Class War Bonfire Party

216 posts / 0 new
Last post
sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Nov 16 2006 12:35
Devrim wrote:
When I said that nobody was being accused of racism, I meant that nobody was suggesting that Class War was a racist organisation, or that its members were racists. I think that there is a clear difference between saying that the effigy can be perceived as racist, and accusing people of being racists.

I don't think that it is a matter of mere 'insensitivity'. I don't particularly care for people's sensitivities. I think that this action, as did the article on Mohammed in CW90, has exactly the same tone as the right-wing anti-Muslim campaign, which is in fact a racist campaign. Please, note here that I am in no way suggesting that Class War are racists, and I understand, and even sympathise with their attacks on Religion in general, and Islam in particular. What I am saying is that it has the same tone, and seems to me to be indistinguishable from the general campaign.

Good points

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 16 2006 14:13
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi

Quote:
Can we split this into a seperate thread for a more working-class than you dick-waving contest?

Easy tiger. Asserting class backgrounds only look like dick-waving to people sympathetic to the plight of the middle classes. It’s important information for those of you who don’t know Glory Hunter personally. It’s all about class, after all.

Well noone was assuming Glory Hunter was bourgeois, least of all me, cos I think I may have met him at some point. And if he's not bourgeois, he's proletarian (aka working class). The rest is nonsensical sociology - which I would have though would be a little too middle class for Class War's liking. wink

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 16 2006 14:17
coffeemachine wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Indeed it is. I do not think, however, that members of Class War are being accused of racism.

I think you do yourself and your comrades a disservice devrim

- Aren't people shocked by this? Isn't it quite worrying when anarcho-populism is making racist effigies
- they're made the Prophet look like a racist tabloid characature of an Arab
- Yes, I mean burning an effigy of a sterotype arab figure with a big nose isn't racist at all
- The problem is that the effigy is a racist stereotype of an Arab
- I like the evil eyes and the hunch myself
- it really makes anarchists look like total racist twats
- I'd rather not be in any way connected to this sort of racist wank
- It is despicably racist
- This is shocking, stupid, racist bollocks
- 'Mohammed' here is a racist stereotype
- looked like a bunch of white people burning a racial charicature of a Muslim
- I also agree it is a racist stereotype

I think perhaps Devrim was trying to differentiate between calling individual people consciously racist, and accusing them of choosing a form of activity that inevitably results in unconsciously reproducing the racial caricatures of current bourgeois political discourse.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 16 2006 14:21
Devrim wrote:

Yes, I think that the effigy is racist, and so did a lot of other people. When I said that nobody was being accused of racism, I meant that nobody was suggesting that Class War was a racist organisation, or that its members were racists. I think that there is a clear difference between saying that the effigy can be perceived as racist, and accusing people of being racists.

coffeemachine wrote:
If you are now saying it was insensitive of class war to produce such an effigy in the current political climate then maybe that would have been a better opening gambit rather than employing charmless and clumsy stabs at creating hysteria from political dandruff?

I don't think that it is a matter of mere 'insensitivity'. I don't particularly care for people's sensitivities. I think that this action, as did the article on Mohammed in CW90, has exactly the same tone as the right-wing anti-Muslim campaign, which is in fact a racist campaign. Please, note here that I am in no way suggesting that Class War are racists, and I understand, and even sympathise with their attacks on Religion in general, and Islam in particular. What I am saying is that it has the same tone, and seems to me to be indistinguishable from the general campaign.

Now, maybe you don't agree with my analysis here. Maybe you think that there is an 'Islamic threat' that has to be combated. I don't know. I think that on most of these issues there are two very clear positions that are very easy to fall into.

Let's take the headscarf issue in this country as an example. The two positions on this, which are both supported by different leftists, are a defence of the secularity of the state, or a defence of individual freedom, i.e. we keep the ban, or let people wear what they want. I think that this is a bourgeois faction fight, and it is quite interesting that it does become a big political issue when the class struggle is on the rise. The last time that it came up in a big way in the media was when there was talk of a public sector strike. The task of communists in these situations is to explain the nature of the argument. There are no 'sexy' front covers that come from this. It is not an exciting argument, but nevertheless necessary.

