah, we should all just accept it..



Well, there could be a balance, between people making a contribution by tax increases and others by cuts. 

But should the balance be what is currently being proposed or should it be different?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 30, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I can understand a lot of people being pissed off about the cuts, especially those in the public sector. It is not their fault that there is massive government debt. But in many ways it i*s not anybodies fault*, unless New Labour knew there was a crunch coming and they continued expanding the public sector despite that.
> 
> The downturn has happenned to everyone.
> 
> But still, what will a general strike achieve? everybody knows people are pissed off, we hardly need reminding.



Don't chat shit, it is directly the fault of neoliberalists who can't see beyond the next fiscal year


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Well, there could be a balance, between people making a contribution by tax increases and others by cuts.
> 
> But should the balance be what is currently being proposed or should it be different?



A balance like implementing regressive tax increases that affect the poorest people, whilst cutting the public sector which also tends to affect the poorest people?


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 30, 2010)

stephj said:


> Depends on whether people start to rise up against things as cuts hit the middle classes in more senior public sector positions, or whether they've swallowed the whole LibCon 'it's going to be tough but we have to do it' schtick.





weltweit said:


> Well, there could be a balance, between people making a contribution by tax increases and others by cuts.
> 
> But should the balance be what is currently being proposed or should it be different?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2010)

weltweit said:


> But should the balance be what is currently being proposed or should it be different?



yeah, I think what the Tories are proposing is about right. Completely fair and it doesn't protect their interests at all.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 30, 2010)

What I meant fractionman, was that whilst the working class are already feeling under attack, I've got colleagues where I am in the public sector who have completely swallowed the 'its tough out there and what can we do - striking will make it worse' - I'm sure (fucking hope!) that such apathy to strike action might change if they actually worry it might be their jobs on the line.

I was trying to make a bit of a cynical point too there with the middle classes and attitude to strikes/action against cuts.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 30, 2010)

I've got no idea why he facepalmed you, if he was.


----------



## ska invita (Jun 30, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I can't see there being much stomach for a general strike.


there isnt


weltweit said:


> But still, what will a general strike achieve?


bring down the government? bring in labour? thats the point ian b is making


-all this has to be taken within the greater eurozone context - IF greece defaults, IF that leads to contagion of its neighbours, IF theres a serious double dip recession/depression in the UK - all of which is not impossible - then we're in new territory, with new possibilities. of course, there doesnt seem to be a left coherent enough in britain to fill any void at the moment, but maybe our european colleagues will come up with some new models?

 In the meantime, at least calling (not too loudly) for general strikes, if not really believing in them, might at least set some mood music for whats to come.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2010)

Also theres a growing strike wave in china at the mo - reported here:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/335/china-honda
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...s-wave-of-strikes-after-Foxconn-pay-rise.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/30/china

increased wages in china are obviously a good thing, but should also add stress on to the european and US economies


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2010)

has anyone read that Rosa Luxemburg thing about the General Strike? Whats it say?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 1, 2010)

ska invita said:


> there isnt
> 
> bring down the government? bring in labour? thats the point ian b is making



But New Labour were going to do the same cuts, just delayed by a year or two.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 1, 2010)

weltweit said:


> But New Labour were going to do the same cuts, just delayed by a year or two.



yeah i know


----------



## OneStrike (Jul 1, 2010)

ska invita said:


> Also theres a growing strike wave in china at the mo - reported here:
> http://en.internationalism.org/wr/335/china-honda
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...s-wave-of-strikes-after-Foxconn-pay-rise.html
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/30/china
> ...




Big problems forseeable in big China once people demand a fair slice of the pie.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 1, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> well, it isn't like Bone to be a negative nancy. What has come over him?



It look like you are missing the point Ian is trying to make in that in his opinion the demo will inevitably take the steam out of any direct action and is deliberately designed to do just that.  His message has always been don't listen to your leaders take power for yourselves by taking control.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 1, 2010)

ska invita said:


> bring down the government? bring in labour? thats the point ian b is making



That is exactly the point he's not making.  In fact with the exception of the SPGB he hates all political parties and although he may rub shoulders with the SPGB in that their aims are similar their disagreements are well known.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> In fact with the exception of the SPGB he hates all political parties...



...and they say you don't do humour.


----------



## Gravediggers (Jul 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...and they say you don't do humour.



Find out for yourself by asking him.  I know what his answer will be.


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

Anybody thinking that this is good for the labour party misses the point that they largely created the problem. A general strike would be great because it would damage the economy even further. The only option then   would be confiscation from the rich. Problem is, what happens when we need wealth a second time, after we've already taken it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> Problem is, what happens when we need wealth a second time, after we've already taken it?



You economic illiterate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

Gravediggers said:


> Find out for yourself by asking him.  I know what his answer will be.



So do i. Hence my post.


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You economic illiterate.


Eh


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> Eh



What do you think would happen with the wealth once we'd taken it? Why would we need to do so a second time?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 1, 2010)

Yep, once liberated of their wealth, they'll be collecting bins just like the rest of us.


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What do you think would happen with the wealth once we'd taken it? Why would we need to do so a second time?


If you confiscated the wealth of the rich and shared it with the 60,000,000 population, it wouldn't go far - about twelve grand each. How long do you think twelve grand will last


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> If you confiscated the wealth of the rich and shared it with the 60,000,000 population, it wouldn't go far - about twelve grand each. How long do you think twelve grand will last


How is wealth created?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 1, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How is wealth created?



By entrepreneurs and go-getters, you silly sausage.

Labour? No, I'm just fat.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> If you confiscated the wealth of the rich and shared it with the 60,000,000 population, it wouldn't go far - about twelve grand each. How long do you think twelve grand will last



But it isn't like they're sitting on all the money and there's a finite pot is it? What would be nice is that money created through labour could be used to improve the quality of life of the communities that generate it rather than being squirelled away in some off-shore bank account so Henry Bilfoyd-Dobbins can afford several homes around the globe and his own plane to jet him between them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> If you confiscated the wealth of the rich and shared it with the 60,000,000 population, it wouldn't go far - about twelve grand each. How long do you think twelve grand will last



I've no money - 12 grand would be nice. I'll have yours if you like.


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How is wealth created?


By the workers. As soon as the bosses are removed, the workers can keep the wealth they generate.

Doesn't alter the fact that the bosses/aristos are only worth twelve grand to us.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> If you confiscated the wealth of the rich and shared it with the 60,000,000 population, it wouldn't go far - about twelve grand each. How long do you think twelve grand will last


What you basing this on btw


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> By the workers. As soon as the bosses are removed, the workers can keep the wealth they generate.
> 
> Doesn't alter the fact that the bosses/aristos are only worth twelve grand to us.


What point are you making?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> By the workers. As soon as the bosses are removed, the workers can keep the wealth they generate.
> 
> Doesn't alter the fact that the bosses/aristos are only worth twelve grand to us.



But how can 'the workers... keep the wealth they generate' if the 'bosses and aristos' are still around to appropriate it?


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But how can 'the workers... keep the wealth they generate' if the 'bosses and aristos' are still around to appropriate it?


The idea is to take businesses from bosses and turn them over to the workers. Then the bosses can be workers like everyone else.


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What you basing this on btw


It was a rough calculation I did a couple of years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

Based on what figures?


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What point are you making?


The point is that, whilst it will be good to relieve exploiters of their ill-gotten gains, let's remember that, if we shared it out, it wouldn't amount to much - not for long, anyway.


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Based on what figures?


figures I obtained from the internet.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> The idea is to take businesses from bosses and turn them over to the workers. Then the bosses can be workers like everyone else.



No shit. So what point are you making?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 1, 2010)

Which were - and where?


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No shit. So what point are you making?


Simply that communism would be better than capitalism.


----------



## coal-face (Jul 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Which were - and where?


It was two years ago, so can't answer your question now ... and was only a "back of envelope" calculation.


----------



## past caring (Jul 1, 2010)

And what was the point of the exercise? Just seems a bit of an odd thing to do - back of an envelope or not.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 1, 2010)

coal-face said:


> The point is that, whilst it will be good to relieve exploiters of their ill-gotten gains, let's remember that, if we shared it out, it wouldn't amount to much - not for long, anyway.



Errrr...so?  You appear to be missing the wider point here, about production.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 1, 2010)

stephj said:


> What I meant fractionman, was that whilst the working class are already feeling under attack, I've got colleagues where I am in the public sector who have completely swallowed the 'its tough out there and what can we do - striking will make it worse' - I'm sure (fucking hope!) that such apathy to strike action might change if they actually worry it might be their jobs on the line.
> 
> I was trying to make a bit of a cynical point too there with the middle classes and attitude to strikes/action against cuts.



I was facepalming weltweit for so ably illustrating your point.  I've been listening to otherwise sane people making the points you mention for the last week.  It's depressing.


----------



## stethoscope (Jul 1, 2010)

Ah 


Yeah, it is depressing.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 1, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> I was facepalming weltweit for so ably illustrating your point.  I've been listening to otherwise sane people making the points you mention for the last week.  It's depressing.



I've been hearing the opposite aswell as what you and stephj describe. People I wouldn't expect to support such a call openly supporting it and even 'demanding' that our union and others get it sorted.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 1, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What you basing this on btw



Ill-informed right wing prejudice.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 2, 2010)

coal-face said:


> It was a rough calculation I did a couple of years ago.



The working class should have very confidence in such economic expertise


----------



## Oletjo (Jul 5, 2010)

Reform or Revolution and the Mass Strike:

Removed link to PDF in case everyone jibs out and thinks I'm trying to spread a virus...


