Class War Bonfire Party

216 posts / 0 new
Last post
Luther Blissett
Offline
Joined: 24-06-06
Nov 13 2006 10:29
John. wrote:
Are any of them going to comment on any of this? It's a shame because some of them are really good people.

I'm sure some of them are really good people, and I don't believe that the criticisms are meant to tar the entire Class War membership either.

I think the main strength to be drawn from these discussions is that there are pitfalls to be aware of when acting-out situationalist stunts, mainly relating to the use of symbolism and imagery - i.e. non-verbal communication, which is humanities main source of communication - thus, these stunts can be the most powerful of activist weapons when delivered 'correctly.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 13 2006 10:35
raw wrote:
why can't we reclaim anti-religion (including anti-Islam) from the BNP racists and state?

Do you think the most effective way of opposing religion - taking the example of say Islam in arab and south asian "communities" - is by
a: burning racist effigies of arabs?
b: supporting and disseminating information about arab and south asian workers in struggle, and pointing out where and why Islam and Islamic organisations act against the interests of workers? For examples, see http://libcom.org/tags/iran, http://libcom.org/tags/islam

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Nov 13 2006 10:35
raw wrote:
Anyway, like glory hunter said before it was a bit of fun - why can't we reclaim anti-religion (including anti-Islam) from the BNP racists and state?

Raw

Fair enough, I'm guessing it wasn't very well thought through. I don't mind if by doing things, groups occasionally make a mistake. But I do think is a mistake.

To answer the second part of the question, the BNP and the State have no problem with 'the white mans burden' - with setting themselves up as superior to other cultures, which is why they are quite happy to preach. But leftists do (or should) - so how does a leftist from an imperalist country critise former colonies in a way that also distances them from the "white mans burden"? I'm not sure it is really possible.

Edit to add:
What I mean that the fight against islam is the job of people in islamic countries or of people from muslim traditions - In Ireland,it was the catholic people who ultimately destroyed the power of the church here, not the english burning papest effigies on Bonfire night. iykwim. smile

Luther Blissett
Offline
Joined: 24-06-06
Nov 13 2006 11:11

Probably neither of those.

Here's why I think neither.

I think it's divisive to focus on 'Islam' as a monolithic bloc like this, because it glosses over the 'politics' of the situation.

It would be equivalent to calling the entirity of the UK Govt. 'Christian', and referring all actions of that Govt. back to 'Christianity', when clearly, it's the politics of the politicians that are the issue.

Instead of feeding into the trap of 'Holy War' imagery, it would, in my opinion, be better to focus on the politics, leaving the religion aspect to one side as much as possible.

Taking the Iranian State as an example, there are 'extreme conservatives' as a majority in the Iranian state, who block 'liberal' reformists who must move carefully in their reforms else risk:

*'political-isolation' - amendments voted against by majority despite popular support from electorate;
* 'loss of political power' - ejection from cabinet/parliament removing an individuals ability to effect political change - either by lack of popular support from electorate or state-level machinations manipulating popular support;
* imprisonment - resulting from perceived or real threats to majority-rule;
* State-imposed exile: resulting a) external raising of support for regime change using another's war-machine or black-ops tacticians b) simple blaming of religion over politics c) freer political expression from any part of political spectrum that would otherwise result in imprisonment if made from within that State
*Self-imposed exile - from a variety of political or social classes: some free-market capitalist types who'd like to see the Iranian 'nationalised' oil-industry in private hands, or who left during the internal chaos caused by the Iraq-Iran war for social reasons, and so on.

It's really not as cut-and-dried as it looks.

Luther Blissett
Offline
Joined: 24-06-06
Nov 13 2006 11:15

Those scenarios I wrote above aren't perfect, but I'm hoping you get my drift.

Luther Blissett
Offline
Joined: 24-06-06
Nov 13 2006 12:13
John. wrote:
raw wrote:
why can't we reclaim anti-religion (including anti-Islam) from the BNP racists and state?