In Britain, and remember that I am viewing this from afar, I think that the SWP have grasped one side of the argument, and taken it to ridiculous extremes. Class War seem in Danger of grasping the other end of it. The Worker Communist party of Iran did this over the cartoon, and free speech issue, and ended up on the same platform as the BNP. Both sides of the argument have slogans, and are easy to sell. They are both bourgeois though. The communist approach is more difficult.

coffeemachine wrote:
I asked one of the muslim anarchists who was at the bonfire (isn't strange how we all suddlenly have muslim friends when the arguments require it!?)if she was shocked by the effigy and considered it racist (as per devrim's charmless and clumsy opener). She wasn't shocked nor considered it racist (maybe as an anarchist she is inured to such things).

It is not important whether one person thinks that it is racist, or not. It isn't about individual sensibilities.

Devrim

yes devrim you have already told us you think the effigy is racist and told us why. Other people have said it was racist although not one has come forward to say why (beyond your spirited sidekick in this grubby affair who relied wholly on inaccurate information).

You have said the effigy is racist because of its big nose. If it were shown that mohammed's nose was not in fact big but the same dimensions as the puppet of jesus the effigy in your eyes wouldn't be racist right?

Unfortunately no more photographs are forthcoming there is however this footage (courtesy of tall chris) although not conclusive goes some way to indicate the proportions of mohammed's nose ie not very big at all.

http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h78/tallchris99/?action=view&current=ClassWarBonfire2006.flv

What you in fact did devrim was make an assumption and offer a dangerous accusation, without any corroborating evidence and devoid of any context, about a picture you saw on the internet, and asked others to make that same assumption (you didn't bring any political reasoning into the argument until 6 pages down the line). Anyone who accuses someone of making racist effigies better be pretty sure of their facts before inviting the world to make that same assumption. The more you try to wriggle out of your tabloid-style opening gambit the uglier your motives appear.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 16 2006 15:58
coffeemachine wrote:
What you in fact did devrim was make an assumption and offer a dangerous accusation, without any corroborating evidence and devoid of any context, about a picture you saw on the internet, and asked others to make that same assumption (you didn't bring any political reasoning into the argument until 6 pages down the line). Anyone who accuses someone of making racist effigies better be pretty sure of their facts before inviting the world to make that same assumption. The more you try to wriggle out of your tabloid-style opening gambit the uglier your motives appear.

Actually, this is what I wrote in the first post:

Devrim wrote:
Aren't people shocked by this? Isn't it quite worrying when anarcho-populism is making racist effigies, and burning them?

Where is the dangerous acusation? To me it looks like two questions. Yes, it asserts that the effigy was racist. As I said I believe it is.

coffeemachine wrote:
You have said the effigy is racist because of its big nose. If it were shown that mohammed's nose was not in fact big but the same dimensions as the puppet of jesus the effigy in your eyes wouldn't be racist right?

Your argument that it isn't racist is as week as one saying that it is. One could, for example take a picture from a poster from Germany which says 'Turks out' and argue that there is nothing in it that is racist. The point is that to a lot of people this image seemed in the same style as the anti-Muslim campaigns that are being run by racists.

coffeemachine wrote:
The more you try to wriggle out of your tabloid-style opening gambit the uglier your motives appear.

I am not trying to wriggle out of anything, I am not sure what motives you are implying that I have, and I find it bizarre for Class War to accuse anyone of a tabloid style.

Devrim

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 16 2006 17:23

Devrim,

fwiw, coffeemachine isn't a Class War member, he's an (Ex)Womble.

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Nov 16 2006 18:59

http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h78/tallchris99/?action=view&current=23072006.jpg

I notice tallchris has a lovely cat, see I knew class war weren't all bad wink

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 16 2006 20:06

Hi

Quote:
Your argument that it isn't racist is as weak as one saying that it is

And hence no more than averagely racist. Given the Internationalists subscribe to the notion that anti-racism as an ideological position in itself is reactionary, there’s no sense in attacking CW because they look like the BNP.

To the existing communist milieu, CW should look like the BNP. They are fulfilling their correct historical task in doing so. I mean, it’s a sign of one’s own position to see CW as relevant enough to analyse.