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 5, 2010)

PDF warning ^^

I'm not downloading that.


----------



## Oletjo (Jul 5, 2010)

Anyone else think that David Cameron is actively trying to start a revolution - it's brilliant - gradually remove the power of the unions, then put 1 million public service workers out of work - most of whom chose public sector work because they are committed to social justice rather than making money.  The result will be millions of workers who refuse to sell their souls to  the private sector but who are also unwilling to sit on the dole.  We'll just start self organising - autonomous free schools, autonomous workers libraries, autonomous restaurants - if we start being creative and building alternatives we can break the power of private industry and the state.  Fuck them all, it'll be brilliant.


----------



## Oletjo (Jul 5, 2010)

oh, yes, probably not worth downloading the PDF for two reasons - they are often used to soread viruses to radical forums plus its an illegally pirated document and I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to break the law 

Have removed it...


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 5, 2010)

The problem with PDFs is I can't be arsed.  Stick it on a blog or something.  Summary?



> most of whom chose public sector work because they are committed to social justice rather than making money...
> 
> The result will be millions of workers who refuse to sell their souls to the private sector but who are also unwilling to sit on the dole.



Really?


----------



## Oletjo (Jul 5, 2010)

Ahhh - I don't do summaries - will only be my interpretation on the text, in doing so invalidating the multiple meanings and ideas that could be taken from the original..

It was just Rosa Luxemburgs 'the Mass Strike' everyone's probably read it already...


----------



## Oletjo (Jul 5, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Really?



Hope so.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 5, 2010)

This one?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm


----------



## Oletjo (Jul 5, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> This one?
> 
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm



ermmmm, yes ...


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 5, 2010)

You know what I love about that document?

The fact that it's over 100 years old and in the opening paragraph it crticises another (30 years previous) document for being out of date 

I've not read it though, so I might do so later if bored enough.


----------



## Oletjo (Jul 5, 2010)

Well - she's wrong on that one - but then she did subscribe to revolution based upon marxism as a 'science' so probably slightly over committed to the idea that there is any such thing as teleology.  From my perspective the age of the text is irrelevant - it changes each time it is read - existing only through that current interpretation.  Doing stuff on the Leveller's at the moment - funny that we are still having the same debates now as they had in Putney Church in 1647!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

Now it cots £48 to go and see those debates though.


----------



## Oletjo (Jul 5, 2010)

They were free on Saturday.  I will have video of it pretty soon - will post a link then everyone can see for free!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2010)

Sorry, i meant the Gala Night.


----------



## Oletjo (Jul 5, 2010)

Yes - I thought that was a little ironic!  Maybe it is a performative enactment of 'You have not forty shillings a year, therefore you shall not have a voice'!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2010)

coal-face said:


> Simply that communism would be better than capitalism.



So why are you positing that wealth should be expropriated and then distributed equally among all the population, rather than the wealth being used as a "primer" for the engine of communism?
Surely distribution along your lines would create/perpetuate a "middle" class?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 5, 2010)

Oletjo said:


> Anyone else think that David Cameron is actively trying to start a revolution - it's brilliant - gradually remove the power of the unions, then put 1 million public service workers out of work - most of whom chose public sector work because they are committed to social justice rather than making money.  The result will be millions of workers who refuse to sell their souls to  the private sector but who are also unwilling to sit on the dole.  We'll just start self organising - autonomous free schools, autonomous workers libraries, autonomous restaurants - if we start being creative and building alternatives we can break the power of private industry and the state.  Fuck them all, it'll be brilliant.



Most people choose if they can to work in profession or service that they have skills in rather than whether it is public or private sector. And I can't see anyone rushing to the 'autonomous' sctor unless it is paying wages rather than some lets exchange scheme.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 5, 2010)

Oletjo said:


> Anyone else think that David Cameron is actively trying to start a revolution - it's brilliant - gradually remove the power of the unions, then put 1 million public service workers out of work - most of whom chose public sector work because they are committed to social justice rather than making money.


I suspect Cameron isn't actively trying to start a revolution, but actually believes that the unions and the public will roll over. He obviously hasn't "got" the fact that the reason Thatch and co got away with what they did is that they pissed off one or two unions at a time, rarely stoking up a critical mass of resentment. Cameron's govt is proposing actions that will piss off at least half a dozen unions and millions of members of the public. let us hope that the shitcunt reaps the whirlwind.  
The end result may be the same as deliberately provoking a revolution, though.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 5, 2010)

nationwide strikes in India#
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/06/2945512.htm


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 4, 2010)

1926 May 4 th
started with the workers answering the call What wonderful reponse ! What loyalty ! What solidarity !!!
From John o' Groats to land's end.A.J.Cook
We will never see the likes again. No more A. J. Cooks / Arther Scargill


----------



## starfish2000 (Aug 4, 2010)

If you want to cause a genuine change in this country start killing a few bankers, if Raol Moat had gone wandering down Threadneedle Street I suspect we'd be seeing some bonuses paid back by now.


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 5, 2010)

starfish2000 said:


> If you want to cause a genuine change in this country start killing a few bankers, if Raol Moat had gone wandering down Threadneedle Street I suspect we'd be seeing some bonuses paid back by now.


 Few more Raul Moats would help?


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 5, 2010)

starfish2000 said:


> If you want to cause a genuine change in this country start killing a few bankers, if Raol Moat had gone wandering down Threadneedle Street I suspect we'd be seeing some bonuses paid back by now.




This is what I mean in the rioting thread about the non-existence of genuine opposition to what's going on. All we have left is empty posturing of this kind by people who have probably never even seen a gun and never will.

Although I do concede that the vast majority of people do probably wish to live in a society where the likes of Rauol Moat are calling the shots (no pun intended.)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2010)

Red Paul said:


> 1926 May 4 th
> started with the workers answering the call What wonderful reponse ! What loyalty ! What solidarity !!!
> From John o' Groats to land's end.A.J.Cook
> We will never see the likes again. No more A. J. Cooks / Arther Scargill



"The Great Strike" was anything but. The miners were left to fend for themselves when the other two-thirds of "the big three" realised there'd be a long haul. More was done by the rank and file than by the hierarchy of the unions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> This is what I mean in the rioting thread about the non-existence of genuine opposition to what's going on.


Define what *you* mean by "genuine", please.


> All we have left is empty posturing of this kind by people who have probably never even seen a gun and never will.


You accuse people of posturing, but your words are a generalisation, they have no merit beyond projecting your prejudices. You don't know what posters on threads have done beyond writing, just as they don't know what you've done. You're in no position to judge whether they're posturing.
As for guns, seen them, owned them, used them, even patrolled with one as part of my job when I was young and able-bodied. I wouldn't want to use one to settle a political argument, because that's what debate is for, but sometimes physical direct action *is* necessary, up to and including armed violence as a last resort. Would Peterloo have progressed as it did if the assembled protesters had been able to defend themselves from the mounted militias?


> Although I do concede that the vast majority of people do probably wish to live in a society where the likes of Rauol Moat are calling the shots (no pun intended.)


Yes, of course they do, because they're not as enlightened as you are, are they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2010)

starfish2000 said:


> If you want to cause a genuine change in this country start killing a few bankers, if Raol Moat had gone wandering down Threadneedle Street I suspect we'd be seeing some bonuses paid back by now.



You don't *need* to kill, merely to stigmatise strongly enough.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 6, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Define what *you* mean by "genuine", please.
> 
> You accuse people of posturing, but your words are a generalisation, they have no merit beyond projecting your prejudices. You don't know what posters on threads have done beyond writing, just as they don't know what you've done. You're in no position to judge whether they're posturing.
> As for guns, seen them, owned them, used them, even patrolled with one as part of my job when I was young and able-bodied. I wouldn't want to use one to settle a political argument, because that's what debate is for, but sometimes physical direct action *is* necessary, up to and including armed violence as a last resort. Would Peterloo have progressed as it did if the assembled protesters had been able to defend themselves from the mounted militias?
> ...





I'd say genuine opposition is that which stands a chance of making a difference. Perhpas to say no genuine opposition was too harsh, and I should have said very little effective opposition. It isn't necessarily the fault of individuals either, as when a movement (such as one exists today) is at its historically lowest ebb and is up against an infinitely more powerful adversary with much more space for maneouvre, there is very little people can do, no matter how much they'd like to make a difference. 

The vast majority of people in this country nowadays have never seen a gun, let alone used one.  I strongly suspect that nearly all those who bang on about guns and killing on internet forums fall into this category. If people who do actually have experience of firearms were to do this then they should be given a very wide berth. As for yourself, you might have noticed that the comment wasn't directed at you. For somebody who reckons he's seen a bit of life you do seem surprisingly ready to take claims made by just any idiot on an internet site as good coin. Peterloo? If fifteen or so dead and seven hundred injured is your idea of a victory, I'd hate to see what you'd call a defeat. And have I said that under such circumstances (or any circumstances where people are attacked) people shouldn't defend themselves? (Although I don't fully understand the point you're making. Are you saying that the victories of subsequent decades wouldn't have taken place if people at Waterloo hadn't tried to defend themselves on the day? Or what?)

I suppose if I'd put a smilie beside my last comment you'd have taken it as it was meant? The point being that most people really do not want the likes of Raoul Moat holding some kind of sway over society. Out of the frying pan and into the fire is not usually viewed as much of an option, although it may be in your kind of circle. Ah well.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 6, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You don't *need* to kill, merely to stigmatise strongly enough.




