Police grab anarchist for spitting at SWPer

[The Idler]

GpBFd9-5b9A
Qx4Gdj0mOmE
A kiss is just a kiss, say London's proud (http://whatismatt.com/a-kiss-is-just-a-kiss-say-londons-proud/)

[Manic Impressive]

what a fucking wanker I hope he's really ashamed of himself. Unfortunately I've seen behaviour like that towards communists from self identified anarchists, just never from one that big. :mellow:

[PhoenixAsh]

WTF??? :cursing::cursing::cursing:

1:16 "he just assaulted me I want to press charges"

Yeah...sure the spitting part was fucked up...but what the hell kind of class traitor is that fucker????? He actually deserved to get his teeth knocked out.

As for the hijacking part...totally justified to ask them to stop using the bullhorn. At first I was a bit like...chill out dude... be nice. Not really my idea to ask them to fuck off. But hey...hijacking is NOT really a nice thing now is it? The unity part may be right but that means you ASK to join and when you join you do NOT take over....that is what unity actually means. And for the spitting part. Fucked up. Should NOT have happened.

But when that guy actually tried to get him arrested somebody should have taken his name and number and have a good hard....especially hard...talking to. Fucking traitor. If that was an SWP member he should be kicked out.

:cursing::cursing::cursing:

[PhoenixAsh]

Nice vid report...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/apr/15/kiss-in-protest-john-snow



And article to the background of the kiss-in:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377152/John-Snow-pub-kiss-protest-gay-couple-thrown-snogging.html


Paul Shelter btw is the guy who got arrested....and he organised the event.

[TC]

When people do good, socially useful things, they shouldn't be condemned for it no matter who they are. While 90%+ of a police officers work in a capitalist state is reactionary - is aimed at protecting private and personal property and enforcing capitalist order - they occasionally do really socially useful stuff too, like arrest rapists, murderers, child molesters, and people who commit hate crimes like spitting at SWP activists. This is the sort of thing that a socialist state's police officers or popular militia in a socialist society would do and there are really no legitimate grounds for objecting to it. If your revolution means a society where its okay to assault people, than its "not my revolution."

[nuisance]

video says it's private?

[PhoenixAsh]

When people do good, socially useful things, they shouldn't be condemned for it no matter who they are. While 90%+ of a police officers work is reactionary - is aimed at protecting private and personal property and enforcing capitalist order - they occasionally do really socially useful stuff too, like arrest rapists, murderers, child molesters, and people who commit hate crimes like spitting at SWP activists. This is the sort of thing that a socialist police officer in a socialist society would do and there are really no legitimate grounds for objecting to it.

Yes....no surprise that our resident prosecutor would advocate turning fellow left wing activists who are already prosecuted for their politics in to the burgeoisie police. Very helpful of you to actually colaborate with the system. You just really unmasked yourself as a class traitor!

[PhoenixAsh]

video says it's private?

You can click the link through to youtube. You can view it there. Otherwise search for: kiss anarchist swp, on there

[SacRedMan]

Can't watch it because the video is private

[Sasha]

Ugh, spitting at that swp'r is NOT an hatecrime, it seems he got spit on not for being an swp'r but for being an cock who tried to highjack someone else's protest (which happens to be an recurring swp thing but that's beside the point).
Don't say stupid shit like that an don't act like its o.k. what that scab did.

[Thirsty Crow]

...they occasionally do really socially useful stuff too, like arrest rapists, murderers, child molesters, and people who commit hate crimes like spitting at SWP activists.
Whoa, did you just equate a hate crime like a racist motivated physical assault on a African American (for instance) with spitting at a perceived political opponent?
You can be quite disgusting at times, that's for sure. Hell, I'm glad to know that there are self professed revolutionaries out there who would have me fucking arrested for spitting at a member of the local branch of Christian Democrats here.

[nuisance]

You just really unmasked yourself as a class traitor!
They have also tried to legitimate the royal wedding by saying that it isn't the Royals fault they're pary of the monarchy....boo fucking hoo.

[Anarchrusty]

Apparently, the organiser Paul Shetler asked the guy that shot the video, to take it down.

From what I have gathered on information, the SWP'ers were hijacking the anti-homophobia event by sprouting some unrelated crap about Lybia, and Shetler asked them several times to quite it.
The Socialist Workers then started to gather in on his personal space and being generally obnoxious.

Spitting is not very nice, BUT they were taunting him to the extreme.


Some links:


Edit: it says I can't post links untill I am past 25.

[hatzel]

They have also tried to legitimate the royal wedding by saying that it isn't the Royals fault they're pary of the monarchy....boo fucking hoo.I'll assume you mean legitimise the whole hullabaloo, rather than just...you know...legitimise the idea that two people might get married even though they're royals. Because I don't think there was anybody who was claiming they had no 'right' to wed or whatever, based on their 'royalness' (if that's a word)...

Oh and lol at TC. Seriously, don't spit at people, it's icky, I admit that, but I'd never go running to the good ol' polizia because somebody spat at me for being a massive knobcheese...:rolleyes: Why is it that every time I heard mention of SWP it's from their doing something stupid, usually against anarchists? :(

[Anarchrusty]

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDuJcf9tNCY&feature=related


From: http://whatismatt.com/a-kiss-is-just-a-kiss-say-londons-proud/


''
At this point I was in front of the organizer, filming, but I was mostly behind his words, although the threat of violence was somewhat against the spirit of what had otherwise been a great rally. What confused me here was his persistently referring to himself as an “anarchist” who owned the demo. I was unsure how anarchy could fit in with the whole show of support for a couple of blokes who got kicked out of a pub for kissing.
The SWP loons wouldn't give up, however, and they carried on with their dull games, well aware that they were getting beneath the skin of the protest organizer. A further confrontation escalated into a little argy-bargy before the organizer spat in the face of a particularly loathsome bearded man.
I suppose we could commend the demo organizer for not resorting to throwing a swift jab, but I can never condone spitting in the face of another human being, no matter how heated a situation becomes.''

[TC]

They have also tried to legitimate the royal wedding by saying that it isn't the Royals fault they're pary of the monarchy....boo fucking hoo.

Are you a monarchist? I don't recognize the monarchy, so I don't think that someone's wedding is magically special in either a positive or negative way due to an accident of their birth. If you do, you're the one who legitimizes the monarchy.

[TC]

Yes....no surprise that our resident prosecutor would advocate turning fellow left wing activists who are already prosecuted for their politics in to the burgeoisie police. Very helpful of you to actually colaborate with the system. You just really unmasked yourself as a class traitor!


When so called "anarchists" forcefully repress socialist activists through physical threats, intimidation or violence, they are not "left wing activists" but reactionaries who do the police's job for them: the "anarchist" you defend acts like a cop without uniforms. They're the class traitors. No one who spits at and threatens a socialist activist at a demonstration is a comrade of mine, they are part of state repression whether they know it or not.

