DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

S. Artesian, Double Standards Regarding Libcom's Posting Guidelines

92 posts / 0 new
Last post
el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Jul 14 2017 14:33
S. Artesian, Double Standards Regarding Libcom's Posting Guidelines

I'd like to make an official complaint on record in regards to the user S. Artesian's recent maniacal tyraids.

He has continually violated multiple facets of the Libcom posting guidelines, and I have seen no action on a part of the admins here. I'd like to demand some discussion on the subject.

In his recent post history, you can see quite clearly, personal insults, trolling, bullying, and an intentional obfuscation of issues at hand. That's a total of four guidelines broken.

Disciplinary action was once threatened at me for a unitary, much smaller transgression, which you can find in my post history if you want to dredge it up. I was warned sternly and told to 'play the ball'. Why has Artesian been allowed to 'play the person'? If we're doing that, I have a novella of ways I'd like to play the authoriarian fuckwad Artesian directly.

Thanks!

Pennoid's picture
Pennoid
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Jul 14 2017 14:40

Eh, grow up.

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Jul 14 2017 15:16

The discussion posts you're referring to seem as civil as it gets in these forums.

S. Artesian makes sound and valid points, always backing them up with some justification, often steeped in history. No ad hominem attacks, and the "personal insults" have been flung from the other direction. Did you not just notice you called Artesian a "fuckwad" or are you that far inside your own head? Notice I'm polite enough to say head instead of ass, so you don't call me a fuckwad or a dickhead or whatever else has been floating around here lately.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 14 2017 22:42

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

Craftwork's picture
Craftwork
Offline
Joined: 26-12-15
Jul 14 2017 19:18

I would like to ask the admins to change his username to Jean-Paul Sartresian.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jul 14 2017 19:28

I second that motion. smile

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 14 2017 22:43

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 14 2017 20:00

I haven't experienced the posting wrath of Artesian... yet. I just really want him or another Lenin/Bolshevik-sympathizing Marxist to enlighten me in the communization thread.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 14 2017 22:43

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 14 2017 20:10

Sorry, not sure what you are referring to specifically. Can you provide links to where he has breached the posting guidelines? If you do this we will review.

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Jul 14 2017 20:25

I can't help but think this post by el psy has something to do with the flurry of rational activity denouncing Michael Schmidt. Someone is downvoting some pretty plain facts about Schmidt...

S. Artesian is the devil of course, as we've all suspected.

zugzwang
Offline
Joined: 25-11-16
Jul 14 2017 20:42
S. Artesian wrote:
Zug, you fail to grasp that I am not any or another "Lenin/Bolshevik-sympathizing Marxist."

I am a Russian Revolution supporting Marxist. To the extent that Lenin/Bolsheviks advanced that revolution, that's fine. I've detailed where, how, and why I reject Lenin's analysis, but apparently concretely disagreeing with Leninist notions, theories, and "commands" regarding vanguard parties, imperialism, national self-determination don't really qualify as "anti-Leninist." Apparently, only discounting, and disowning the entire revolutionary process in Russia, denouncing October as a conspiracy, a coup, plotted in secret by the "clever" and rootless cosmopolitan Trotsky qualifies as non-Leninist enough.

Keep that in mind, all you defenders of posting Michael Schmidt's bullshit on this site.

As for communization, as I wrote to TH, I have very little, almost no interest in debating communization.

Apologies, I will refrain from that label. Yes you said you agree with his April Theses. Though I'm wondering why you or others are defending Lenin or the Bolsheviks' seizure of power at all (seizing the State isn't very libertarian). I'm wondering why you're defending Lenin in light of how they seemingly lied about "all power to the soviets" and numerous other things once in power. I'm wondering how you respond to this (or to Berkman's account of the Bolsheviks for that matter):

Quote:
During the Spring and Summer, when Lenin's goal was to topple the Provisional Government, he had joined forces with the anarchists -- particularly the Anarcho-Syndicalists -- in support of the factory committees and workers' control. Now that the Bolshevik revolution had been secured, he abandoned the forces of destruction for those of centralization and order, siding with the trade unionist advocates of state control.

Like I said please enlighten me why this is wrong. Is it because of external circumstances that prevented the Bolsheviks from acting more libertarian?