A lot of people have been trying to stigmatise the bankers strongly since the autumn of 2008. It has made no difference at all, and the bankers are not in the least bothered.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> I'd say genuine opposition is that which stands a chance of making a difference. Perhpas to say no genuine opposition was too harsh, and I should have said very little effective opposition. It isn't necessarily the fault of individuals either, as when a movement (such as one exists today) is at its historically lowest ebb and is up against an infinitely more powerful adversary with much more space for maneouvre, there is very little people can do, no matter how much they'd like to make a difference.


I disagree. 
One of the reasons that there appears to be an "ineffective" opposition to the government has a lot to do with 30 years of indoctrination into the verities of neo-liberal economics and its' accompanying social consequences. Tell people often enough that there's nothing they can do, that unions are pointless, and that money is power, and they start to believe it.


> The vast majority of people in this country nowadays have never seen a gun, let alone used one.


In your opinion, anyway. 


> I strongly suspect that nearly all those who bang on about guns and killing on internet forums fall into this category.


Based on...? Oh, that's right, a strong yet unsubstantiated opinion. 


> If people who do actually have experience of firearms were to do this then they should be given a very wide berth. As for yourself, you might have noticed that the comment wasn't directed at you.


Oddly enough, I did. That doesn't preclude me from commenting, though. 


> For somebody who reckons he's seen a bit of life you do seem surprisingly ready to take claims made by just any idiot on an internet site as good coin.


Which claims would those be?


> Peterloo? If fifteen or so dead and seven hundred injured is your idea of a victory...


Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken, thanks all the same. I didn't mention Peterloo as any sort of victory. I mentioned it as an example of how the ability to make an armed defence would possibly have meant fewer dead and injured.
...I'd hate to see what you'd call a defeat.[/quote]
Because you're an idiot who has put words in my mouth. This "victory" and "defeat" _schtick_ appears to be a product of your imagination, unrelated to anything I mentioned about Peterloo. 
Here, I'll re-quote what I said:
*"As for guns, seen them, owned them, used them, even patrolled with one as part of my job when I was young and able-bodied. I wouldn't want to use one to settle a political argument, because that's what debate is for, but sometimes physical direct action is necessary, up to and including armed violence as a last resort. Would Peterloo have progressed as it did if the assembled protesters had been able to defend themselves from the mounted militias?"*
Nothing about victory or defeat, is there?


> And have I said that under such circumstances (or any circumstances where people are attacked) people shouldn't defend themselves? (Although I don't fully understand the point you're making.


Probably because you've entirely missed any point I made because you were chasing your phantoms of "victory" and "defeat",


> Are you saying that the victories of subsequent decades wouldn't have taken place if people at Waterloo hadn't tried to defend themselves on the day? Or what?)


You're in your own bloody dream-world, seeing words where there are none.


> I suppose if I'd put a smilie beside my last comment you'd have taken it as it was meant?


When someone communicates their thoughts as poorly as you appear to do (otherwise why would so many people not get your points, as you keep claiming?), then telegraphing your "humour" is probably a good idea.


> The point being that most people really do not want the likes of Raoul Moat holding some kind of sway over society. Out of the frying pan and into the fire is not usually viewed as much of an option...


You say this as though there's any difference except legality between what the state is empowered to practice, and what Moat did.


> ...although it may be in your kind of circle. Ah well.


What's my "kind of circle"? You're very keen on your arch turns of phrase, but I'd like to know the thinking behind it.

If there is any.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 6, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> A lot of people have been trying to stigmatise the bankers strongly since the autumn of 2008. It has made no difference at all, and the bankers are not in the least bothered.



I'm not talking about the media stigmatisation. The bankers are well aware that media are part of the same power structures as they are, and that the media will eventually focus on a new "enemy". I'm talking about what used to be termed "consumer action".
But hey, why bother, it wouldn't achieve enough change to be worth it, would it, Eeyore?


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 6, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I disagree.
> One of the reasons that there appears to be an "ineffective" opposition to the government has a lot to do with 30 years of indoctrination into the verities of neo-liberal economics and its' accompanying social consequences. Tell people often enough that there's nothing they can do, that unions are pointless, and that money is power, and they start to believe it.
> 
> In your opinion, anyway.
> ...


Because you're an idiot who has put words in my mouth. This "victory" and "defeat" _schtick_ appears to be a product of your imagination, unrelated to anything I mentioned about Peterloo. 
Here, I'll re-quote what I said:
*"As for guns, seen them, owned them, used them, even patrolled with one as part of my job when I was young and able-bodied. I wouldn't want to use one to settle a political argument, because that's what debate is for, but sometimes physical direct action is necessary, up to and including armed violence as a last resort. Would Peterloo have progressed as it did if the assembled protesters had been able to defend themselves from the mounted militias?"*
Nothing about victory or defeat, is there?

Probably because you've entirely missed any point I made because you were chasing your phantoms of "victory" and "defeat",

You're in your own bloody dream-world, seeing words where there are none.

When someone communicates their thoughts as poorly as you appear to do (otherwise why would so many people not get your points, as you keep claiming?), then telegraphing your "humour" is probably a good idea.

You say this as though there's any difference except legality between what the state is empowered to practice, and what Moat did.

What's my "kind of circle"? You're very keen on your arch turns of phrase, but I'd like to know the thinking behind it.

If there is any.[/QUOTE]



It's too simplistic to say that it's simply indoctrination. The changes in society have a real material basis. We now have a generation with little experience or understanding of either community or workplace organising. At the same time, the labour movement and the left has declined to such an extent that it's incapable of influencing them much, or even at all. And both communities and workplaces have been broken up, eroding class solidarity, while an individualist culture has been brought about by both these changes and the new technology that accompanies them, to the extent that there are probably as many, if not more people arguing about radical politics on the internet than participating in it. And so on. 

Of course there are fewer people now familiar with firearms than there were a few decades ago. People used to do military service or fight in wars en-masse, remember. 

My suspicion that those promoting armed violence on the internet usually have no experience of it comes from the blase way they speak of it. As I said, if they do have that experience and still remain as blase, they should be avoided. 

I was speaking of the claims of your playmates on here and their naive riot fetish. 

Have you any details of how people acting in self-defence at Peterloo prevented the massacre from being worse? Genuine question-it's something you hear little about. However, Peterloo has little relevance to today's situation, where policing is more sophisticated and demonstrators usually more familiar with how it all works (by and large, it's the same few hundred thousand people participating in almost all demonstrations now.)

I'm as aware as anybody of the dirt on the hands of the state, but I'm unaware of the state going and blasting two innocent people with a gun like Moat did over a personal grievance. There may have been incidents where rogue state elements have done similar things, but they're not allowed to simply get away with it.

I'd say your kind of circle (if you have one) might be composed of politically naive dreamers like you.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 6, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not talking about the media stigmatisation. The bankers are well aware that media are part of the same power structures as they are, and that the media will eventually focus on a new "enemy". I'm talking about what used to be termed "consumer action".
> But hey, why bother, it wouldn't achieve enough change to be worth it, would it, Eeyore?




It isn't just in the media, though, is it? Ordinary people have been going on about 'disgusting bankers bonuses' and so on, on radio phone-ins and across the internet for the best part of two years. It hasn't translated into any noticable 'consumer action.' Which reinforces my point in the above post where I say that there are probably more people ranting on the internet than actaully participating in any meaningful politics now. Social isolation and an individualist culture etc. Changes nothing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> It's too simplistic to say that it's simply indoctrination.


Of course it's simplistic. It necessarily HAS to be simplistic unless I want to write a book about social change in the last quarter of the 20th century.


> The changes in society have a real material basis. We now have a generation with little experience or understanding of either community or workplace organising.


I disagree about community organising. We see evidence of it (good or bad) every time community issues are raised.
As for the workplace, my point about indoctrination stands. If you're inculcated throughout your educational career that the way to "get on" is to be a good little drone, and the representations of workplace organising that are presented to you are mostly negative, then you've effectively been indoctrinated into (re)acting in a particular way to the idea of trades unionism. It does, of course, extend way beyond such a simplistic analysis but, as I said, I'm not interested in writing a book on social change. 


> At the same time, the labour movement and the left has declined to such an extent that it's incapable of influencing them much, or even at all. And both communities and workplaces have been broken up, eroding class solidarity...


Solidarities, like communities, are fluid. They adapt. The fact that they may be different from "what went before" doesn't mean they don't exist or are disappearing. 


> ....while an individualist culture has been brought about by both these changes and the new technology that accompanies them...


It's little to do with technology, and a lot more to do with the essentialisation of neo-liberalism. Technology is a tool, that's all. 


> to the extent that there are probably as many, if not more people arguing about radical politics on the internet than participating in it. And so on.


There are many reasons beyond the erosion of workplace organising and a (self?)-neutered left for "people arguing about radical politics on the internet" (which doesn't mean they're not also participating in them). I'd suggest that one of those reasons is trust. Too much factionalism, too many hijackings of causes and the creeping infiltration of political careerism into politics big and small.


> Of course there are fewer people now familiar with firearms than there were a few decades ago. People used to do military service or fight in wars en-masse, remember.


National Service hasn't existed for just over 50 years, and the last _en-masse_ war ended 65 years ago, so hardly "a few decades", especially when it's borne in mind that until 1997-98 over 1.5 million Britons held firearms certificates (not including shotgun licences), which while that's fewer than the quarter of a million a year that did National Service, or the 3 million or so servicemen who survived the war, is still a large number.


> My suspicion that those promoting armed violence on the internet usually have no experience of it comes from the blase way they speak of it. As I said, if they do have that experience and still remain as blase, they should be avoided.