You must also recognize the irony of a self-proclaimed "anarchist" insisting that he owns the demonstration and can dictate who exercises their right to free speech and assembly in the area around him. Maybe in the future we will have to apply to self-declared "anarchists" for permits to speak our minds, that they can whimsically withhold, or have a huge guy threaten to “pound [our] f—king face[s] in” and spit at us?

[nuisance]

Spit on more Trots.

[Thirsty Crow]

You must also recognize the irony of a self-proclaimed "anarchist" insisting that he owns the demonstration and can dictate who exercises their right to free speech and assembly in the area around him. Maybe in the future we will have to apply to self-declared "anarchists" for permits to speak our minds, that they can whimsically withhold, or have a huge guy threaten to “pound [our] f—king face[s] in” and spit at us?

No, you just apply to the closest riot cop to beat the hell out of that "class traitor" and put him/her into custody.
Long live the rule of the law.

[The Red Next Door]

Yeah, this help remind me, not to spit on the sparts, because they might called the police on us.

[PhoenixAsh]

When so called "anarchists" forcefully repress socialist activists through physical threats, intimidation or violence, they are not "left wing activists" but reactionaries who do the police's job for them: the "anarchist" you defend acts like a cop without uniforms.

You have no legitimacy...not in your views and not in any other way. You just defended and justified turning a revolitionary in to the burgeoisie police. Everybody saw that. On top of that you defend the monarchy and fail to assess it certainly has political power both as an institution and a symbol. You just lost any credibility you had. Scab.

The people you defend were interfering off topic on an organized demo...detracting from its purpose....and then became all offensive about it. Actually trying actively to undermine that message.

THAT however is an entirely different debate from you actually advocating collaboration with the capitalist stooges. You certainly advocated at the top of your hypocritical lungs to restrict people for less....why the fuck is your traitorous ass not in OI yet?



They're the class traitors. No one who spits at and threatens a socialist activist at a demonstration is a comrade of mine, they are part of state repression whether they know it or not.

Socialists? Socialists you DARE to call those specific induviduals who run to the repressive executive arm of the burgeoisie socialists?

People who try to sabotage an event by pushing their own unrelated agenda at the expense of comrades?

You definately seriously are a reactionary.



You must also recognize the irony of a self-proclaimed "anarchist" insisting that he owns the demonstration and can dictate who exercises their right to free speech and assembly in the area around him. Maybe in the future we will have to apply to self-declared "anarchists" for permits to speak our minds, that they can whimsically withhold, or have a huge guy threaten to “pound [our] f—king face[s] in” and spit at us?

Why are you even still here? We all saw what happened, we all saw whst you did. Don't kneejerk. You exposed yourself to be a burgoisie scab.

Actually you totally discredit the SWP for your reactionary advocating of aligning with the burgeoisie.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

i don't think spitting on people like that is gonna help the image of anarchists, though on the other hand i understand why these things happen and the frustration that generally leads to these occurances.

either way, calling the police? that's the most reactionary thing that happened here - you can't pick sides with the police on matters like this. if someone spat on me i'd spit back, that was not a matter for the police, its a matter that could've been dealt with better but a matter concerning the parties involved first and foremost.

[Sam_b]

Unfortunately, not all SWP members are 100% politically spot-on. Like with any organisation in fact. The party recruits a lot of young members, inexperienced comrades and the like; and the party rightfully sees membership of these people as a way of developing the learning process. Perhaps calling the cops is an overreaction, but the big issue here is actually the political accument of how this is being addressed by some members on here. Paying practically lip-service to sectarianism and instead coming out with some of the most sectarian attacks. Ironically a member who seems to lack any 'hindsight' is now turning this into a crime of political treachery very much seen in the rationale of 1950s Hungarian show-trials, with people being 'class traitors' and 'scabs' for not having the 100% polished politics that he obviously expects him to have. Nothing, however, on the right of SWP members to be free of attacks, violence and acts such as these.

It unfortunatley seems that hysteria is going to win out in this thread.


Don't kneejerk. You exposed yourself to be a burgoisie scab.

Ironic.

[PhoenixAsh]

Perhaps sam you should read my initial post to see how fucking wrong you are.

But good to see you are defending advocacy of police collaboration by a board member who should know better.

Actively advocating the behaviour of colaboration....because you may have missed that part. Convenient cherry picking?!

Why the fuck did we have the anonimity rules? Right because we recognize the danger ao of the police...but hell you do NOT have a problem with actively handing comrades over to them.....and even defend a member ADVOCATING that.

Interesting....I wonder why..

[TC]

Can we get a moderator here to give Hindsight20/20 an infraction for abusive language?

[PhoenixAsh]

To make it absolutely clear: the main outrage in NOT to the new member who is also very fucking wrong....its directed at TC the reactionary who advocates handing people over to the police.

[PhoenixAsh]

Can we get a moderator here to give Hindsight20/20 an infraction for abusive language?

Its not abusive when its fact for everybody to see.

Fact: advocating handing revs over to the police= collaboration and class treason and reactionar

Fact: advocating hijacking of an organised demo with your own agenda= scab

Nothing I said is not solidly proven by ypur own words and actions

And add hypocracy to the list for trying to get people banned for less than what you exhibit here.

[ZeroNowhere]

When people do good, socially useful things, they shouldn't be condemned for it no matter who they are. While 90%+ of a police officers work in a capitalist state is reactionary - is aimed at protecting private and personal property and enforcing capitalist order - they occasionally do really socially useful stuff too, like arrest rapists, murderers, child molesters, and people who commit hate crimes like spitting at SWP activists.
I agree with this. This treatment of SWP members by the anarchists is essentially akin to the treatment of blacks under apartheid. Would you people tolerate apartheid, or would you report it to the police? Exactly.

[Sasha]

There are moderaters here. And I for one see nothing wrong with language used.
You take an controversial position, you better be able to take the flack for it.
It's not nice to be called an reactionary and an scab but what do you expect with an position you just took.

[PhoenixAsh]

I agree with this. This treatment of SWP members by the anarchists is essentially akin to the treatment of blacks under apartheid. Would you people tolerate apartheid, or would you report it to the police? Exactly.

What???? O_O Really???

[Sam_b]

Its not abusive when its fact for everybody to see.Yawn



But good to see you are defending advocacy of police collaboration

Yawn

[Lord Testicles]

Are you a monarchist? I don't recognize the monarchy, so I don't think that someone's wedding is magically special in either a positive or negative way due to an accident of their birth.

You don't think it's negative, considering the fact that the same public which is paying for it is the same one which is going to suffer under these public sector cuts?


What???? O_O Really???

Sarcasm?

[Anarchrusty]

This treatment of SWP members by the anarchists is essentially akin to the treatment of blacks under apartheid.