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 14 2017 22:43

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Jul 14 2017 21:24
William Everard wrote:
I can't help but think this post by el psy has something to do with the flurry of rational activity denouncing Michael Schmidt. Someone is downvoting some pretty plain facts about Schmidt...

S. Artesian is the devil of course, as we've all suspected.

as someone who thought from the start of the whole schmidt affair that the defences of schmidt were fucking bullshit, i think artesian can be a real fucking knob at times, not asking for admin action, just saying

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 14 2017 22:44

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 14 2017 21:34

Come on, mate, if you can't even take the heat here, where you are basically among comrades, on a site in which leftist arguments usually prevail, who all oppose fascism, then where can you take the heat?

(Having read the discussions on Black Flame I am as surprised it is here, well less so, since it purports to be pro-anarchist, as I was that the Harman book was here, but I wasn't bothered if the Harman book remained, since I don't own this site, which is a really good repository of useful texts. The point being that Harman's organization and politics were/are specifically anti-anarchist. I would never have read either book, by the way.)

"When anyone ever says: "I've got bigger fish to fry" it always means they have flounced off in a huff.

And I am only just finding time in the next couple of days to answer your questions, too!

You should get a temperature control on your blood so it doesn't keep boiling all the time.

Don't go. Let's stop the swearing and the insults and have a group hug.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jul 14 2017 21:37
Steven. wrote:
Sorry, not sure what you are referring to specifically. Can you provide links to where he has breached the posting guidelines? If you do this we will review.

steven, we've been here before.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 14 2017 22:44

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 14 2017 22:00
Quote:
Pretty soon, I'm sure there will a thread dealing with Schmidt's breakdown, and his treatment, and his recovery, and his rehabilitation, and whether or not he has "suffered enough" done enough penance to be accepted back among his libertarian comrades.

No I think he needs to be shunned permanently based on what I've read, and there's no sign that any apologies have been in good faith.

I'm not yet convinced either way on removing vs. keeping but disavowing the work that was already on the site before this came out. Should also note we've had a policy of hosting texts we have massive disagreements with for years (Hakim Bey ffs) with critical introductions. It's OK to disagree with that, and even as an admin sometimes I end up fuming at texts we host on the site, but we're an archive rather than a journal at least as far as history/library content is concerned.

Also when we remove posts, we normally just unpublish, but in this case (at least with anything prominent on google), I'd want to instead replace the content with a statement, and we don't have such a statement for that, or precedent for doing so really either.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 14 2017 22:45

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jul 14 2017 22:22

You're more than free to stop posting. Alternatively, you could ask for your account to be banned.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 14 2017 22:45

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 14 2017 22:39
Quote:
It might be better if Libcom issued a statement on the entire matter, including the phony "independent investigatory commission" baloney that was floated in the attempt to recuperate the reputations of those defending Schmidt, and of course, has now sunk beneath the waves

That's not impossible. I've not yet personally seen a self-contained adequate statement on Schmidt, but also not in a very good place to write one at the moment. Maybe you could write your own statement?

Quote:
I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for the right to close my account as a protest against the policies of Libcom.

That's not technically possible with the current infrastructure of the website. You can change your password/e-mail address to lock yourself out (the closest to cancelling the account), or we could ban you, or you can wait for us to upgrade the CMS which will be a few months but will definitely provide that feature once it's done.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 15 2017 15:25

removed

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 14 2017 22:52
S. Artesian wrote:
Or I can go through the tedious task of removing all my posts and substituting a message that post removed in opposition to Libcom's policy re the posting of texts by admitted fascists. OK, I'll try that.

wow you must have a lot of free time if you can spend ages doing something so pointless and juvenile.

Also not sure why this is such an issue right now. You know we host loads of text by Marx, right and that he was a racist? See also: Bakunin and Proudhon, who were anti-Semites. Not to mention a bunch of stuff written by people in the early 20th century whose politics changed and they became fascists later on.