I haven't seen anyone promoting armed violence. I've seen a bit of posturing and some ignorance, but that's standard fare when the blood is up. It's boring but if you take it seriously you've slipped your moorings. Sensible people generally accept that armed violence is a tactic of last resort, generally to be used defensively.


> I was speaking of the claims of your playmates on here and their naive riot fetish.


I don't have "playmates" on these boards. It might fuel your sense of self-righteousness to believe you're a brave crusader struggling against the ignorant and oafish political _naifs_, but it's far from an accurate representation.


> Have you any details of how people acting in self-defence at Peterloo prevented the massacre from being worse? Genuine question-it's something you hear little about.


For the sake of Beelzebub's swollen brass balls please read my post properly. My point wasn't that they defended themselves, but that if they had possessed the means to do so, the casualties, at least those injured, may have been fewer. Any means that could have disrupted the mounted charges could have been successful in lowering the count. 


> However, Peterloo has little relevance to today's situation, where policing is more sophisticated...


It really isn't. It's the same basic tactics of separation and isolation of elements as has been used for a couple of hundred years. What's different is merely the ability to coordinate over distance in real time. For all the fancy names given to practices, they're old hat. 


> and demonstrators usually more familiar with how it all works (by and large, it's the same few hundred thousand people participating in almost all demonstrations now.)


Please substantiate.


> I'm as aware as anybody of the dirt on the hands of the state, but I'm unaware of the state going and blasting two innocent people with a gun like Moat did over a personal grievance. There may have been incidents where rogue state elements have done similar things, but they're not allowed to simply get away with it.


What touching faith, and it's always good to hear the hoary old "it's the rogue elements" _schtick_ being paraded! The state does whatever it has to in order to protect and perpetuate the state. It doesn't require "rogue elements" (except perhaps to take the blame).


> I'd say your kind of circle (if you have one) might be composed of politically naive dreamers like you.


I'd say that you continue to mistake optimism for naivety. My optimism fuels me in struggle, what does your pessimism and defeatism do for you, besides fuel your obvious bitterness?


----------



## Gumbert (Aug 7, 2010)

well said catherine, still the same old mental masturbation round this thread. Narchs still picking at the marxist analysis [see luxembourg] nowt changes when they're stuck in front of their screens...


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not talking about the media stigmatisation. The bankers are well aware that media are part of the same power structures as they are, and that the media will eventually focus on a new "enemy". I'm talking about what used to be termed "consumer action".
> But hey, why bother, it wouldn't achieve enough change to be worth it, would it, Eeyore?


 Come the glorious DAY, Frist up to the wall.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 7, 2010)

Red Paul said:


> Come the glorious DAY, Frist up to the wall.


 
I'm shitting myself.

Are you a spoof, by the way, or another one like Dot Communist who just comes over as a spoof?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2010)

I think he's taking the piss, much like you with your cross threading weirdo fixation.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course it's simplistic. It necessarily HAS to be simplistic unless I want to write a book about social change in the last quarter of the 20th century.
> 
> I disagree about community organising. We see evidence of it (good or bad) every time community issues are raised.
> As for the workplace, my point about indoctrination stands. If you're inculcated throughout your educational career that the way to "get on" is to be a good little drone, and the representations of workplace organising that are presented to you are mostly negative, then you've effectively been indoctrinated into (re)acting in a particular way to the idea of trades unionism. It does, of course, extend way beyond such a simplistic analysis but, as I said, I'm not interested in writing a book on social change.
> ...



It's perfectly possible not to be simplistic short of writing a book. Don't be so daft. 

I never said that there are no examples of community and workplace organising. There are plenty, but it's usually reliant on the same relatively small groups of people over and over again, with few younger people getting involved. Which leads into the point I was actually making-that a whole generation has grown up without any conception of workplace or community solidarity. Indoctrination isn't even the half of it. It's more rooted in deep social change over the past thirty years (much of it fostered by deliberate social engineering), alongside a resulting decline of the labour movement and the construction of an individualist culture. You don't have to be indoctrinated to notice that alternatives to the present order are all but non-existent. Solidarities and communities may be fluid, but it doesn't follow that the politics of yesteryear (in however altered or disguised a form) are guaranteed to re-emerge. 

The only point I was making about technology was that it aids rather than hinders the current order. People nowadays are more inclined to let off political staem on the internet than anywhere else, leaving the remaining genuine activists feeling beleagured and embittered. 

Factionalism on the left is not a major reason why people are less politically active than they've ever been. Even in the heyday of the labour movement most people active in it were almost entirely unaware of the radical left factions and sects, and where they were they regarded them as pretty irrelevant. 

So your figures about the number of people with firearms experience today only reinforces what I said. Here's some more bad news for you. It's an unsubstantiated (but shrewd) opinion again: most people who hold firearms certificates nowadays are more likely to be pointing their guns at you than at the enemy if the crunch ever comes. 

You can blather on about me misinterpreting what you say, but what you say above about Peterloo is different to what you said previously. Could it be a case of goalposts being moved? The main difference between the policing of those times and now is that they are far less likely to perpetrate a massacre nowadays. It might be basically the same tactics being used, but they have two centuries of experience behind them and are much wiser. 

Don't you think that the majority of demonstrations consist of basically the same bunch of activists and their periphery who troop on and off the coach to London (or wander into their own city centres and out again) time and time again. I don't think I know anybody outside the left milieu who's ever even been on a coach to march around London.

Do you honestly believe that the only difference between Raoul Moat and the police is one of legality? If you do, it goes a long way towards explaining why you are destined to remain in the political wilderness forever. And having a touching faith in the police has absolutely nothing to do with it. 

What does this 'struggle' that your optimism fuels you in actually consist of? Because whenever I log on here, you are somewhere close by.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I think he's taking the piss, much like you with your cross threading weirdo fixation.





All right, Wolfie. Where's Ken?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2010)

rollin rollin rollin, keep them cliches rollin. I imagine I should go live there if I love it so much.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> What does this 'struggle' that your optimism fuels you in actually consist of? Because whenever I log on here, you are somewhere close by.


Ooh, another attempt at being snide!

I leave myself permanently logged in. That way, when I want some comic relief from other stuff (I work from home when I've got work, as I'm disabled), I can open a page and see what fresh crop of horse-shit has fallen from your fingertips.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> rollin rollin rollin, keep them cliches rollin. I imagine I should go live there if I love it so much.



Nope, you've got it wrong, she thinks you're only a cartoon communist, so of course she wouldn't be stupid enough to deploy that particular cliché!

We can hope, anyway.

Myself, I've decided to disengage. What's the point of corresponding with someone whose idea of debate is imbuing their opinions with the status of fact while ignoring anything presented that doesn't accord to their preconceived beliefs (and they are very obviously beliefs rather than facts. For example, apparently "it's one of the most common refrains of our times to say that community, in any genuine sense of the term s dead over large parts of the country". Have *you* heard this refrain? I haven't, although I've read it in a few right of centre policy documents)?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2010)

it is certainly accurate to describe societal atomisation but I've never heard anyone say it. Usually it is 'no one cares about the nieghbours anymore' and is uttered by doorstep scrubbing nostalgia sorts. Certainly wider society relations have been eroded but people in streets and communities small scale still look to each others safety simply out 'it might be me next' or some sense of community spirit- you do the small things for people and let the big slide cos you're doing what you can, that sort of community mindedness does exist.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ooh, another attempt at being snide!
> 
> I leave myself permanently logged in. That way, when I want some comic relief from other stuff (I work from home when I've got work, as I'm disabled), I can open a page and see what fresh crop of horse-shit has fallen from your fingertips.




That's an explanation of the 'struggle' you're involved in, is it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> it is certainly accurate to describe societal atomisation but I've never heard anyone say it.
> Usually it is 'no one cares about the nieghbours anymore' and is uttered by doorstep scrubbing nostalgia sorts. Certainly wider society relations have been eroded but people in streets and communities small scale still look to each others safety simply out 'it might be me next' or some sense of community spirit- you do the small things for people and let the big slide cos you're doing what you can, that sort of community mindedness does exist.



So, it's *not* one of the most common refrains of our times, then (outside, perhaps, of a small coterie of rightists)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> That's an explanation of the 'struggle' you're involved in, is it?



No, it was a rejoinder to your sneering that "whenever I log on here, you are somewhere close by.". That much is glaringly obvious.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, you've got it wrong, she thinks you're only a cartoon communist, so of course she wouldn't be stupid enough to deploy that particular cliché!
> 
> We can hope, anyway.
> 
> Myself, I've decided to disengage. What's the point of corresponding with someone whose idea of debate is imbuing their opinions with the status of fact while ignoring anything presented that doesn't accord to their preconceived beliefs (and they are very obviously beliefs rather than facts. For example, apparently "it's one of the most common refrains of our times to say that community, in any genuine sense of the term s dead over large parts of the country". Have *you* heard this refrain? I haven't, although I've read it in a few right of centre policy documents)?





As I said, you go ahead and believe that there are communities full of 'the righteous vibe,' pregnant with pontetial for some kind of 'self-organised' society, all over the place. It bears no resemblence to reality, but it obviously fulfils an emotional need for you. 

In reality you are 'disengaging' because you don't like your questionable notions being repeatedly answered with a reasoned objection. It's always the same eventually, with politics of all shades, so you're not on your own.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> it is certainly accurate to describe societal atomisation but I've never heard anyone say it. Usually it is 'no one cares about the nieghbours anymore' and is uttered by doorstep scrubbing nostalgia sorts. Certainly wider society relations have been eroded but people in streets and communities small scale still look to each others safety simply out 'it might be me next' or some sense of community spirit- you do the small things for people and let the big slide cos you're doing what you can, that sort of community mindedness does exist.