That is bang out of order. You cannot claim such a thing, there is NO comparison whatsoever.

The way I see this vid, is behaviour I have seen the SWP do many times before. They go to a demo, but instead of supporting it, turn it into their own show. They are clearly out of line here again, overtaking a protest with a gay topic by overscreaming everyone through their mics about something completely unrelated.
I have met some wonderfull SWP members on the streets, but the fact is they almost every time know how to ruin a good demo by hijacking it.

It is the main reason why they are so frowned upon in the activist community, and as long as they keep repeating these ''mistakes'', it shall continue.

First of all they should look at themselves and ask if THEY are doing anything wrong instead of always playing the victim.

Paul Shetler's has not behaved properly, BUT they were provoking a reaction and when getting one, as always, cry about it. I think that is disgusting!

Sorry for the rant.

[caramelpence]

Some of the logic being applied here is absurd and pathetic. I'd be perfectly willing to call the police in any number of situations. If I was in a household where there was serious domestic violence and I didn't feel I was in a position to stop it and wasn't able or willing to call some non-police individual or group of individuals to stop it, I'd call the police and have no regrets. In fact, one of my relatives did precisely that over a year ago. If I was a witness to a violent crime in a public place and couldn't personally intervene, I'd call the police. If someone threatened me personally in any context in a way that made me feel seriously uncomfortable, and there was a police officer nearby, I might call on them to help me out.

People who think that calling the police inherently makes you a "scab" or "class traitor" presumably are lucky enough to have never been in a situation where they've felt so threatened as to be in need of protection from the agencies of the bourgeois state. As long as we live in a society where the police are given the responsibility of carrying out universal social functions like the protection of persons, there's no shame in calling the police when you feel it's absolutely necessary.


Fact: advocating hijacking of an organised demo with your own agenda= scab

Calling someone a scab for calling the police or wanting the assistance of the police is absurd but it's understandable why you might resort to "scab" as your chosen immature insult in that instance. Here, you're just using it in a way that bears no meaning to the relation of the world in any context.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Spit on more Trots.
Didn't anyone ever teach you not to waste your saliva? There are people dying of dehydration in deserts around the world.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

spitting on an annoying person, whilst out of order in most cases, is not equal to cases of domestic abuse. lets not get it twisted here with fanatical comparisons that undermine legitimate cases for a police force.

the police shouldn't have been used in this - the spitter should know that he acted out of line and the swp should re-asses their position on hijacking protests. if the left can't sort things out between themselves without getting the police involved (in the context of a protest i might add, and we all know what the police do in this context typically). if it can't do this then its an embarrassment frankly.

perhaps we should stop overexagerrating the spitting incident - whether we condemn it or otherwise - and look at the circumstances that led to the incident.

[mosfeld]

When so called "anarchists" forcefully repress socialist activists through physical threats, intimidation or violence, they are not "left wing activists" but reactionaries who do the police's job for them: the "anarchist" you defend acts like a cop without uniforms. They're the class traitors. No one who spits at and threatens a socialist activist at a demonstration is a comrade of mine, they are part of state repression whether they know it or not.

You must also recognize the irony of a self-proclaimed "anarchist" insisting that he owns the demonstration and can dictate who exercises their right to free speech and assembly in the area around him. Maybe in the future we will have to apply to self-declared "anarchists" for permits to speak our minds, that they can whimsically withhold, or have a huge guy threaten to “pound [our] f—king face[s] in” and spit at us?

RAAN strongmen also did work for cops, except on a larger scale. They actually "declared war" on Leninist parties and physically attacked RCP,USA members.

Here's the "Fuck Lenin (http://www.redanarchist.org/propaganda/flyers/fucklenin.pdf)" flyer where they declare war on Leninism.

[Wanted Man]

Fact: advocating hijacking of an organised demo with your own agenda= scab

Funny, I always thought that crossing a picketline = scab. Maybe we have some radical redefinition here.

[PhoenixAsh]

Do not defend inexcusable actions with other inexcusable actions.

Also do not use a ...."they are doing it too excuse" RAAN is not here doing that...its a member of this forum. Who just exposed she is untrustworthy.

What is your purpose of bringing up RAAN?

[Sam_b]

advocating hijacking of an organised demo with your own agenda= scabIsn't this what anarchists have done on UAF demos?

[PhoenixAsh]

Isn't this was anarchists have done on UAF demos?

And did you hear me defend that? Hmm?

So not a valid argument...do not try to detract from the actual topic.

[caramelpence]

spitting on an annoying person, whilst out of order in most cases, is not equal to cases of domestic abuse

The point isn't that they are the same, it's that wanting the support of the police doesn't automatically make you a "scab". You don't know anything about the person who was spat on, but if I were an inexperienced activist who was suddenly faced with a heavily-built man like the anarchist who was involved in this incident, and that man spat at me, verbally threatened me, and moved towards me without having been provoked, I can see why I might panic and turn to the police if they were nearby.

Instead of making comments about the alleged activities of the SWP, or baseless accusations about people being "scabs", anarchists should condemn what the anarchist did in this incident...quite ironic for a political tradition that has the autonomy of the individual as one of its core components.

[SacRedMan]

RAAN strongmen also did work for cops, except on a larger scale. They actually "declared war" on Leninist parties and physically attacked RCP,USA members.

Here's the "Fuck Lenin (http://www.redanarchist.org/propaganda/flyers/fucklenin.pdf)" flyer where they declare war on Leninism.

:( That's awfull!! Leftists fighting leftists won't get us to a paradise where workers rule :crying:

[Sam_b]

And did you hear me defend that? Hmm?

So, by your argument, your fellow anarchists are also 'scabs', right?

[Thirsty Crow]

Can we get a moderator here to give Hindsight20/20 an infraction for abusive language?
I think it would be more appropriate to get a moderator here to hand you a restriction.

EDIT: just to make something clear. I couldn't care less about sectarian conflicts along the lines anarchist-trotskyist in Great Britain. I neither condone the act itself, nor the provocation which lead to it. But what I most certainly do not condone is you equating a hate crime with this incident, while calling upon cops to arrest whoever is involved.

[Devrim]

Funny, I always thought that crossing a picketline = scab. Maybe we have some radical redefinition here.

Yes, I thought that too. I think the correct word is grass or tout.


The point isn't that they are the same, it's that wanting the support of the police doesn't automatically make you a "scab". You don't know anything about the person who was spat on, but if I were an inexperienced activist who was suddenly faced with a heavily-built man like the anarchist who was involved in this incident, and that man spat at me, verbally threatened me, and moved towards me without having been provoked, I can see why I might panic and turn to the police if they were nearby.

I know that they display a remarkable lack of class instinct.