We are an online library. We don't only host texts by people who are perfect and have never said anything offensive ever, or whose views we agree with completely. If we did this our site would be our 5 introductory guides, and that's about it. Hell we even host articles by Kevin Keating, who is racist, anti-Semitic, violent, threatening, homophobic and says discriminatory things about disability. And we totally disagree with his politics. But we are an online library for a pretty wide range of opinion.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 15 2017 15:24

removed

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 14 2017 23:47

It's not about your spurious claim that this site is run by 'nazi enablers'.

It's because you feel you have been 'defeated' by epc and zugzwang, isn't it?

Thought you were made of sterner stuff?

That's what you have been telling everyone here for as long as I can remember, anyway.

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Jul 14 2017 23:51

"When push comes to shove", as you said recently about your claimed comradely grit....

... Run away?

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jul 15 2017 00:08

Tom Henry, whatever one thinks of Artesian's behaviour here; your competitiveness and pathetic attempts at baiting and wind-ups make you look like a complete arsehole.

Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Online
Joined: 27-07-07
Jul 15 2017 00:53
Red Marriott wrote:
Tom Henry, whatever one thinks of Artesian's behaviour here; your competitiveness and pathetic attempts at baiting and wind-ups make you look like a complete arsehole.

Agreed.

I've met Artesian face-to-face and despite whatever disagreements we have, he's still a comrade who I know will have my back. That means a lot.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jul 15 2017 01:08
Steven. wrote:
Also not sure why this is such an issue right now. You know we host loads of text by Marx, right and that he was a racist? See also: Bakunin and Proudhon, who were anti-Semites. Not to mention a bunch of stuff written by people in the early 20th century whose politics changed and they became fascists later on.

We are an online library. We don't only host texts by people who are perfect and have never said anything offensive ever, or whose views we agree with completely. If we did this our site would be our 5 introductory guides, and that's about it. Hell we even host articles by Kevin Keating, who is racist, anti-Semitic, violent, threatening, homophobic and says discriminatory things about disability. And we totally disagree with his politics. But we are an online library for a pretty wide range of opinion.

Actually, no I don't know that. I don't know Marx was a racist. Marx never advocated racial supremacy as a social policy; never thought racism was a solution to any class conflict. If you have any evidence of Marx doing either of those things, then by all means bring it forth and we can give it the same kind of bullshit disclaimer you are providing for the Michael Schmidt posts. This isn't about off-hand remarks in personal correspondence. This is about policy, programs, actions, publicly advocated. Too subtle a distinction for you? Work a little harder.

And you know who else I know weren't racists- the two taboos, Lenin and Trotsky. They weren't racists, but they aren't welcome in the Libcom library, are they?

As for Bakunin and Proudhon, yeah I pointed that out too, but apparently you aren't familiar with the origins of this issue-It started with the "libertarian" protests against the posting of Harman's People's History of the World. Then Battlescarred and others objected vociferously to that inclusion because Harman was a leading member of the SWP, and the SWP had covered-up the sexual abuse of women comrades by "comrade delta." I brought up Schmidt's presence; Bakunin's and Proudhon's and Kropotkin's endorsement of inter-imperialist war-- and also Chomsky's "defense" of Pol Pot and endorsement of Hillary Clinton-- which earned me the label of "idiot" from Craft....not that I give a flying fart.

Despite the fact that there wasn't the slightest bit of evidence that Harman knew of that abuse, participated in the cover-up (in fact he died several years before it became public), his book was gone-- because, well he was associated with the SWP; he was a "Leninist" and the book "could be found elsewhere" ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad bullshit-um.

You have Kevin Keating? You're welcome to him. He's ok to include in your online library; Schmidt is ok to be in your online library. Bakunin's ok to be in your online library. Pol Pot supporters are OK to be in your online library. But not Chris Harman a "Leninist"-- and certainly not Lenin or Trotsky. Lukacs? That pathetic dilettante who wrote what has to be one of the most backward renderings of Marx's relationship to Hegel and dialectics ever perpetrated, and couldn't wait to get in line with Stalin? He's OK, too.

This place is enough to gag a maggot.

I'd much rather be in the company of those who would rather be in the company of a Lenin or a Trotsky or a Chris Harman, than those who rack themselves up in line with Schmidt, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Lukacs, Chomsky, etc.

I'm going to track down some Mussolini pre 1916, and post it here, while I take my time removing my posts from thisplace.