Quote:
The rest is nonsensical sociology

The value of a belief can only be measured by the benefits accrued to those who hold it.

Quote:
What I am saying is that it has the same tone, and seems to me to be indistinguishable from the general campaign.

Quote:
Good points

Joining up the BNP’s style with their political substance opens up the can of worms linking ideological predilection and psychological predisposition. The anti-tabloidists should set out the correct image that CW should project in order that they might emulate the awesome track record of success enjoyed by their detractors.

Love

LR

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 16 2006 22:58
Lazy Riser wrote:
Quote:
The rest is nonsensical sociology

The value of a belief can only be measured by the benefits accrued to those who hold it.

Not sure you understood. I meant that any further division of class (ie working/lower middle/middle/upper middle etc) is "nonsensical sociology". Ergo, Glory Hunter's proud assertion that he is "working class" is pretty much irrelevant.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 16 2006 23:55

Hi

Quote:
Glory Hunter's proud assertion that he is "working class" is pretty much irrelevant

And yet, it's at the centre of your current contribution. You must be very proud.

Love

LR

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Nov 17 2006 00:56
sovietpop wrote:
http://s61.photobucket.com/albums/h78/tallchris99/?action=view&current=23072006.jpg

I notice tallchris has a lovely cat, see I knew class war weren't all bad ;-)

yeah but he's trying to flush it down the shitter!

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 17 2006 02:13
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi

Quote:
Glory Hunter's proud assertion that he is "working class" is pretty much irrelevant

And yet, it's at the centre of your current contribution. You must be very proud.

What incredible logic. As I'm sure you're aware, the fact that it is considered sufficiently relevant to be announced is of course worthy of comment. It wasn't the centre of my contribution, you chose to make it so rather than responding to the point I was illustrating by way of that sentence.

God you're hard work. Admin should pay us for having to debate with you.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 17 2006 09:08

Hi

Quote:
God you're hard work. Admin should pay us for having to debate with you.

I think you mean "engage". Anyway, if you find it so unrewarding, I suggest you withdraw your labour.

Love

LR

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Nov 17 2006 13:15

Good idea.

fudge
Offline
Joined: 14-07-06
Nov 17 2006 13:18

And another thing.
That guy in the photo, can he wrestle?
No, thought not.

Glory hunter
Offline
Joined: 13-01-05
Nov 22 2006 14:25

Looking back on it, all those times I took the piss out of the red flag mob on demonstrations, well, I may have been a little bit misguided. It all makes perfect sense when you think about it, flying saucer Marxists ! Its got to be the answer. After all, the working class, what with their credit card supplied 42 inch plasma tv's, and holidays in cancun, seem at the moment unlikely to supply the revolution we all know is needed. And as to anything good coming from radical politics of whatever description, It would appear to be an increasingly forlorn hope. Therefore, come back Juan Posadas all is forgiven.

Ill be back.

BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Nov 22 2006 15:05

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 23 2006 21:16

Hi

Quote:
After all, the working class, what with their credit card supplied 42 inch plasma tv's, and holidays in cancun, seem at the moment unlikely to supply the revolution we all know is needed.

The thing is though, GH, if we’ve got all this good stuff going on under Capitalism, it begs the question of what the revolution is actually needed for.

Quote:
And as to anything good coming from radical politics of whatever description, It would appear to be an increasingly forlorn hope.

Only if one hoped it would provide the answer in the first place. On the other hand, one can be relieved the working class continue to reject the theory and programmes developed by “radical politics”. If such a theory presents any positive course of action at all, it would no doubt prove disastrous in practice, not least to the living standards that its advocates might imagine they defend.

Besides, the working class doesn’t exist to “supply” the revolution to activists, but to enjoy themselves as best they can and in so doing transform society into one of self-directed people, freely associated, achieving their collective and individual goals. In this way, high technology consumer goods and holidays in the sun have more revolutionary potential as authentic currents in history-as-creation than any of the political options set out for us by official philosophy.

Love

LR

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Sep 26 2013 19:30

Does this really need to be resurrected??

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 26 2013 20:08

You resurrected it! No one has posted on this in seven years. I will lock the thread now so it will drop off again…

Topic locked