Like with any organisation in fact. The party recruits a lot of young members, inexperienced comrades and the like; and the party rightfully sees membership of these people as a way of developing the learning process. Perhaps calling the cops is an overreaction,

There is no perhaps about it. Calling the cops is wrong. It is not just though that a young inexperienced member might do something about this. None of the others in the video try to do anything about it like stop him or tell him to shut up.

Devrim

[Ele'ill]

I think it would be more appropriate to get a moderator here to hand you a restriction.

EDIT: just to make something clear. I couldn't care less about sectarian conflicts along the lines anarchist-trotskyist in Great Britain. I neither condone the act itself, nor the provocation which lead to it. But what I most certainly do not condone is you equating a hate crime with this incident, while calling upon cops to arrest whoever is involved.


I don't believe it's restriction worthy but I do think it's a bullshit position to be taking. Cops are not our friends- ever. I also agree that pompous hijacking of demonstrations as well as spitting on people is absurd and a weak approach to getting what's needed and what not.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think it's a pretty pathetic attempt at hijacking a demo, and the SWP people were being intimidating towards the bald man before he spat. That man was being an arse, I don't like spitting on people from SWP, but I agree that he confronted them. He shouldn't have spat but the response from the SWPers is disgusting and disproportionate, they didn't jut say nothing as the police took him, they grassed him up and said he assaulted them and then as he goes away start chanting "who's demo, our demo". Scummy behaviour and not without precedence.

[synthesis]

Yes, I thought that too. I think the correct word is grass or tout.

Across the pond we're partial to the word "snitch."

[Manic Impressive]

For me it's not about him spitting that's nothing, what's much worse is him threatening them with violence. If he felt that he couldn't talk to them without losing his temper and resorting to intimidation he should have asked someone else to go and talk to them instead.
"This Demo is for anarchists we don't want your socialist crap here" :lol: what a fucking wanker prolly anarcho-cappie

[StalinFanboy]

In greece, anarchists and socialists fight with sticks and flares and fists.

[Gorilla]

1:16 "he just assaulted me I want to press charges"
...

But when that guy actually tried to get him arrested somebody should have taken his name and number and have a good hard....especially hard...talking to. Fucking traitor. If that was an SWP member he should be kicked out.

Seriously. I'd expect treasonous shit like this from the ISO, but I thought the SWP was a notch or two above that.

[Kléber]

The guy who got spit on was asking for it, but Shetler made an ass of himself and it looked like most of the spit landed in the eye of some guy in the middle who was saying "no aggression" and trying to calm everybody down.

The worst thing though is a "socialist" trying to use the police to settle a debate with other activists. There is no justification for that. Snitching will always be worse than spitting on somebody. Shetler had already gotten himself booed, the SWPers could have won people over by turning the other cheek. That SWPer spittee might just be a coward and an idiot, or he could well be a cop himself, since he's acting like a total provocateur, deliberately ruining a big protest and turning it into a sectarian spitfest. In any case the SWP is a crap organization that votes for bourgeois candidates and is a disgrace to Trotskyism.

I can't believe someone would call that a "hate crime" though. How ridiculous. Maybe there was an ounce of European chauvinism in Shetler's distate for the (perhaps out-of-place) SWP slogans about Libya. But the only "crime" here was between these two people and it was obviously very personal and spontaneous in nature. Most importantly, there is no systemic oppression involved here, anarchists don't oppress the UK SWP. Spitter and spittee were behaving as assholes, not bigots.

[Ocean Seal]

Spit on more Trots.
Ok people two wrong things happened at this demo.
An anarchist spit on a Trotyskyist. A Trotskyist tattled on him to the police.
Anarchists stop defending the dick who spit on his comrade and Trotskyists stop defending the dick who went to the police. If this situation was the other way around know that you each would be defending the other side or attempting damage control both actions are sectarian and condemnable. The Trotskyist has every right to protest all sorts of issues there and spitting on him was childish, reactionary, and will lead to a further divided left. At the same time while what the anarchist did was stupid going to the police at a demo is not a good idea and the situation did not mandate this.

[PhoenixAsh]

No. I would never defend anybody who turned another rev in to the police...no fucking matter what their colours are...I'd kick their ass.

There is a distinct difference in quality between the two offenses...and I also rejected the spitting. Had the trostkists spit back even punched or whatever I would have just shrugged it off and thought it in kind....you do not snitch however.

BUT even that is not the main point...the main point for my anger is a member actually advocating and defending the behaviour on a revolutionary forum.

...so what? Now we tolerate the position that its ok to snitch on commrades when you have problems with their opinions and behaviour to the authorities...doing their work for them??? Turning in revolutionaries because they disagree with you??? We restrict people for less....

[GallowsBird]

Here's the "Fuck Lenin (http://www.redanarchist.org/propaganda/flyers/fucklenin.pdf)" flyer where they declare war on Leninism.

That is a pretty disgraceful flyer. I thought it was us "Stalinists" that were supposed to be violent, sectarian bullies, but yet I haven't met any Marxist-Leninist who would do any of the things advocated in that leaflet; I know I wouldn't. If any other group's members "hunt" any of my comrades at conferences, burn their newspapers or beat them I'd purge them "Stalin style" just as I would any of the usual Neo-Nazis encountered. :sneaky:
Sorry for being off-topic a bit but that leaflet angers and saddens me.:cursing::(

[bailey_187]

Even if u put politics aside, charging someone with assault just because they spat at u isnt right. Juts shows what kind of people some of the left are, if (disregarding politics) its instinct to run to police for such a minor thing.

Its just a given that if u are in a relativly minor confrontation with someone, and the police come, u both step off. Its been that way since fights in school with teachers being the police. But then again then pricks were probably losers who kept their heads down lol

Behind TC's thin layer of left wing politics it seems there is a major authortarian streak tbh. Constantly calling for people to be infracted, defending running to the police etc

[Wanted Man]

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDuJcf9tNCY&feature=related

"We need unity! We need unity!"

"Whose demo? Our demo!"

:lol: I want to live in Britain and be part of the British left too. What a bunch of little shits!

[Red Future]

I refuse to take sides here but as an ML and once a trotskyite I don't like the idea of arresting an Anarchist by calling the police for a minor issue.

There should be solidarity not sectarianism on marches

[GallowsBird]

No. I would never defend anybody who turned another rev in to the police...no fucking matter what their colours are...I'd kick their ass.

I would do the same. It may seem more brutal and cavemanish but it is less complicated and in the long run will cause less damage to the movement.


There is a distinct difference in quality between the two offenses...and I also rejected the spitting. Had the trostkists spit back even punched or whatever I would have just shrugged it off and thought it in kind....you do not snitch however.

I wouldn't. Or at least I don't think I would, and I hope I wouldn't. You don't really know 100% until the event happens of course.


BUT even that is not the main point...the main point for my anger is a member actually advocating and defending the behaviour on a revolutionary forum.