Do you think the most effective way of opposing religion

would one effective way of opposing 'religion' be to propose and support disestablishmentarianism?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 13 2006 12:19

luther, I don't want to derail the thread. You could start another one to discuss that if you like.

tallchris99
Offline
Joined: 5-08-05
Nov 13 2006 13:50

AKA TopCat

Well I attended the LCW Bonfire and had a smashing time. I was pleased it was well organised, the space to hold the event was quickly and effiently taken and held (despite the intervention of the Police) and the bonfire was a decent one with no manky skip wood on it but decent well seasoned logs.

I brought lots of fireworks and enjoyed setting them off whilst having a few beers and chatting with old friends and new.

So to the effigies.

I have always been up for the burning of effigies. I was very pleased indeed to see that several were to be burnt and that most were decently constructed. It seemed even handed to me having one of Jesus and one of Mohammed. I am glad that action (however small and debatedly innefectual) against religion is being taken by London Class War, certainly more action that the rest of the so called anarchists movement in the UK.

Too many armchair revolutionaries seem to slag off any action at all, preferring to think that writing the perfect leaflet will suddenly transform society into a pre revolutionary one.

I don't think it was in any sense racist to burn any of the effigies. It reminds me of the ridiculous arguements from a few people back in the 1980's that the famous Class War cover (over 15,000 sold) depicting Margaret Thatcher getting a hatchet in the head was encouraging violence against women.

I can only speak for myself in why many opeople do not bother to come on to Lib Com to debate subjects such as this. I find to be honest that Lib Com suffers from a high percentage of "pointy heads", who spend all their time reading some obscure books and then argue badly about it on the internet.

As I had a great time at this, (and last years bonfire)I heartily encourage London Class War to hold another next year.

My last comment is that I speak for no one other than myself and certainly not on behalf of Class war (of which I am not a current member). It is amusing and rather telling to see who uses the "we" here!

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 13 2006 13:54

is it just me or would anyone else pay good money to watch the libcom boys and stepney street gang go toe to toe with class war and the antifa at next years bonfire?

What with libcom's superior word power and the will of allah on their side i think it'll be no contest.

Don't want to derail this thread, you can start another one to discuss it if you like?

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 13 2006 14:03
coffeemachine wrote:
is it just me or would anyone else pay good money to watch the libcom boys and stepney street gang go toe to toe with class war and the antifa at next years bonfire?

Oh my god - despite being told again and again, LIBCOM IS NOT A GROUP. Look at who is criticising here - its coming from all corners, not just your imagined cabal of johnalanrevoljack. Its coming from people who work with you. Its coming from people who have worked with you. Its coming from people to take action all the time.

And BTW theres a little bit of cross membership in your little gangwar no?

Grow up Monty, your a nice guy IRL and i have always liked you - trying to drag a genuine debate into some kind of 'my dad can beat up your dad' fight is embarassing.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Nov 13 2006 14:08
Quote:
despite being told again and again, LIBCOM IS NOT A GROUP

Thats what you keep telling yourself...

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 13 2006 14:10
Quote:
Grow up Monty

confused

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 13 2006 14:55
powertotheimagination wrote:
Quote:
despite being told again and again, LIBCOM IS NOT A GROUP

Thats what you keep telling yourself...

The admin group is a group - thats 8 or 9 people. The rest of libcom is not. You are libcom, you are posting on libcom.

I am nothing to do with the admin, far from it. Its not defending them to say this. FWIW i'm shot by both sides in these things cos i have interests in both.

There is an prevailing ant-AR feeling. I'm sure you're sorry about that, but it doesn't mean LC is a group.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Nov 13 2006 15:27
Quote:
the pitiful responses from Class War and their chums are more embarrassing than their idiotic effigy burning.

I think they've got their backs up about this, which is not really what is intended behind the criticism of this effigy burning here.

The fact that members of the UK libertarian communist movement have been vocal in criticising this event should not really have solicited responses like this:-

Quote:
is it just me or would anyone else pay good money to watch the libcom boys and stepney street gang go toe to toe with class war and the antifa at next years bonfire?

