Class War Bonfire Party

216 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Nov 13 2006 18:54
Quote:
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.

The burden of proof here is really on you. I don't know how you can assert this - it just comes across as really defensive.

Currently Libcom is used by members of:-

AF
Solfed
Organise!
WSM
IWW
Freedom
A number of individuals active in the IFA, and their regional affiliates
A number of individuals active in the IWA, and their regional affiliates
A number of left communist groups
A number of organisations not active in either international but hailing from overseas
Some members of the IWCA
It has been used by some members of the SSP, and the AWL
It has posters from a number of local libertarian groups across the UK, including Walthamstow anarchist group, West Midlands anarchists, Hackney Independent, Burgh Angel and many more.

Libcom has been used to co-ordinate a number of activities throughout the course of its existence. It continues to do so, and not withstanding the hiatus with the upgrade it continues to improve.

It shares the role with anarkismo that it's often the first source of news on class struggle issues. It has had major successes in being the main source of news covering the French Anti-CPE struggle, the Broadway Market struggle last year, and a number of recent strikes.

Recently it's been one of the few places, along with anarkismo and some others, actually bothering to cover the Oaxacan Soviet, APPO, and the battle to wrest control of Oaxaca from its Governor Ruiz, and the Mexican civil authorities (probably the one of the more important moments in the struggle of the worldwide proletariat since the Paris Commune).

Furthermore libcom is becoming the central source on the internet for leftwing political literature - a fact that sees thousands of workers every week access the site (many of them from countries like China where access to these texts is severely restricted).

None of this is in doubt here. Those are simple statements of fact. Given that please justify your statement I've quoted above.

Quote:
It is the main forum for students full of hot air and no action.

Wildly inaccurate and pointless ad hominem - I post regularly here. I'm a garderner and a worker in a small independent computer database business. [ie not a student ;-p] Most posters here are not students.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 13 2006 18:54

Hi

I think we should concentrate on developing the emerging critisicms of Class War as a group rather than go in for a tit-for-tat racism debate.

Love

LR

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 13 2006 18:58
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi

I think we should concentrate on developing the emerging critisicms of Class War as a group rather than go in for a tit-for-tat racism debate.

Love

LR

Hi

i was about to say that the criticisms have been put in mild and minty languge, by sympathisers and negatrons, many times already, but then i remembered your posts are generally wind ups so i didn't bother.

Love

TW tongue

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 13 2006 19:06

Hi

Quote:
but then i remembered your posts are generally wind ups

Eye of the beholder. Believe what you must.

Quote:
the Class War lads have had to resort to acting like they've taken knocks to head in an industrial action to assert their working clarseness.

Nice try. Associating impulse control and loutishness with the working class is a bit strange, but I don’t think that’s why they do it. Perhaps they are so twisted by hatred of religious authority that their anger blinded them to the norms of anti-racist etiquette.

Love

LR

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Nov 13 2006 19:07
Quote:
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.

I'm not interested in smearing everyone in Class War - sorry if my comments conveyed that tone. What I was trying to say is that ad hominem attacks from members of Class War and wild assertions about the entire anarchist movement being used as a response to defend the burning of an effigy which comrades felt was a racialised caricature are sectarian and totally unnecessary, and completely contradict what the CWF has previously asserted as its line.

[ NB - I later edited a 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've left this post unedited so that people know why I've edited my comment at the end.]

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 13 2006 19:13

Hi

Oh they're going through a stage alright. No doubt.

Love

LR

Glory hunter
Offline
Joined: 13-01-05
Nov 13 2006 21:37

"nobody noticed, because contrary to your opinion of yourself you are a bunch of irrelevant cunts, but yeah sure thanks for telling us, and thank fuck we don't have to read your pointless attempts at self promotion any more"

What kind of world do you think you are going to create with that kind of attitude ? A perfect indication of how spiteful it can be here, and its far from the first time from this particular individual.
I haven't been in Class war for almost ten years now, and dropped out of it at the time of the 97 "split" I think that Class war should have been wound up at that time, sometimes its better to let things go and do something else.
I have had my differences with them, but have always some how managed to remain friends, I think that despite the faults of this place, its a mistake on their part to have left, but then, that up to them.
If there are people here who think that they are no loss, you are wrong, they are all decent people, and good comrades, and to think otherwise is stupid.
It never ceases to amaze me how often "anarchists" are able to convince themselves that some other group of anarchists are worthless, ive seen it happen within Class war on any number of occasions, can remember someone in DAM saying that a fellow member was scum, can remember what it was like around 121 at the start of the eighties, have seen it loads of times,
in fact you can see it now with Libcom versus Wombles.
Its never true, its always based on misconceptions, or its personal, the biggest single problem at the heart of anarchist politics.
Isn't genuine revolutionary politics about breaking down barriers ? So why do we spend so much time erecting and maintaining them ? Ten years ago Class war wrote an open letter to the revolutionary movement, it was saying that we have failed, and that if we are ever to move forward, then we would have to have an honest reappraisal of everything that we have said and done. Class war started the ball rolling with issue73, although looking back, this may not have been clear, the general idea was, that everybody else would do the same. Ten years later, if anything, things are worse, and its still waiting for a reply, is it ever likely to get one ?