...so what? Now we tolerate the position that its ok to snitch on commrades when you have problems with their opinions and behaviour to the authorities...doing their work for them??? Turning in revolutionaries because they disagree with you??? We restrict people for less....

I mostly agree here. As much as I am not a big fan of Anarchism and Trotskyism as a whole *though I like individuals who follow those paths* I wouldn't turn them in to the real enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, is an old and oversimplified adage but in many cases it can apply.

I am not sure however when it comes to whether a sub-movement or its members are endangering the revolutionary movement as a whole, but then I'd try to find a different way of combating the problem (but not in the ways RAAN have in mind it seems*).





* Though I would happily use such actions as a countermeasure against any group that did that to revolutionary groups as I find that highly counter-revolutionary.

[The Idler]

A hate crime, lol, what is the SWP, some sort of race, religion or sexual orientation? Apartheid too? The irony in the video when it was up, that the same people who wanted to press charges were the ones chanting "we need unity" a few seconds earlier.
How can anarchist organisations hijack UAF demos when UAF invite any organisation to take part? Bit different from inviting anyone in a individual capacity but not other organisations. Shetler should probably have said you're welcome to stay but put the megaphone and placards away.

[Aurora]

That's disgraceful, obviously the guy shouldn't have spat on him but to say he assaulted him and ask to press charges is unacceptable behaviour from a socialist. What concerns me more than the mistake of one SWPer is that those who were with him didn't step in and explain to him that you don't use the bourgeois state to settle personal or political differences.
Hate crime? lol, perhaps more like a momentary lapse in judgement.

[Dunk]

I'm assuming a stupid person incited another stupid person and that stupid person had a callous and unthinking reaction to this stupidity, and the victim of his callous reaction had one of his own callous reactions by calling upon a stupid pig, to which we are now stupidly arguing over who are the real reactionary-counterrevolutionary-class-traitor-hate-criminal-agents of the bourgeoisie.

All I see in this thread is another victory for the bourgeoisie. Which is stupid. Surprise!

[RedAnarchist]

I'll summarise what I think.

Don't spit at other people.
Don't go running to the cops over minor issues that can be sorted out without them.
Don't make over the top comparisons. Being spat at is not the same as being treated like a second class citizen for being black.

[bcbm]

why is this in discrimination?

[RedAnarchist]

why is this in discrimination?

It seems that the OP posted it here for some reason.

Moved to Politics.

[bailey_187]

why is this in discrimination?

are u denying anarchist privilege still exists?

[Q]

You can click the link through to youtube. You can view it there. Otherwise search for: kiss anarchist swp, on there

Neither works.

[Obs]

I agree with this. This treatment of SWP members by the anarchists is essentially akin to the treatment of blacks under apartheid. Would you people tolerate apartheid, or would you report it to the police? Exactly.
To everyone knee-jerking at this post: I can pretty much guarantee you it's a joke.

Also, isn't this the first tendency war we've had in months that hasn't been "stalinists" vs. everyone else?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Note: In order to be a traitor to the working class you'd have to belong to it to begin with.

[Wanted Man]

Q: the link below works.


Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDuJcf9tNCY&feature=related


From: http://whatismatt.com/a-kiss-is-just-a-kiss-say-londons-proud/

Obs: yeah, it's been a while. The whole preoccupation with the evils of "Leninists" has kind of died out for obvious reasons.

[Martin Blank]

Yeah, this help remind me, not to spit on the sparts, because they might called the police on us.

The Sparts wouldn't call the cops. They're too principled for that. And they won't do it back, for the same reasons. Rather, you will be featured in a two-page feature in Workers Vanguard as a "gangster".

[Kléber]

why is this in discrimination?
Probably b/c the event where it happened was a "Kiss-In" protest against some homophobic pub that kicked out LGBT patrons.


The Sparts wouldn't call the cops. They're too principled for that.
More like they actually are cops but their purpose is to troll us rather than arrest and kill us.

[RedAnarchist]

Probably b/c the event where it happened was a "Kiss-In" protest against some homophobic pub that kicked out LGBT patrons.

Should I move it back then? I know of the event that this took place at, but this incident itself isn't about an act of discrimination - rather, it occurred at a protest against an act of homophobia.

[Kléber]

No, I think that moving this thread to Politics was a good decision, for the reason you gave.

[Anarchrusty]

Wait a minute here. Everybody here seems to conveniently forget that this demo was about a gay couple having been evicted from a pub for kissing. Okay? What happened next was that Mr. Shetler organised this meeting over FB to express his disgust at it.
Shetler is both gay and an anarchist. He was the mastermind behind the protest. Suddenly SWP turns up. Does Shetler have a right to kick them out? Well, would any of you agree if Paul kicked off EDL members? Guess not and he has reason to.

So, secondly. SWP were not turned away for being Trots, that had nothing to do with it. Nope. They were chanting unrelated crap and Paul Shetler wished to keep it within the subject, so he asked them several times to stop. They did not do that, so in effect tried hijacking the protest. When Shetler finally was livid enough to tell them to fuck off, they started to harras him (as seen in the vid).

If I was him, I wouldn't have shown that much restraint. I would have punched the scrawny fucker in the face with a wellplaced jab.
The British Trots really have to learn sometime not everything is about them. And calling for a cop? Bwahaha, he should be fucking expelled from the left forever.

[Tim Finnegan]

If the anarchists there go as hard as the anarchists in Greece, hopefully that guy can expect to actually get assaulted in the near future.
Your reasonable and level-headed olive branch is sure to be well received, serving, as it does, as a beacon of enlightenment for other far-left activists. Barely at all did I roll my eyes and mutter something obscene about adolescent internet machismo, so moved was I by your words.

[The Idler]

EDL actually have a LGBT division so its not that implausible. Shetler has every right to invite individuals not other organisations.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Sparts wouldn't call the cops. They're too principled for that. And they won't do it back, for the same reasons. Rather, you will be featured in a two-page feature in Workers Vanguard as a "gangster".

Or: Condemn DSP Thug Attack on Spartacist Woman at Union Rally (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/876/dspthug.html)

[caramelpence]

Putting the spitting and subsequent SWP reaction aside for one moment, what I also can't understand is why people (e.g. Anarchrusty) are criticizing the SWP members for "chanting unrelated crap". The assumption seems to be that if a protest is called in opposition to a particular event or around a more or less contained issue then the participants should orientate themselves only towards that event and the issue that it's bound up with. But surely as socialists a crucial part of our activity has to be about breaking down the illusory divisions between different "issues" (which parallel the forced division between economic and political spheres) and showing how different forms of oppression relate to and support one another? Why should a socialist be criticized for introducing new analysis and a broader perspective into a context where everyone is likely to be opposed to homophobia anyway? On a picket line it's not uncommon for socialists to raise issues of racism (for example) in addition to engaging with the immediate economic dispute at hand so why should this be any different for a protest against homophobia?