I haven't said that nobody looks out for each other anymore. However, this does not constiute any kind of community, and has no political implications.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, it's *not* one of the most common refrains of our times, then (outside, perhaps, of a small coterie of rightists)?




There is a least as much commentary on the erosion of community coming from the left as the right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> As I said, you go ahead and believe that there are communities full of 'the righteous vibe,' pregnant with pontetial for some kind of 'self-organised' society, all over the place. It bears no resemblence to reality, but it obviously fulfils and emotional need for you.
> 
> In reality you are 'disengaging' because you don't like your questionable notions being repeatedly answered with a reasoned objection. It's always the same, with politics of all shades, so you're not on your own.



Like I said oh so many posts ago, you're always going to be right, and everyone else (and there are damn few on any thread you've participated in who have agreed with you, except perhaps for Gumbert) is always wrong. It's nothing to do with "questionable notions", and everything to do with your overweening arrogance and your need to sneer at those who think differently than you. I've happily argued with people on Urban whom other posters have urged me to ignore, but you? You're so wrapped up in the rightness of your views that you're not worth the bother. You're not even worth a decent line of abuse.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said oh so many posts ago, you're always going to be right, and everyone else (and there are damn few on any thread you've participated in who have agreed with you, except perhaps for Gumbert) is always wrong. It's nothing to do with "questionable notions", and everything to do with your overweening arrogance and your need to sneer at those who think differently than you. I've happily argued with people on Urban whom other posters have urged me to ignore, but you? You're so wrapped up in the rightness of your views that you're not worth the bother. You're not even worth a decent line of abuse.




I wouldn't expect those who've replied to me to agree with me, as they're as much dreamers politically as you are, living in the same parallel world. 

And of course I think I'm right. So do you. So do they (hence the abuse heaped on me earlier; not that I care.) What do you want? Everybody to agree for the sake of agreeing?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> I haven't said that nobody looks out for each other anymore. However, this does not constiute any kind of community, and has no political implications.


 
I didn't say that you did, and as it happens I agree that wider scale community cohesion has been eroded- the whys and hows of this are pretty clear to divine and the evidence of it is also clear. This doesn't mean that the well meaning tories and earnest leftist and duty-bound churches and apolitical and unreligious do-gooders (and I use that term not as the insult it is usually deployed as) don't attempt to improve the polity they are within.

We are by and large a social species innit. I'd take my nieghbours rubbish out and walk his dog for him if he broke a leg and asked me to help out. Most people aren't cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> There is a least as much commentary on the erosion of community coming from the left as the right.



And yet, *if* you know what you're talking about, you'll also know that the rhetoric from the right has a different slant from the left. The right talk about the death of community and plot to replace it. The left talk about how to shore up the existing structures and reconstruct what is lost.
So, outside of a coterie of rightists, very few people air the view *you* expressed. It's *not* a "common refrain".

So long.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 7, 2010)

Regarding Ian Bone going on strike. 
Who is Ian Bone withdrawing his labour from?


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> it is certainly accurate to describe societal atomisation but I've never heard anyone say it. Usually it is 'no one cares about the nieghbours anymore' and is uttered by doorstep scrubbing nostalgia sorts. Certainly wider society relations have been eroded but people in streets and communities small scale still look to each others safety simply out 'it might be me next' or some sense of community spirit- you do the small things for people and let the big slide cos you're doing what you can, that sort of community mindedness does exist.


 The Working class must become one. And no enemy can crush us while we can crush any enemy.
In the miners strike 84/85 their was community spirit when no one had no money we came together, helped each other, if we could bring that strength as one then the struggle would be over?.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Regarding Ian Bone going on strike.
> Who is Ian Bone withdrawing his labour from?


 
he is a miserable old lefty bastard who is pretty funny with his turns of phrase and brutal musings on things he doesn't like. I have no idea what work he is rwfusing to do. I hope it isn't his blogging cos that is funny shit, the man cantona kicks at his targets with linguistic flair that isn't in any way fancy. He just goes in with bluntness that cannot help but make me smile regardless of wether I agree.


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 7, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> he is a miserable old lefty bastard who is pretty funny with his turns of phrase and brutal musings on things he doesn't like. I have no idea what work he is rwfusing to do. I hope it isn't his blogging cos that is funny shit, the man cantona kicks at his targets with linguistic flair that isn't in any way fancy. He just goes in with bluntness that cannot help but make me smile regardless of wether I agree.


 Mentally state your problem and then ask your Inner Wisdom for guidance mybe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 7, 2010)

Red Paul said:


> Mentally state your problem and then ask your Inner Wisdom for guidance mybe.



Hippy!!


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 8, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hippy!!


 
Did you Hippy for joy or 
hippy Interpids
you be right on both, Walk in peace.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 8, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I didn't say that you did, and as it happens I agree that wider scale community cohesion has been eroded- the whys and hows of this are pretty clear to divine and the evidence of it is also clear. This doesn't mean that the well meaning tories and earnest leftist and duty-bound churches and apolitical and unreligious do-gooders (and I use that term not as the insult it is usually deployed as) don't attempt to improve the polity they are within.
> 
> We are by and large a social species innit. I'd take my nieghbours rubbish out and walk his dog for him if he broke a leg and asked me to help out. Most people aren't cunts.





All well and good. But this has nothing to do with what I've been saying. Taking your neighbours's rubbish out and walking is dog is commendable, but, as I said, has no political implications.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 8, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet, *if* you know what you're talking about, you'll also know that the rhetoric from the right has a different slant from the left. The right talk about the death of community and plot to replace it. The left talk about how to shore up the existing structures and reconstruct what is lost.
> So, outside of a coterie of rightists, very few people air the view *you* expressed. It's *not* a "common refrain".
> 
> So long.





It's a pity you had to end on such a dishonest note, as nowhere have I talked about, or 'plotted,' to replace community. What does it even mean?


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 8, 2010)

Red Paul said:


> The Working class must become one. And no enemy can crush us while we can crush any enemy.
> In the miners strike 84/85 their was community spirit when no one had no money we came together, helped each other, if we could bring that strength as one then the struggle would be over?.


 
Unfortunately only a (large) minority of the working class backed the miners, and the leaders of the labour movememnt undermined them. Since then, the working has has become far more depoliticised and unorganised, while the labour movement has moved so far to the right that it can barely be said to exist anymore. All in all, not a recipe for the working class to 'become one.'


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> It's a pity you had to end on such a dishonest note, as nowhere have I talked about, or 'plotted,' to replace community. What does it even mean?


so long? means see you later, in't it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> It's a pity you had to end on such a dishonest note, as nowhere have I talked about, or 'plotted,' to replace community. What does it even mean?



I'll reply to this because you have, yet again, given proof that you don't read the posts you respond to.
I haven't said that you plotted, or even discussed replacing community (are you "the right"? I'd pictured you more as a former soft-left type who believes themselves to have been "mugged by reality").  I noted that it's the direction that the right have taken in discourse. As for what it means, read anything on the subject of communitarianism by Amitai Etzioni or Charles Murray to get an idea of where the right wishes to take the discursive construction of "community".

Don't accuse me of dishonesty when you're either too ignorant or too lazy to read a fairly simple post properly.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 8, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll reply to this because you have, yet again, given proof that you don't read the posts you respond to.
> I haven't said that you plotted, or even discussed replacing community (are you "the right"? I'd pictured you more as a former soft-left type who believes themselves to have been "mugged by reality").  I noted that it's the direction that the right have taken in discourse. As for what it means, read anything on the subject of communitarianism by Amitai Etzioni or Charles Murray to get an idea of where the right wishes to take the discursive construction of "community".
> 
> Don't accuse me of dishonesty when you're either too ignorant or too lazy to read a fairly simple post properly.




This is what you said: "So, outside of a coterie of rightists, very few people air the view you expressed. It's not a "common refrain".' Which seems, in my eyes at least, to associate me with 'a coterie of rightists.'


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> This is what you said: "So, outside of a coterie of rightists, very few people air the view you expressed. It's not a "common refrain".' Which seems, in my eyes at least, to associate me with 'a coterie of rightists.'


 
or with a select few people who, while not rightists, share their views on certain subjects


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 8, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> or with a select few people who, while not rightists, share their views on certain subjects




Which select few people for instance?

This claim that only right-wingers suggest that community has been largely eroded in recent decades is bizarre.


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 8, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Unfortunately only a (large) minority of the working class backed the miners, and the leaders of the labour movememnt undermined them. Since then, the working has has become far more depoliticised and unorganised, while the labour movement has moved so far to the right that it can barely be said to exist anymore. All in all, not a recipe for the working class to 'become one.'


 You are right


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> This is what you said: "So, outside of a coterie of rightists, very few people air the view you expressed. It's not a "common refrain".' Which seems, in my eyes at least, to associate me with 'a coterie of rightists.'



Get your eyes tested, then.
It associates you with the very few people outside the coterie. If I believed you were a rightist I wouldn't hum and haw about calling you a rightist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 8, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Which select few people for instance?
> 
> This claim that only right-wingers suggest that community has been largely eroded in recent decades is bizarre.



No such suggestion has been made.


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 9, 2010)

A Generl strike it's a apocalytic vision.
The whole governing class would surrender, I think not.
Fair play Dream on.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 9, 2010)

While not sharing the opinions of VP on everything, I've got to chip in here. So 'the working class is defeated and fragmented' - fucking hooray well done. 