martinh
Offline
Joined: 8-03-06
Nov 13 2006 22:19
Glory hunter wrote:
I haven't been in Class war for almost ten years now, and dropped out of it at the time of the 97 "split" I think that Class war should have been wound up at that time, sometimes its better to let things go and do something else.
I have had my differences with them, but have always some how managed to remain friends, I think that despite the faults of this place, its a mistake on their part to have left, but then, that up to them.
If there are people here who think that they are no loss, you are wrong, they are all decent people, and good comrades, and to think otherwise is stupid.

I agree. While I think CW's populist approach has problems their loss from these forums is a shame. While I didn't always agree with them I think Paul's comments were often illuminating and his knowledge on some things excellent and these forums will be poorer for losing Class War.

Glory Hunter wrote:
Isn't genuine revolutionary politics about breaking down barriers ?

Quite. I think this effigy burning was a mistake. Clearly, from their reaction CW don't. But either way it was about erecting and maintaining barriers between different sections of the working class, intentionally or not.

regards,

Martin

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Nov 13 2006 22:50

I agree with both Glory hunter and martinh, and think tacks is wise beyond his years.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Nov 13 2006 23:40
Glory hunter wrote:
"nobody noticed, because contrary to your opinion of yourself you are a bunch of irrelevant cunts, but yeah sure thanks for telling us, and thank fuck we don't have to read your pointless attempts at self promotion any more"

What kind of world do you think you are going to create with that kind of attitude ?

A nice happy one with flowers where we can all just get along.

No seriously though, i don't see why i should give a fuck about class war beyond some sort of pathetic ''we're all anarchists together'' type shite.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 14 2006 01:20

To be honest, I don't give a fuck about uniting some supposed revolutionary movement. Why would I attempt to build bridges with those groups who have demonstrated themselves to be more of a hindrance than an aid? I'd much rather unite the class, which I'm hoping will give even less time to shallow stunts like this than the detractors on this forum. If it's a choice between getting the end up of 20 or so Al Murray imitators and alienating 6 billion (?) proletarians, I'll take the former.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 14 2006 01:31

Alan and Cantdo - god! You two are the worst fucking people I've met on these boards. Sad sad fucking annoying, know it all, sploit cunting brats. It's a wonder you don't get smacked in the mouth more often 'cos I'm sure thats the reaction people would give you if you are in "reality" the same as you are "virtual"

cunts the pair of you.

Raw

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Nov 14 2006 02:24

Yeah. I worry that my on-line persona is taking over. Thats two weekends in a row where I had people's good mates about to beat me up. I mean, I think I'm quite I nice guy on these forums - but not enough for real life, anyway. I balme LazyRiser's influence, really.

Eta: I certainly feel I've become numb to agression since posting here.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 14 2006 04:32

having gone through the thread again there does seem to be an overwhelming concern that the effigy is racist without anyone really explaining why this is so.

The accusation of racism is a serious one.

People here may be personally offended, shocked, affronted and appalled by the image but beyond the faux outrage and personal moral indignation there seems to be little or nothing beyond 'class war made a mistake' (or rather the good class war people made a mistake by allowing the bad class war people to do such a thing) as way of an explanation of why they consider this racist.

Is it racist? And if so how so?

(I would add here racist is often suffixed with stereotype or caricature, which actually adds little or no meaning to the accusation).

let's examine. The effigy is racist because it has beady eyes and a big nose. Yet the effigy of jesus has exactly the same features. The puppets were obviously made from the same muppets-like template. Whatever you want to call it creatively can racism really be derived from a generic puppet template?

Islamic images of mohammed (from the 14th century onwards) depict him with a 'towel' on his head and with a beard. The puppet then doesn't deviate from the traditionally held version of what Mohammed looks like.

The cloth used is traditional 'arab' cloth, as worn by 'arabs'. Mohammed was naturally enough an arab. The effigy then is neither a stereotype nor a caricature, but a fairly abstemious representation of the charactistics familiar to, and congruous with, Mohammed. It does exactly what is says on the tin. It is a puppet of the prophet Mohammed.

By throwing an effigy of mohammed and of jesus (the jesus effigy is more a caricature, although not a stereotype, given the symbolic significance of that particular imagery) on the fire reveals class war's attitude towards religion.

As i'm sure we all agree religion, any religion, all religion, is anti-working class.

How this is racist hasn't really been argued by anyone here beyond the standard hissy fit of a witchhunt (the kind of odd internet witchhunting last seen butting heads with the nefac mob).