Some call it "hijacking a protest", and there are legitimate arguments to be made about how the SWP members did try agitate around Libya, but it's wrong to call for protests to be limited within narrow issue-based boundaries.


Does Shetler have a right to kick them out?

What kind of a revolutionary talks about the "right" of anyone to control the content of a political space? Would you say that the trade union bureaucrats had a "right" to stop revolutionaries from challenging their role in the labour movement because they were largely responsible for organizing and supporting the March 26th demo?


Well, would any of you agree if Paul kicked off EDL members? Guess not and he has reason to

I'm not sure that it would be right for socialists to support forcibly ejecting EDL members from a demonstration, but even if that would be the right tactic to apply, it wouldn't be right because Paul or anyone else has a "right" to determine who should be allowed to participate in a demonstration or not - it would be right as an application of a no-platform stance.


Paul Shetler wished to keep it within the subject, so he asked them several times to stop. They did not do that, so in effect tried hijacking the protest. When Shetler finally was livid enough to tell them to fuck off, they started to harras him (as seen in the vid).

Do you have any idea what you sound like? Why should socialists respect the demands of some puffed-up organizer to not raise demands and issues that the organizer would rather not see raised? This sounds exactly like the trade union bureaucrats who object to revolutionaries criticizing Labour - would you follow them as well and drop all agitation outside of what they think is legitimate and appropriate?

[Martin Blank]

More like they actually are cops but their purpose is to troll us rather than arrest and kill us.

Provide proof of your allegation or keep your mouth shut. Bad Jacketing like that is more likely to make me think that you're the cop-troll.


Or: Condemn DSP Thug Attack on Spartacist Woman at Union Rally (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/876/dspthug.html)

Yeah. Something like that.

[Lord Testicles]

Snitches should get stitches.

[Gorilla]

Or: Condemn DSP Thug Attack on Spartacist Woman at Union Rally (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/876/dspthug.html)

I get off to no end on how the Sparts use imperative sentences for like all of their article titles but this one had a special extra treat in that:


Our comrade had offered the DSP supporter a copy of Australasian Spartacist, which was headlined “Australian/UN Imperialist Troops/Cops Out of East Timor and Solomons Now!”

They actually try to sell a paper called Australasian Spartacist. That is amazing.

[Martin Blank]

They actually try to sell a paper called Australasian Spartacist. That is amazing.

It's what they do. The publications of their smaller groups all have "Spartacist" in the name (e.g., Spartacist Canada, Espartaco, etc.). Eventually, when a group gets big enough, the publication gets its own name: Workers Vanguard, Workers Hammer, Le Bolchevik.

[caramelpence]

They actually try to sell a paper called Australasian Spartacist. That is amazing.

What is so amazing about this? How is it any less or more weird than other left-wing paper titles, like Socialist Worker? Or Black Dwarf? Or Red Mole? Maybe you and others need to stop treating the Sparts like a cult or a bunch of loons based on some gossip you've been told and engage with them politically. I'd rather be a Spartacist than a Stalinist, that's for sure, both in terms of interpersonal behaviour and political analysis.

[Gorilla]

What is so amazing about this? How is it any less or more weird than other left-wing paper titles, like Socialist Worker? Or Black Dwarf? Or Red Mole?

Because of the word Australasian. It's an academic-geographical word that no one would use in situations like the following:

"I'm going to Australasia today."

"Oh, my new boyfriend? He's Australasian."

It just sounds off-kilter to the ear, as a lot of Spart rhetoric does. Deal with it. And yes, that is merely a sub-case of all left rhetoric being insular and idiosyncratic


Maybe you and others need to stop treating the Sparts like a cult or a bunch of loons based on some gossip you've been told and engage with them politically. I'd rather be a Spartacist than a Stalinist, that's for sure, both in terms of interpersonal behaviour and political analysis.

Despite the above I agree with you that the quality of Spart analysis is pretty high. In addition I can think of other groups like PLP and CPGB-ML whose newspapers also have easily-parodied house styles. But not every thread has to become a Stalinist vs. Anarcho-Trot hootenanny.

[caramelpence]

Because of the word Australasian. It's not an academic-geographical word that no one would use in situations like the following

Yeah, you're right, I wouldn't ever refer to my boyfriend being "Australasian", but I don't see why this is relevant for the name of a left-wing paper, or why, even if you find the word "Australasia" generally "off-kilter", this is worthy of note when it comes to the ICL-FI. However, this doesn't seem like a fruitful discussion for me, I just object to the constant slander and mockery that's directed against Spartacist groups.

[bcbm]

Maybe you and others need to stop treating the Sparts like a cult or a bunch of loons based on some gossip you've been told and engage with them politically.

i have engaged sparts. they are a bunch of loons and possibly a cult.

[black magick hustla]

defend the deformed workers state right to nuclear weapons

[La Comédie Noire]

The video's actually really funny because it deflates the whole aura of seriousness some leftists have around them. The high point of the video is when the cop just walks calmly into the middle of the 'titanic struggle" and asks the man to come with him. He looks positively bored.

[nuisance]

Why has this had some much traffic? Is anyone actually that surprised by the Trots actions?

[gorillafuck]

I'd like to arrest all of the SWP and all of the anarchists for both thinking that the other victimizes them.

I wouldn't have called cops to arrest someone for spitting at me but I'd knock the fucker down. And if any self parody anarchist considers that "macho" then lol.

but calling the police is shameful.

[Ravachol]

Sparts are even weirder than Anti-Deutschen and they have these kind of banners

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Antigerman1.jpg

Solidaritat mit Israel! Fur den Kommunismus! :D

At least the Anti-D aren't as creepy-cultish as the Sparts are.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What is so amazing about this? How is it any less or more weird than other left-wing paper titles, like Socialist Worker? Or Black Dwarf? Or Red Mole? Maybe you and others need to stop treating the Sparts like a cult or a bunch of loons based on some gossip you've been told and engage with them politically. I'd rather be a Spartacist than a Stalinist, that's for sure, both in terms of interpersonal behaviour and political analysis.

The problem is that the Sparts are not interested in engaging anyone politically. Their "principled stand" consists in condemning and heckling all other socialist organisations, anyone who is not them.Everyone else are "pseudo-socialists" or "class collaborators".

I have subscribed to Worker's Vanguard several times and at one time I was actually a Spart sympathiser, before I knew much about politics. Their history articles are interesting, otherwise they are about on the same political level as Dinosaur Planet.
They are not so much Trotskyists as Weisbordists or rather Pabloite -Weisbordists.They take the deformed worker's state idea so far I'm surprised their not contemplating deep entryism "sui generis" into the Korean Worker's Party.