The old solidarities have been changed with the shift from heavy industry to a globalised financialised UK economy. That is not to say that they can't come back btw. There IS talk about reopening deep coal mines in the North East, and that btw is also in the first place a stupid fuck up by capitalism and its fat controllers. The abandonment of huge coal reserves was PURELY political short termism, they never forgot that the miners beat them in the 1970s. Other coal industries in Europe have not been treated the same, and that also reinforces the view that there were other political factors in the coal industry.

But moving back to the UK economy and its communities, imho there are people searching for and building communities all over the UK. In my neck of the woods there has been some touching pro community work by some local capitalists who want a romanticised version of the historical working class communtiies to return with a vengeance. This also prolongs the historical memory of the working class too, though not in the same way. The original working class communities (pre radio pre tv) saw organic working class community growth, that was their source of news & entertainment too. Since the emergence of other avenues of social control (schools/Tv/radio/internet) there have been working class communities that accomodated all these and imposed their own meanings, how it develops is anyones guess and we're all (or we should be) pushing in the directions that will get the best working class political results. The struggle is a long one, and will carry on beyond your death Lech. I guess VP would rather that would come sooner rather than later too.





Catherine Lech said:


> It isn't just in the media, though, is it? Ordinary people have been going on about 'disgusting bankers bonuses' and so on, on radio phone-ins and across the internet for the best part of two years. It hasn't translated into any noticable 'consumer action.' Which reinforces my point in the above post where I say that there are probably more people ranting on the internet than actaully participating in any meaningful politics now. Social isolation and an individualist culture etc. Changes nothing.


 


Catherine Lech said:


> This is what you said: "So, outside of a coterie of rightists, very few people air the view you expressed. It's not a "common refrain".' Which seems, in my eyes at least, to associate me with 'a coterie of rightists.'


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 9, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> While not sharing the opinions of VP on everything, I've got to chip in here. So 'the working class is defeated and fragmented' - fucking hooray well done.
> 
> The old solidarities have been changed with the shift from heavy industry to a globalised financialised UK economy. That is not to say that they can't come back btw. There IS talk about reopening deep coal mines in the North East, and that btw is also in the first place a stupid fuck up by capitalism and its fat controllers. The abandonment of huge coal reserves was PURELY political short termism, they never forgot that the miners beat them in the 1970s. Other coal industries in Europe have not been treated the same, and that also reinforces the view that there were other political factors in the coal industry.
> 
> But moving back to the UK economy and its communities, imho there are people searching for and building communities all over the UK. In my neck of the woods there has been some touching pro community work by some local capitalists who want a romanticised version of the historical working class communtiies to return with a vengeance. This also prolongs the historical memory of the working class too, though not in the same way. The original working class communities (pre radio pre tv) saw organic working class community growth, that was their source of news & entertainment too. Since the emergence of other avenues of social control (schools/Tv/radio/internet) there have been working class communities that accomodated all these and imposed their own meanings, how it develops is anyones guess and we're all (or we should be) pushing in the directions that will get the best working class political results. The struggle is a long one, and will carry on beyond your death Lech. I guess VP would rather that would come sooner rather than later too.


 You got it in Perspective


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 9, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> While not sharing the opinions of VP on everything, I've got to chip in here. So 'the working class is defeated and fragmented' - fucking hooray well done.
> 
> The old solidarities have been changed with the shift from heavy industry to a globalised financialised UK economy. That is not to say that they can't come back btw. There IS talk about reopening deep coal mines in the North East, and that btw is also in the first place a stupid fuck up by capitalism and its fat controllers. The abandonment of huge coal reserves was PURELY political short termism, they never forgot that the miners beat them in the 1970s. Other coal industries in Europe have not been treated the same, and that also reinforces the view that there were other political factors in the coal industry.
> 
> But moving back to the UK economy and its communities, imho there are people searching for and building communities all over the UK. In my neck of the woods there has been some touching pro community work by some local capitalists who want a romanticised version of the historical working class communtiies to return with a vengeance. This also prolongs the historical memory of the working class too, though not in the same way. The original working class communities (pre radio pre tv) saw organic working class community growth, that was their source of news & entertainment too. Since the emergence of other avenues of social control (schools/Tv/radio/internet) there have been working class communities that accomodated all these and imposed their own meanings, how it develops is anyones guess and we're all (or we should be) pushing in the directions that will get the best working class political results. The struggle is a long one, and will carry on beyond your death Lech. I guess VP would rather that would come sooner rather than later too.





All very nice stuff. The struggle may well be a long one, but the dream of international socialism belongs to the twentieth century. Capitalism will kill itself in the end, but it'll probably take most of us with it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 10, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> All very nice stuff. The struggle may well be a long one, but the dream of international socialism belongs to the twentieth century. Capitalism will kill itself in the end, but it'll probably take most of us with it.


 
International Socialism Was the dream after Lenin won in 1917. Even Hobsbawm (who said what you said here I believe in "The Age of Extremes") also said that pre World War 1, it was the anarchists and syndicalists whose opinions were held by the majority of of the worlds progressive working class movements. These views are also today and have been resurging all around the world too. Of course its not going to be the same and apart from the sterile retro commies (ever dwindling) there aren't many who want it to repeat.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 10, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> International Socialism Was the dream after Lenin won in 1917. Even Hobsbawm (who said what you said here I believe in "The Age of Extremes") also said that pre World War 1, it was the anarchists and syndicalists whose opinions were held by the majority of of the worlds progressive working class movements. These views are also today and have been resurging all around the world too. Of course its not going to be the same and apart from the sterile retro commies (ever dwindling) there aren't many who want it to repeat.


 
Where is the evidence that 'the anarchists and synidcalists' (who were, in actual fact, not dominant before WW1), have been resurging all around the world?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 10, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Where is the evidence that 'the anarchists and synidcalists' (who were, in actual fact, not dominant before WW1), have been resurging all around the world?


 
GO look for it


----------



## Red Paul (Aug 10, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Where is the evidence that 'the anarchists and synidcalists' (who were, in actual fact, not dominant before WW1), have been resurging all around the world?


 
The synidcalist voice was strong in the valleys before & after WW1.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 10, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> GO look for it



Surely it's up to the one who made the claim to provide the evidence?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 13, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Surely it's up to the one who made the claim to provide the evidence?


 
You know, sometimes I just cannot be bothered and this is one of those times. Evidence exists, in huge quantities, go figure.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 13, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> You know, sometimes I just cannot be bothered and this is one of those times. Evidence exists, in huge quantities, go figure.



Convenient.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 13, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Convenient.


ermm, no, more along the lines of 'there is so very much evidence out there right now that anyone who has an interest in prtogressive political thought and action, as you seem to have,  really should be aware of it, and TBH isn't there to remedy that yawening lacuna in your knowledge, when you shopuld be perfectly capable of doing so yourself, without too much exhaustive effort'.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 13, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> ermm, no, more along the lines of 'there is so very much evidence out there right now that anyone who has an interest in prtogressive political thought and action, as you seem to have,  really should be aware of it, and TBH isn't there to remedy that yawening lacuna in your knowledge, when you shopuld be perfectly capable of doing so yourself, without too much exhaustive effort'.




Erm yes. Actually. It isn't a yawning lacuna; I simply think what he's saying is cobblers.

And anyway, he made the statement and so should justify it when questioned. Are you his private secretary?


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> ermm, no, more along the lines of 'there is so very much evidence out there right now that anyone who has an interest in prtogressive political thought and action, as you seem to have,  really should be aware of it, and TBH isn't there to remedy that yawening lacuna in your knowledge, when you shopuld be perfectly capable of doing so yourself, without too much exhaustive effort'.


 
Thats certainly one way of putting it


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 17, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Erm yes. Actually. It isn't a yawning lacuna; I simply think what he's saying is cobblers.
> 
> And anyway, he made the statement and so should justify it when questioned. Are you his private secretary?


 
You are not the first person I can't be bothered with, don't be so precious Seriously, I don't play ball just cos 'you think i should'... TTFN


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Which select few people for instance?


 the unfortunate few who share those of your views associated with people on the right, without actually being rightists.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 17, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> You are not the first person I can't be bothered with, don't be so precious Seriously, I don't play ball just cos 'you think i should'... TTFN



As I said, convenient.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the unfortunate few who share those of your views associated with people on the right, without actually being rightists.




Rather than trying to make people out to be right wing sympathisers, why not make a political argument?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Erm yes. Actually. It isn't a yawning lacuna; I simply think what he's saying is cobblers.


Sorry, but you are so very, very wrong - as a simple matter of fact - that it's embarrassing.There is such a huge array of information supporting TBH's claim that 





> These views are also today and have been resurging all around the world too.


 that it is merely a simple restatement of a blindingly obvious truth.
So anyone who really needs someone to provide substantiating evidence on the matter is - with the greatest possible respect - either taking the piss, or they are simply too ill-informed, stupid and/or ignorant on such matters to be worth taking seriously. If I assert that Britain sees rather more rainfall than (say) the UAE, I wouldn't expect to be asked to substantiate it by allegedly well-informed people.


> And anyway, he made the statement and so should justify it when questioned.


no he shouldn't, you should read up more. Or even read up _at all_, full stop.