If someone would care to explain how this is racist i am as ever willing to listen.

Someone saying the effigy is racist because it has a hunch (!!!???) is symptomatic and indicative of the nature of some peoples political thinking and has no basis for 'rational debate'. (I'm only guessing but the 'hunch' is the wooden crossbar holding mohammed together).

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
Nov 14 2006 04:56
Quote:
having gone through the thread again there does seem to be an overwhelming concern that the effigy is racist without anyone really explaining why this is so.

I think you're going pull the thread round in circles on this one. I just read this thread through for the first time and everyone seems to be saying that although CW dosn't mean to be racist, the effigy will certainly be percieved that way.

I'm pretty new to this forum and although individual Class Warriors made good points, their propaganda and collective action is ludicrous. I'm glad they're gone.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 14 2006 05:31

FWIW, i'm not too hung up on the 'racist'potential of it and agree with what you said. It was a mistake for other reasons.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 14 2006 09:05

This is all very unfortunate. The discussion has become far too polarised with people feeling duty bound to defend their own political camp (whether right or wrong). Some CW bonfire supporters have come out with some really idiotic responses but so too have a couple of people not sympathetuc to CW. This kind of talk really doesn't get us anywhere. The "I'll get you at playtime" type comments impress no one either. So please stop saying this kind of thing because it only makes you look like a big daft kid.

I've always thought that there are some good people associated with CW, and I don't for one minute think that CW is a racist organisation, nor do I think that individual CW-ers are racist... but even a gnat can see that this kind of action is just totally wrong, and could only been seen as good propaganda if the aim were to discredit anarchism in some way.

Now I don't think that CW are out to discredit anarchism, but like I said earlier, they really need to engage their collective brain particularly before embarking on some of their more visual actions.

Can't remember who said it, but there is a problem with anarcho-populism. As with any other strand of populism, it hooks onto basic stuff that many people are generally pissed off about at the gut-feeling level. But the agenda of public pissed-offness has already been pre-set by the mainstream capitalist media with its wholly reactionary intentions. Now it may well be a tragedy when anarchists tail end the left(as happens from time to time) but to tail-end The Sun and Daily Mail while giving it an anarchist veneer is a total bloody farce, and people of anarchist/communist persuasion should stop fucking doing it.

From the bonfire people, Glory Hunter talks a lot of sense. But I'd be interested to hear an actual justification from CW people that isn't just telling us we're posh... academics... wankers... gonna get our fuckin heads kicked in... etc, etc.

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 14 2006 09:19

the crap hints of violence did not come from CW on this thread.

tallchris99
Offline
Joined: 5-08-05
Nov 14 2006 09:19

You all keep asserting that the action was wrongheaded "even a gnat could see that". I think what frustrates you all the most is peoples refusal to accept that you are right. Get it? Not eveyone agrees with the anti activist student middle class wankers that seem to be the hard core here. (plus that ugly pet Revol of course).

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 14 2006 09:25
tallchris99 wrote:
You all keep asserting that the action was wrongheaded "even a gnat could see that". I think what frustrates you all the most is peoples refusal to accept that you are right. Get it? Not eveyone agrees with the anti activist student middle class wankers that seem to be the hard core here. (plus that ugly pet Revol of course).

no chris mate, what you are refusing to accept is that a lot of people think this was wrong - from all corners.

I've read the thread on meanwhile and it reads the same.

The only way you could kid yourself that peop0le on the whole thought it was a good idea is if you thought the 20 odd ppl on this thread were alter ego's of 2 posters.

Yes the 'hard core' of rudeness and intolerance comes from anti-activist students, but it hardly cancels outy the measured criticisms of the 100's of other regular posters.

I don't really want to be arguing with you about this, and i think i'll leave it.

BTW i asked earlier - what is the forum for anarchists in the UK that isn't this one?

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Nov 14 2006 09:28
tallchris99 wrote:
Not eveyone agrees with the anti activist student middle class wankers that seem to be the hard core here.

See, this kind of foot stamping really doesn't get us anywhere, does it. You may well be pissed off, tallchris99, but what have you got to say once the angry references to "student middle class wankers" have been got out of your system?

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Nov 14 2006 09:28
tallchris99 wrote:
You all keep asserting that the action was wrongheaded "even a gnat could see that". I think what frustrates you all the most is peoples refusal to accept that you are right. Get it? Not eveyone agrees with the anti activist student middle class wankers that seem to be the hard core here. (plus that ugly pet Revol of course).

Pot, Kettle mister - that style of debate doesn't really progress the argument at all. I've made contributions to this thread and I certainly wouldn't consider myself an "anti activist student middle class wanker". T'would be better if people actually tried to engage in the issues rather than wallowing in the mire of personal attack.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 14 2006 09:52
coffeemachine wrote:
The accusation of racism is a serious one.