Kleber meant his remark as a joke, no one accuses them of snitching but , while they're good for a few laughs, the trolls of Trotskyism, they have no relevance. I do give them credit for providing some badly needed laughs at meetings and conventions.

"This is a bourgeois convention", he yelled as they dragged him out of the hall....

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes....no surprise that our resident prosecutor would advocate turning fellow left wing activists who are already prosecuted for their politics in to the burgeoisie police. Very helpful of you to actually colaborate with the system. You just really unmasked yourself as a class traitor!

The Communist Party of Greece does similar things to "anarchist" hooligans trying to disrupt its political actions.

[Thirsty Crow]

The Communist Party of Greece does similar things to "anarchist" hooligans trying to disrupt its political actions.
No wonder there.
(interpretative hint: the sting extends to both sides)

[Niccolò Rossi]

i have engaged sparts. they are a bunch of loons and possibly a cult.

The Sydney Sparts aren't too bad I always thought. Some of them are a bit odd, but really they just strike me as very insular. They really aren't bad folks. To be honest, alot of the Cliffite and DSP people I've met shit me more. So yeah, I never really got the hating on the Sparts.

Nic.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Oh, and so I'm not just gossiping, yeah, anyone who is seriously defending calling the cops on this guy can get fucked.

Nic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, on the other hand the "anarchist" merely spat at the SWP activist and didn't try to heckle the SWP activity.

[Martin Blank]

It is one thing for that anarchist who organized the kiss-in to act like a common thug and spit on a political opponent. It is another thing entirely for a member of the SWP to appeal to the cops to arrest the anarchist because he was acting like a common thug. Both acted like unprincipled little shits, but what the SWPer did was fundamentally worse.

Every time I read a thread like this, I wonder if the European left has any sense of principle at all. The British call the cops on each other; the Greeks and Turks use weapons to settle political differences; groups all across Europe are willing to let organizations not of their specific doctrine or tendency stand alone when they're facing state repression.

American leftists can be accused of many things, but we don't make a habit out of physically assaulting each other and we seem to have a better understanding of the principle that "an injury to one is an injury to all".

[Lord Testicles]

The British call the cops on each other

Hey, don't tar us all with the same brush, the only people I am aware of that make a habit of co-operating with the police on the British left are the scumfucks at the SWP.

[Crux]

Did they call the cops or did the police step in? Which is significantly different. There seems to be some ambiguity on that part and also, i think, on the question of how they hijacked the manifestation. The blog linked claimed they used their megaphones for anti-homophibia chants and, supposedly, something about Libya. Can anyone confirm that last part?

[Lord Testicles]

Did they call the cops or did the police step in?

I think the filth step in, but then the spineless little shit starts yelping, "he just assaulted me!" and "I'd like to press charges."
EDuJcf9tNCY

[Tim Finnegan]

Hey, don't tar us all with the same brush, the only people I am aware of that make a habit of co-operating with the police on the British left are the scumfucks at the SWP.

I think the filth step in, but then the spineless little shit starts yelping, "he just assaulted me!" and "I'd like to press charges."
It seems like that you're indulging in a certain conflation here.

[Lord Testicles]

It seems like that you're indulging in a certain conflation here.

Not at all.

[Tim Finnegan]

Not at all.
Would you care to elaborate? It doesn't that you're going on much, at this point, beyond the actions of one hysterical Trot, which is hardly the institutionalised state-collaborationism you seem to describe..

[Die Rote Fahne]

This is just sad.

[Lord Testicles]

Would you care to elaborate? It doesn't that you're going on much, at this point, beyond the actions of one hysterical Trot, which is hardly the institutionalised state-collaborationism you seem to describe..

http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/state/146-unite-against-fascism-uaf-stewards-collaborate-with-police-on-anti-edl-mobilisation.html

I was present at the above event and saw what happened. Sure, it's just one more incident, so I guess that makes two recorded incidents, but I've also heard from SWP members themselves who have said that they have witnessed similar things happen at other demonstrations. Just anecdotal evidence you understand but I don't think people make or take such accusations lightly, especially about their own organisation.

[Tim Finnegan]

http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/state/146-unite-against-fascism-uaf-stewards-collaborate-with-police-on-anti-edl-mobilisation.html

I was present at the above event and saw what happened.
Perhaps you could flesh out the details? The link spends more time on sectarian hysteria than actual explanation.


Sure, it's just one more incident, so I guess that makes two recorded incidents, but I've also heard from SWP members themselves who have said that they have witnessed similar things happen at other demonstrations. Just anecdotal evidence you understand but I don't think people make or take such accusations lightly, especially about their own organisation.Fair point, but without a sufficient body of fleshed out evidence and an argument which establishes these as expressions of institutionalised practices rather than just a recurring pattern of individual behaviour (which, while worthy of note, is a different issue), you can't really go around making quite the accusations of consistent collaborationism that you've made. Even in the linked example, all you've established is that UAF collaborate with the police to some extent, which isn't exactly unusual behaviour for a broad-base anti-fascist front, nor necessarily damning of the SWP in particular.

[gorillafuck]

Hey, don't tar us all with the same brush, the only people I am aware of that make a habit of co-operating with the police on the British left are the scumfucks at the SWP.Is it a habit?

Also I hope that anarchists don't think it's alright to spit at swpers. It would have been fucking great if that guy who organized the demo was dropped immediately after spitting (and it'd make for a better video).

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is one thing for that anarchist who organized the kiss-in to act like a common thug and spit on a political opponent. It is another thing entirely for a member of the SWP to appeal to the cops to arrest the anarchist because he was acting like a common thug. Both acted like unprincipled little shits, but what the SWPer did was fundamentally worse.

Every time I read a thread like this, I wonder if the European left has any sense of principle at all. The British call the cops on each other; the Greeks and Turks use weapons to settle political differences; groups all across Europe are willing to let organizations not of their specific doctrine or tendency stand alone when they're facing state repression.

I'm not a supporter of "diversity of tactics." It's not united action.

The only reason why there could be a case made against the SWPer relative to the spitter is that the latter only spat. The SWPer should have spat back. Turning the other cheek on political questions indicates weakness.

I recall my little debate with Devrim well about the KKE, but I'm not willing to give cover for anyone to sabotage legal action or to disrupt one form of civil disobedience with similar sabotage or to disrupt more militant class action with other illegal action that threatens the first action.

[Ele'ill]

Is it a habit?

Also I hope that anarchists don't think it's alright to spit at swpers. It would have been fucking great if that guy who organized the demo was dropped immediately after spitting (and it'd make for a better video).

I don't think that would have been better.


I think that both these people don't take themselves seriously. That's a huge problem.

[bcbm]

I think that both these people don't take themselves seriously. That's a huge problem.

why on both?

[Ele'ill]

why on both?

I think both acts stemmed from a lack of personal confidence. When you take yourself seriously you always have permission to walk away because you know why you're there and what you're doing.