What with libcom's superior word power and the will of allah on their side i think it'll be no contest.

That's just childish, and this is worse:-

Quote:
Don't want to derail this thread, you can start another one to discuss it if you like?

Mimicking John., posting ad hominem attacks, refering to the 2700 or so libertarian communists who post on libcom for networking and communication purposes, to all the good work the collective editing and working away here are doing as 'limp cock' demonstrates that [these posters] obviously don't understand what is going on here; indeed some of the posts on here have been against the entire libertarian communist movement. Well fair play to [these posters] if that's where they're coming from but it's sectarian as fuck, it's a dead-end and it shows [they are conceited]

It's a far cry from Class War's (excellent) Unfinished Business:-

Quote:
"There will be more than one organisation. This is taken for granted. In fact it is in our tactical interests to encourage similar groups as ours to start and grow. This should be clear from [what we've written in our book]. In revolutionary periods in history all sorts of movements and organisations are thrown up. Some will be good, others will be bad. All sorts of shifting social alliances will be made as the course of the revolution progresses [... W]e see organisations like the Class War Federation as playing a part, with others, in the creation and defence of a revolutionary movement within the working class. This movement will be a strong and diverse collection of revolutionary sections of our class under nobody's control but their own. Yet this movement will also have to be politically coherent. It must have a certain minimum of shared ideas. The Class War Federation and similar organisations exist to bring about this situation. This is the meaning and spirit of [our book]"

Those kind of prescient, intelligent statements are a far cry from the sectarian 'limp cock' jibes and [these posters] would do well to remember that Libcom long ago became the main forum for debate, discussion and networking amongst all sections of the libertarian communist movement in the UK, and is rapidly following on from this success by becoming the main such forum in the Anglophone movement (toss up between this, the dire revleft, and the too heavily article focussed Znet).

If [these posters {altho I think the same applies to Class War, as the loss of their contribution is very much a backward step}] were to notice this they might for example begin to see the opportunity of Libcom (which has the potential to play a more centripetal role for communists than the internationals of the 19th and early 20th centuries ever did). To do that tho would require them to be able to take a bit of constructive criticism on the chin, and contribute to the communist debate as comrades, and as citizens of the international working class.

[ NB - I later edited my final post to read "[cleared because I shot my mouth off without checking that the argument was with CWF members, and not just random posters. Darren Redstar is the only poster currently in CWF. Sorry comrades. I should have been more careful.]" I have also edited this posting to reflect that fact that my comments still stand in response to what the posters I was arguing with were saying, altho their original target - CWF - was the result of my error.]

tallchris99
Offline
Joined: 5-08-05
Nov 13 2006 15:36
Dundee_United wrote:
Those kind of prescient, intelligent statements are a far cry from the sectarian 'limp cock' jibes and Class War would do well to remember that Libcom long ago became the main forum for debate, discussion and networking amongst all sections of the libertarian communist movement in the UK,

AKA TopCat

You are deluding yourselves if you think Lib Com is in any sense relevant let alone the main forum for debate amongst anarchists or libertarian communists. It is the main forum for students full of hot air and no action. Apart from revol of course who is just deranged.

CWF's picture
CWF
Offline
Joined: 9-09-05
Nov 13 2006 15:44
Dundee_United wrote:
indeed some of the posts on here have been against the entire libertarian communist movement.

Only one member of CW has posted on this thread - Darren Redstar, who responded to Luther Blissett (although why anyone would want to bother with him is beyond me) So the entire thrust of your post is incorrect.

BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Nov 13 2006 16:17
tallchris99 wrote:
AKA TopCat

You are deluding yourselves if you think Lib Com is in any sense relevant let alone the main forum for debate amongst anarchists or libertarian communists. It is the main forum for students full of hot air and no action. Apart from revol of course who is just deranged.

Are you really TC?

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 13 2006 16:24

Tall Chris, Libcom may be irrelevant, but then anarchism is not relevant in the abstract right now. It's our job to make it so by using its methods in day to day struggle.