> Are you his private secretary?


no, I seem to have become, by default, the translator from the world of the sensible to CL-land.
Or, in short; do your homework, dummy.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Sorry, but you are so very, very wrong - as a simple matter of fact - that it's embarrassing.There is such a huge array of information supporting TBH's claim that  that it is merely a simple restatement of a blindingly obvious truth.
> So anyone who really needs someone to provide substantiating evidence on the matter is - with the greatest possible respect - either taking the piss, or they are simply too ill-informed, stupid and/or ignorant on such matters to be worth taking seriously. If I assert that Britain sees rather more rainfall than (say) the UAE, I wouldn't expect to be asked to substantiate it by allegedly well-informed people.
> 
> no he shouldn't, you should read up more. Or even read up _at all_, full stop.
> ...


 
But, funnily enough, nobody seems willing or able to provide this 'huge array of imformation.' I think you'll find that's what's embarrassing. 

I should read up on something that any fool knows to be wrong just because some other fool makes an unsubstantiated assertion on the internet? Please do me a big favour (you know what it is.) A sentence like, 'These views are also today and have been resurging around the world too,' should never be used as a quote, by the way, as it's garbled English and says nothing at all. 

As noted previously, you seem keen to do the bidding of another poster. Are you some kind of servile underling of the great man?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> But, funnily enough, nobody seems willing or able to provide this 'huge array of imformation.' I think you'll find that's what's embarrassing.
> 
> I should read up on something that any fool knows to be wrong just because some other fool makes an unsubstantiated assertion on the internet? Please do me a big favour (you know what it is.) A sentence like, 'These views are also today and have been resurging around the world too,' should never be used as a quote, by the way, as it's garbled English and says nothing at all.
> 
> As noted previously, you seem keen to do the bidding of another poster. Are you some kind of servile underling of the great man?


no, you unutterably stupid cretin , it's because the evidence for seeing that resurgence of anarchist/anarcho-synd/general class-based revolt is so fucking obvious and RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES that I shouldn't need to waste my time pointing out what any interested person with an IQ above room temperature and two working eyes can see and discover for themselves.
Are you REALLY _this_ braindead, _this_ uninformed? fucking hell! 
right, let's assume you are, indeed, somewhat 'challenged' (trans; you make Chance in _Being There_ look like Stephen Hawking)
There's thing called the internet, in fact you're on it right now, and used carefully it can do an astonishingly good job of keeping you abreast of all sorts of international news.
There's also a piece of software called 'google', which can further aid that process. Ask your CDT teacher to show you how to use them.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> no, you unutterably stupid cretin , it's because the evidence for seeing that resurgence of anarchist/anarcho-synd/general class-based revolt is so fucking obvious and RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES that I shouldn'rt nheed gto waste my time pointing out what any interested person with an IQ above room temperature and two working eyes can see and discover for themselves.
> Are you REALLY _this_ braindead, _this_ uninformed? fucking hell!
> right, let's assume you are, indeed, somewhat 'challenged' (trans; you make Chance in _Being There_ look like Stephen Hawking.
> Thjere's thing called the internet, in fact you're on it righrt now, and used carefully it can do an astonishingly good job of keeping you abreast of all sorts of international news.
> There's also a piece of software called 'google', which can further aid that process. Ask your CDT teacher to show you how to use them.




What a ranting moron. Piss off.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 17, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> What a ranting moron. Piss off.


 My precious...
There is truth in what he says. I like ranters too, the original ones and the more recent down to earth varieties.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 17, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> A big load of nothing as usual.


.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> What a ranting moron. Piss off.


christ, you really ARE this braindead!
were you dropped on yer 'ead one too many times as a baby, mayhap?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 18, 2010)

Catherine Lech is, in some respects, a female version of the poster LETTSA.  Which is not necessarily a bad thing ...


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 18, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> christ, you really ARE this braindead!
> were you dropped on yer 'ead one too many times as a baby, mayhap?



At least I don't live in the kind of fantasy world your comments seem to indicate you choose to.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Catherine Lech is, in some respects, a female version of the poster LETTSA.  Which is not necessarily a bad thing ...


 
It took you that long to work it out?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 18, 2010)




----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Catherine Lech is, in some respects, a female version of the poster LETTSA.  Which is not necessarily a bad thing ...


 
She is LLETSA, quite clearly


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 18, 2010)

You don't say.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2010)

I do say, quite clearly


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> .


 Quite - you do nothing and have never done anything period.


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> no, you unutterably stupid cretin , it's because the evidence for seeing that resurgence of anarchist/anarcho-synd/general class-based revolt is so fucking obvious and RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES that I shouldn't need to waste my time pointing out what any interested person with an IQ above room temperature and two working eyes can see and discover for themselves.
> Are you REALLY _this_ braindead, _this_ uninformed? fucking hell!
> right, let's assume you are, indeed, somewhat 'challenged' (trans; you make Chance in _Being There_ look like Stephen Hawking)
> There's thing called the internet, in fact you're on it right now, and used carefully it can do an astonishingly good job of keeping you abreast of all sorts of international news.
> There's also a piece of software called 'google', which can further aid that process. Ask your CDT teacher to show you how to use them.


 
This is like the Billy Bakedbean of Annekissed after 5 pints of Old Tubthumper.

I take it you think that the Naxalites in India, the PKK in Turkey, the communist rebels in Philippines, Colombia, Nepal are all Annekisseds?


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 19, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> International Socialism Was the dream after Lenin won in 1917. Even Hobsbawm (who said what you said here I believe in "The Age of Extremes") also said that pre World War 1, it was the anarchists and syndicalists whose opinions were held by the majority of of the worlds progressive working class movements. These views are also today and have been resurging all around the world too. Of course its not going to be the same and apart from the sterile retro commies (ever dwindling) there aren't many who want it to repeat.


 
Evidence? I'll give you the University of London Students Union Bar as starters...


----------



## ymu (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> You can blather on about me misinterpreting what you say, but what you say above about Peterloo is different to what you said previously.


No, look, sorry to resurrect this bit of idiocy, but you quite clearly missed the point three times in a row. You accused him of calling Peterloo a victory when he was musing on the possibility of fewer deaths had there been better means of self-defence. He has been entirely consistent in his clarifications, and you have been entirely consistent in your lack of basic reading comprehension skills.

Must try harder.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

ymu said:


> No, look, sorry to resurrect this bit of idiocy, but you quite clearly missed the point three times in a row. You accused him of calling Peterloo a victory when he was musing on the possibility of fewer deaths had there been better means of self-defence. He has been entirely consistent in his clarifications, and you have been entirely consistent in your lack of basic reading comprehension skills.
> 
> Must try harder.



The only reason he made this little bit of speculation is to justify rioting as a tactic, in time honoured naive fashion so typical of certain posters on here. Here's the reasoning: there might have been fewer deaths at Peterloo had there been 'self defence'*; this means that rioting is always a great thing. 

I wish I had political nous like that.


*What kind of self defence isn't made clear, although it seems strange to imply that, rather than defending themselves, people would have just lined up to be cut down at Peterloo


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> She is LLETSA, quite clearly



There is no 'she', you silly lad-it's a random name plucked from a novel. I haven't said any 'she' things since choosing it.

Nor have I taken to wearing eye shadow, visiting tanning salons or blocking the supermarket entrance by stopping for a natter with a mate while people are trying to get their trolleys through.*


*Like women do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2010)

you sexist pig


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Quite - you do nothing and have never done anything period.



We can't all organise the entire working class across a whole region. Hats off to you for doing so. In a completely innovative way, too.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you sexist pig



It's a blow that it will take feminism years to recover from.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Rather than trying to make people out to be right wing sympathisers, why not make a political argument?


 
i'm not trying to make you out to be a right-wing sympathiser, i'm making you out to be a tosser.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> This is like the Billy Bakedbean of Annekissed after 5 pints of Old Tubthumper.
> 
> I take it you think that the Naxalites in India, the PKK in Turkey, the communist rebels in Philippines, Colombia, Nepal are all Annekisseds?




Apparently, not having noticed the anarchist revolt taking place across the world makes you uninformed.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not trying to make you out to be a right-wing sympathiser, i'm making you out to be a tosser.



I can live with whatever you choose to make me out as, Mr Fantasy copper baiter.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> This is like the Billy Bakedbean of Annekissed after 5 pints of Old Tubthumper.
> 
> I take it you think that the Naxalites in India, the PKK in Turkey, the communist rebels in Philippines, Colombia, Nepal are all Annekisseds?


of course I don't, and nor are they the only expressions of popular and widespread discontent. I simply have a low tolerance of ignorant idiots - not you ernie, this Cathawin Wetch creature, or whoever she is (i.e. LLETSA in a typically "i'm so funny and clever I'm the only one laughing' troll ).


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Apparently, not having noticed the anarchist revolt taking place across the world makes you uninformed.


In your case, LLETSA, yes.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> of course I don't. I simply have a low tolerance of ignorant idiots - not you ernie, this Cathawin Wetch creature, or whoever she is (i.e. LLETSA in a typically "i'm so funny and clever I'm the only one laughing' troll ).



So not having noticed that there's an anarchist revolt taking place across the world makes you ignorant as well? 

Funnily enough, I have a bit of an intolerance of idiots as well, paricularly idiots who make such preposterous claims as you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> The only reason he made this little bit of speculation is to justify rioting as a tactic, in time honoured naive fashion so typical of certain posters on here. Here's the reasoning: there might have been fewer deaths at Peterloo had there been 'self defence'*; this means that rioting is always a great thing.


Projection.
You're projecting what you wish to believe I meant, with little recourse to what I actually said.


> I wish I had political nous like that.


I wish you had any at all.


> *What kind of self defence isn't made clear...