Indeed it is. I do not think, however, that members of Class War are being accused of racism.

coffeemachine wrote:
People here may be personally offended, shocked, affronted and appalled by the image but beyond the faux outrage and personal moral indignation there seems to be little or nothing beyond 'class war made a mistake' (or rather the good class war people made a mistake by allowing the bad class war people to do such a thing) as way of an explanation of why they consider this racist.

I am not 'offended, shocked, affronted, or appalled' by this image. My reaction to it is not one of personal indignation.

What I do argue, and what I also argued in the discussion on here about the CW article on Mohammed is that Class War have the same tone as the racist right. This is a very different thing than saying that the individuals involved are racists.

As for the question of whether the effigy is racist or not, I feel that it is. I think that that big nose is a shockingly racist caricature of an Arab, but that is not really the point. Even if it didn't look like some Nazi-Germany style stereotype, in the current climate the whole action of burning an effigy of Mohammed is very misguided to say the least.

It would be a very different thing (apart from the fact that we would get lynched)if we were to burn an effigy of Mohammed here. There is a campaign in the west against 'muslims'. This doesn't mean that revolutionaries should take a similar line to the SWP, which is virtually a defence of Islam, but we should recognise that this is not at heart an anti-religious campaign, but is in fact a racist campaign. The duty of communists is to point this out, and not to go along with it.

coffeemachine wrote:
there seems to be little or nothing beyond 'class war made a mistake' (or rather the good class war people made a mistake by allowing the bad class war people to do such a thing)

I don't think that it is a matter of 'Class War making a mistake'. I think it is the logical result of Class War's politics. The whole idea of imitating tabloid politics leads towards this sort of action. It is not a neutral form, but one that is deeply linked to bourgeois politics.

Tallchris99 wrote:
It seemed even handed to me having one of Jesus and one of Mohammed.

To me it seems like tokenism. Christianity is virtually politically irrelevant in the UK today. The Jesus effigy seems like something just to make it seem 'even handed'.

Tallchris99 wrote:
anti activist student middle class wankers

Calling somebody a 'student middle class wanker' seems to me to be a really good way of dodging the discussion.

Devrim

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 14 2006 10:48

Hi

Quote:
Class War have the same tone as the racist right

The BNP's tone "works" better than the entire left milieu’s though.

Love

LR

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Nov 14 2006 11:00
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi

Quote:
Class War have the same tone as the racist right

The BNP's tone "works" better than the entire left milieu’s though.

Love

LR

Problem with this argument is that the BNP's short term goals are getting a few councillors elected in areas abandoned by other parties and getting a gang of anti-socials together to pick on a few muslims. All they have to do is get a few nutcases doing anti-social violence and get people out to put a cross in a ballot box.
The left millieus short term gains are recruting to the left illieu, same goes for large chunks of the anarchist movement to be fair, however, comparing the SWP's recrutiment tactics with the BNP is a bit pointless and a bit dubious tbh.

WeTheYouth
Offline
Joined: 16-10-03
Nov 14 2006 11:45

Thats just fucked up.

http://www.myspace.com/thespectrehauntingeurope

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 14 2006 11:49

Hi

Quote:
All they have to do is get a few nutcases doing anti-social violence and get people out to put a cross in a ballot box.

If CW achieved this, it would be a major step forward.

Love

LR

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 14 2006 14:00
raw wrote:
Alan and Cantdo - god! You two are the worst fucking people I've met on these boards. Sad sad fucking annoying, know it all, sploit cunting brats. It's a wonder you don't get smacked in the mouth more often 'cos I'm sure thats the reaction people would give you if you are in "reality" the same as you are "virtual"

cunts the pair of you.

Raw

Raw, you've been warned enough times - one more post like that with even a hint of personal abuse and your trademark hardman comments and you'll get your wish to be banned.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 14 2006 17:09
Joseph K. wrote:
raw wrote:
Alan and Cantdo - god! You two are the worst fucking people I've met on these boards. Sad sad fucking annoying, know it all, sploit cunting brats. It's a wonder you don't get smacked in the mouth more often 'cos I'm sure thats the reaction people would give you if you are in "reality" the same as you are "virtual"

cunts the pair of you.

Raw

Raw, you've been warned enough times - one more post like that with even a hint of personal abuse and your trademark hardman comments and you'll get your wish to be banned.

I was merely observing a possibility, whereby a person who shouts constant abuse at people COULD land themselves a smack in the mouth - I BY NO WAY MEANT I WILL DO THIS, I'm against violence towards civilians.

raw

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Nov 14 2006 17:14
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
I'm against violence towards civilians.

Is there a war on? Who wouldn't count as a civilian, one of the big wigs in the Libcom chain of command?

Anyway stop being so rude and talk to me about Zizek.

He's got a nice beard

Topic locked