Your other point: If libcom is not the main forum for anarchists, what is? I'm not having a pop, cos if theres a forum with more people and half the sniping 1) i'll see you there and 2) the anarchist movement in the UK is a lot bigger than previously thought!

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 13 2006 16:28
BB wrote:
Are you really TC?

He's TC from one forum, he's not the TopCat whose real name begins with D, and is sometimes known as TopDog.

BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Nov 13 2006 16:37
John. wrote:
BB wrote:
Are you really TC?

He's TC from one forum, he's not the TopCat whose real name begins with D, and is sometimes known as TopDog.

Cheers John, i thought it sounded weird for him.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Nov 13 2006 16:37
CWF wrote:
Dundee_United wrote:
indeed some of the posts on here have been against the entire libertarian communist movement.

Only one member of CW has posted on this thread - Darren Redstar, who responded to Luther Blissett (although why anyone would want to bother with him is beyond me) So the entire thrust of your post is incorrect.

this is correct.

Just as it is stupid to take the comments of a few people who post on libcom (or a few people in the admin group) and use these to characterise an entire bulletin board and web site, it is equally wrong to take the comments of a few CW members (jameswalsh, darren, pickmans model) and smear everyone in the group.

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Nov 13 2006 17:46

WOT WOULD MALCOLM X THINK?

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Nov 13 2006 18:04
Quote:
The admin group is a group - thats 8 or 9 people. The rest of libcom is not. You are libcom, you are posting on libcom.

Come of it, you know most boards on the net have a 'hardcore' group, i'm part of some even... They are the internet addicts or bored uni/work/college people, but they are the hardcore main posters, and they keep the damn place going!

Quote:
There is an prevailing ant-AR feeling. I'm sure you're sorry about that, but it doesn't mean LC is a group.

Whether people on LC like AR or not, whether they hold weekly meat cooking classes, whether they all dance naked around a maypole singing old French folk songs while wearing Marx like beards, it means little to me, but there is a core of people who do make up what people call 'the group'.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 13 2006 18:19
powertotheimagination wrote:
Come of it, you know most boards on the net have a 'hardcore' group, i'm part of some even... They are the internet addicts or bored uni/work/college people, but they are the hardcore main posters, and they keep the damn place going!

Those people no more comprise a "group" than the locals in any given pub, they certainly aren't equivalent to a political organisation.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Nov 13 2006 18:29
Quote:
Those people no more comprise a "group" than the locals in any given pub, they certainly aren't equivalent to a political organisation.

Well the fact that on most boards there is mods is abit different from being in a pub with mates, unless the mates you have mod. stuff.
Just because there is no central signing up policy in existance or membership dues dosent mean that sometimes boards can come across as having a tight cliche of posters, LC included.

But yeah no one has said its a political organisation.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 13 2006 18:31
powertotheimagination wrote:
Come off it, you know most boards on the net have a 'hardcore' group, i'm part of some even... They are the internet addicts or bored uni/work/college people, but they are the hardcore main posters, and they keep the damn place going!

But companero, by ur parameters we have to include JDMF in the core, and revol - JDMF is both AR, DA and a bit eco, whilst revol... is revol.

these people do not toe the line.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 13 2006 18:35

My kind of bar cool

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 13 2006 18:37

Hi

The solution is for CW to only burn effigies that do not offend the arbiters of good taste that inhabit the “anarchist movement”. They should publish a list of acceptable effigies for next year, let me start them off…

Haile Selassie
The Pope
The Dalai Lama

Love

LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 13 2006 18:47

Hi

Yeah, but that's like saying that CW's problem is that its members are stupid.

They want Philosphy Graduates to think that. Mission accomplished.

Love

LR

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 13 2006 18:51
revol68 wrote:

It's the equivalent of some loyalists replacing the pope with a effigy of a leprechaun and a fucking celtic top.

alternatively republicans burning an effigy of saint george as an english knight on a white horse.

Topic locked