More projection.
A quick look at post #88 gives the context of my comment on self-defence, and makes clear what type.
Here, I'll post the relevant sentences:
"sometimes physical direct action *is* necessary, up to and including armed violence as a last resort. Would Peterloo have progressed as it did if the assembled protesters had been able to defend themselves from the mounted militias?".
So, it's fairly obvious I'm talking about armed self-defence (whether that's with sticks, swords or rifles), you _putz_.


> ...although it seems strange to imply that, rather than defending themselves, people would have just lined up to be cut down at Peterloo


I didn't imply any such thing, you inferred it because you wished to, so that you could make another of your spurious points.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> ...I have a bit of an intolerance of idiots...


The degree of self-hate you feel must be crippling, if that's the case.


----------



## Spion (Aug 19, 2010)

Grumpy LLETSA in a dress


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Projection.
> You're projecting what you wish to believe I meant, with little recourse to what I actually said.
> 
> I wish you had any at all.
> ...



I still don't see how you're not using abstractions to try to justify rioting as a political tactic or strategy.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2010)

Spion said:


> Grumpy LLETSA in a dress


and a frontal lobotomy


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> and a frontal lobotomy




Says the man who sems to think we're in the midst of an anarchist uprising.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> I still don't see how you're not using abstractions to try to justify rioting as a political tactic or strategy.



Perhaps because you don't wish to "see" anything that clashes with your preconceptions about politics?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2010)

Spion said:


> Grumpy LLETSA in a dress



That's a frankly horrendous image to serve up to the people reading this thread!


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps because you don't wish to "see" anything that clashes with your preconceptions about politics?



And you don't have preconceptions presumably?


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

Spion said:


> Grumpy LLETSA in a dress



I'm amazed nobody noticed 'the disguise' earlier.


----------



## Spion (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> I'm amazed nobody noticed 'the disguise' earlier.


Some did. But not me. Flouncing then coming back incognito is an alien idea to me so I didn't suspect.

Anyway, you moderated the grumpiness a bit in the CL character, especially the sweary insults


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Says the man who sems to think we're in the midst of an anarchist uprising.


except - as is pitifully, painfully obvious to anyone with even the most basic reading, writing and comprehension skills - that is *not* what I or TBH implied, or even _anywhere_ near it, you retarded clown.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> And you don't have preconceptions presumably?



See? You have preconceptions about whether or not I have preconceptions!

FYI: Of course I have them. I make strenuous attempts to separate them out if it's relevant to do so, though. I may not achieve value-neutrality, but I give it a try, nonetheless.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

Spion said:


> Some did. But not me. Flouncing then coming back incognito is an alien idea to me so I didn't suspect.
> 
> Anyway, you moderated the grumpiness a bit in the CL character, especially the sweary insults



I didn't 'flounce', I asked to be banned, having at the time no intention of returning. It was an alien idea to me as well; it was the genius of people like yourself, Violent P., as well as the undeniable political astuteness of the likes of Streathamite that drew me back in, although it was initially my intention for 'Catherine' to be a read-only device. It wasn't really incognito, as I didn't try to say anything fundamentally different than I've said before.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> except - as is pitifully, apinfully obvious to anyone with even the most basic reading, writing and comprehension skills - that is *not* what I or TBH implied, or even _anywhere_ near it, you retarded clown.



What? You said something along the lines of anarchist revolt being in evidence everywhere, and tried to make out that wherever workers are taking action anarchists are somewhere in the forefront. It's hard to know how best to answer pitiful delusion of this kind.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> See? You have preconceptions about whether or not I have preconceptions!
> 
> FYI: Of course I have them. I make strenuous attempts to separate them out if it's relevant to do so, though. I may not achieve value-neutrality, but I give it a try, nonetheless.



I don't see any evidence of you ever 'separarating them out.'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> I don't see any evidence of you ever 'separarating them out.'



Just because you don't see it (what with your preconceptions, like) doesn't mean it isn't there, Eeyore.


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just because you don't see it (what with your preconceptions, like) doesn't mean it isn't there, Eeyore.



All I see from you, at least on the subject of this thread, is political masturbation.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> What? You said something along the lines of anarchist revolt being in evidence everywhere, and tried to make out that wherever workers are taking action anarchists are somewhere in the forefront. It's hard to know how best to answer pitiful delusion of this kind.


Err, no, if you actually go back and read the thread _properly_ - y'know, use, eyes, brain, and if necessary sxomeone with a better grasp of Engliash than you - you'll find the original post by TBH which kickstarted the whole process, #138, referred to  a resurgence of anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist *"views"*. 
Got that? views. meaning 'ideas', 'opinions' 'political theories', that sort of thing. Not - repeat *not* - "the global armed inserructionary tide sweeping all before it, and digging mass graves to put every head of wicked capitalist government in them very soon". 
The two are _very_ different things,_ capisce?_ And in fact it is very true that anarchist ideas are enjoying one hell of a resurgence.
In fact, the only person who brought anarchist 'revolt' or 'uprising' into it was - guess what? - *you*, firstly in #180, and then in the post I'm quoting here, and on both occasions wilfully misrepresenting what both TBH and I had said. 
better luck, next time, eh? 
oh goody, the clownshow's back in town.


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> of course I don't, and nor are they the only expressions of popular and widespread discontent. I simply have a low tolerance of ignorant idiots - not you ernie, this Cathawin Wetch creature, or whoever she is (i.e. LLETSA in a typically "i'm so funny and clever I'm the only one laughing' troll ).


 
Jezza, you are morphin' into WoW


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Jezza, you are morphin' into WoW


eeek!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> eeek!


 
festographer!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> t wasn't really incognito, as I didn't try to say anything fundamentally different than I've said before.


given that nothing you said before was worth even noticing, one does wonder why you bothered


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> What a ranting moron. Piss off.


 
Learn to _enjoy_ him ffs!


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Err, no, if you actually go back and read the thread _properly_ - y'know, use, eyes, brain, and if necessary sxomeone with a better grasp of Engliash than you - you'll find the original post by TBH which kickstarted the whole process, #138, referred to  a resurgence of anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist *"views"*.
> Got that? views. meaning 'ideas', 'opinions' 'political theories', that sort of thing. Not - repeat *not* - "the global armed inserructionary tide sweeping all before it, and digging mass graves to put every head of wicked capitalist government in them very soon".
> The two are _very_ different things,_ capisce?_ And in fact it is very true that anarchist ideas are enjoying one hell of a resurgence.
> In fact, the only person who brought anarchist 'revolt' or 'uprising' into it was - guess what? - *you*, firstly in #180, and then in the post I'm quoting here, and on both occasions wilfully misrepresenting what both TBH and I had said.
> ...




Oh I see-mere views and opinions.

Hear the sound of capitalists quaking in their boots at the thought of a major (if imaginary) resurgence of syndicalist "views".


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

I like this bit by the way:



Streathamite said:


> sxomeone with a better grasp of Engliash than you


----------



## Catherine Lech (Aug 19, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Jezza, you are morphin' into WoW



Jezza? Well I never. Has he undergone some kind of trauma?


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 19, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Jezza? Well I never. Has he undergone some kind of trauma?


 
He got run over by some dreadlocked dude riding a fold-up pushbike on the pavement.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 20, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> Oh I see-mere views and opinions.
> 
> Hear the sound of capitalists quaking in their boots at the thought of a major (if imaginary) resurgence of syndicalist "views".


Yes,'views', and only views. As was said - _clearly_ - in the original TBH post. Which you _categorically_ disagreed with, and made a huge, whopping issue out of asking him to substantiate, which was the whole cause of the disagreement, idiotboy.
In other words, stop wriggling just cos you got caught out for lying, misrepresenting, not reading the thread properly, and generally making a champion-sized arse out of yourself. 
pwned!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> All I see from you, at least on the subject of this thread, is political masturbation.



What's that when it's at home, something you fantasise about?


----------



## ymu (Aug 20, 2010)

Catherine Lech said:


> The only reason he made this little bit of speculation is to justify rioting as a tactic, in time honoured naive fashion so typical of certain posters on here. Here's the reasoning: there might have been fewer deaths at Peterloo had there been 'self defence'*; this means that rioting is always a great thing.
> 
> I wish I had political nous like that.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah - that's fine, it's an argument you can make - but it has absolutely nothing to do with your piss poor reading comprehension. It's hard to take you seriously when you are so careless about understanding the points you are responding to.

Oh, banned. Shame.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 24, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Err, no, if you actually go back and read the thread _properly_ - y'know, use, eyes, brain, and if necessary sxomeone with a better grasp of Engliash than you - you'll find the original post by TBH which kickstarted the whole process, #138, referred to  a resurgence of anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist *"views"*.
> Got that? views. meaning 'ideas', 'opinions' 'political theories', that sort of thing. Not - repeat *not* - "the global armed inserructionary tide sweeping all before it, and digging mass graves to put every head of wicked capitalist government in them very soon".
> The two are _very_ different things,_ capisce?_ And in fact it is very true that anarchist ideas are enjoying one hell of a resurgence.
> In fact, the only person who brought anarchist 'revolt' or 'uprising' into it was - guess what? - *you*, firstly in #180, and then in the post I'm quoting here, and on both occasions wilfully misrepresenting what both TBH and I had said.
> ...


 
10/10


----------



## audiotech (Sep 2, 2010)

Can't see this happening anytime soon?



People these days 'live in hope' and that's the crux of the problem, with any notion of changing the world to something better - passivity. A sense of powerlessness and an ideological vacuum being filled at present by reactionary forces.

Nevertheless, the agitprop was well produced.


----------