[Lord Testicles]

Perhaps you could flesh out the details? The link spends more time on sectarian hysteria than actual explanation.


A guy comes to join the protest, he gets to a barrier, the UAF stewards hold him there and call the police over to take him away.


Fair point, but without a sufficient body of fleshed out evidence and an argument which establishes these as expressions of institutionalised practices rather than just a recurring pattern of individual behaviour (which, while worthy of note, is a different issue), you can't really go around making quite the accusations of consistent collaborationism that you've made. Even in the linked example, all you've established is that UAF collaborate with the police to some extent, which isn't exactly unusual behaviour for a broad-base anti-fascist front, nor necessarily damning of the SWP in particular.


I don't think it's party policy or anything, I just think there are a lot of dicks in the SWP, can't fathom a reason why though.

[PhoenixAsh]

If members of a rev. political party/group think its ok to collaborate w.t. police or authorities its the duty of the party/ group and its members to correct the behaviour. If the behaviour reoccurs often the party/group should adopt official policy on the behaviour.

I have done vey little group activism in England...so I am not really aware of the political reality with activism there but I would never act together with a group which does not take a dim view on this and strongly corrects its members on this....no matter what their orientation.

In our network this at the very least would warrant immediate expulsion and getting cut off. Most if not all of the nw know vey well what they are involved in and what is at stake...so the idea would not even occur...(to be fair: nor would this nw be involved in these kind of actions as a group).



Now...as I said before in my first post...the actions of the SWP were rl trolling. The guy was righ to ask them to stop. From the video its clear as far as I can remember he already asked them to do so before they started filming.

How he asked them is not my style...and IMO counter productive. When he started spitting that was over the top and uncalled for.

Had the event stayed with that; this would merely be a debate about asshole behaviour by both sides. And being stupid enough to give the police reason enough to arrest or detain you for really...nothing constructive at all.

The event however did NOT stay at this and some ahole was very eager to settle a personal score by offering assistance to the burgeoisie repressive arm to get a revolutionary into more trouble.

That warrants denouncement of such acts, it warrants action by his party to correct the behaviour and it can not be defended at all.

[Martin Blank]

I'm not a supporter of "diversity of tactics." It's not united action.

It's not a matter of "diversity of tactics" or "united action"; it's a matter of understanding that an assault by the bourgeois state on one of us is something that can (and sometimes does) happen to any of us.

[ZeroNowhere]

The only reason why there could be a case made against the SWPer relative to the spitter is that the latter only spat. The SWPer should have spat back. Turning the other cheek on political questions indicates weakness.
It is not clear what 'turning the other cheek on political questions' has to do with reciprocal spitting.

Perhaps the original ending of Dr. Strangelove was actually a display of political struggle.

[Queercommie Girl]

Spit on more Trots.

More sectarian BS, and people wonder why the left is in such a pathetic and sad state in general these days?

So the actions of ONE Trotskyist means ALL Trotskyists must be spat on? Are you fucking out of your mind?

Hey, guess what, since a few anarchists are queerphobic as well, maybe I should label all anarchists as queerphobic?

As for the OP, normally I would strongly condemn offensive acts such as spitting on people, but in this instance since the anarchist guy is queer and was leading an anti-queerphobia demonstration, I won't criticise him. (Yes, I'm biased like that literally)

I don't think the police force is utterly reactionary as a whole though. Just a general point. (Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with calling the police in this particular instance) I think the rank-and-file of the police force can potentially be won over to the side of the revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

Every time I read a thread like this, I wonder if the European left has any sense of principle at all. The British call the cops on each other; the Greeks and Turks use weapons to settle political differences; groups all across Europe are willing to let organizations not of their specific doctrine or tendency stand alone when they're facing state repression.


Well, this is what happens when macho sectarian egoism and petit-bourgeois tribal logic dominates over political integrity, unity and self-sacrifice.

It's all about "me! me! me!" "I'm always right!"

In Buddhism, there is a saying that describes those with extreme egos: "Of all the realms above in heaven and below on earth, only I deserve to be vernerated." In Chinese socialist parlance, this saying is borrowed to label those ultra-egoistic revolutionaries: "Among all the realms above in heaven and below on earth, only I can lead a genuine revolution."

This is partly why many people believe the next serious wave of revolutions will begin in the neo-colonial world, or the BRIC countries, but not in the advanced capitalist states of Europe and America.

[Devrim]

Every time I read a thread like this, I wonder if the European left has any sense of principle at all. The British call the cops on each other; the Greeks and Turks use weapons to settle political differences; groups all across Europe are willing to let organizations not of their specific doctrine or tendency stand alone when they're facing state repression.

American leftists can be accused of many things, but we don't make a habit out of physically assaulting each other and we seem to have a better understanding of the principle that "an injury to one is an injury to all".

Perhaps the frequency which we hear about this things bears some relationship to numbers. I do remember hearing things about anarchists rowing with Maoists in San Francisco though.

Devrim

[Queercommie Girl]

If the anarchists there go as hard as the anarchists in Greece, hopefully that guy can expect to actually get assaulted in the near future.



So anarchist political power is achieved through brute physical violence and terror? It's "each according to his violent power", rather than "each according to his labour"?

And what of those people who are relatively weak and cannot fight for themselves? Oh well, then they must not deserve any right! Hard luck! Human rights are only for those who are strong enough to fight for them!

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's not a matter of "diversity of tactics" or "united action"; it's a matter of understanding that an assault by the bourgeois state on one of us is something that can (and sometimes does) happen to any of us.

I do suppose the SWP as a whole should take more measures to keep "anarchist" hooligans out of their planned political actions. That would be a sign of maturity and not amateurism.

[IndependentCitizen]

They have also tried to legitimate the royal wedding by saying that it isn't the Royals fault they're pary of the monarchy....boo fucking hoo.

Could be something to do with the royalty in the Central committee.

Spitting in someone's face is majorly offensive, but to call on the state's tools that we oppose to oppress? Seriously, dumb fucking move.

[Ravachol]

I do suppose the SWP as a whole should take more measures to keep "anarchist" hooligans out of their planned political actions. That would be a sign of maturity and not amateurism.

What do you propose, keeping all 'anarchist hooligans' out of their 'political actions' through the use of some security force :rolleyes: You're a joke.

[PhoenixAsh]

Isn't this what anarchists have done on UAF demos?


So, by your argument, your fellow anarchists are also 'scabs', right?


I already indicated I did not defend that in this thread. I also am not aware of the specific incident you are refering to...having no ties with anybody who did or having little experience with group activism in England.

So provide a link to the specific situation and I will comment.

[IndependentCitizen]

Isn't this what anarchists have done on UAF demos?

Possibly to try and make it more militant to actually stop the fascists, and not stand by shouting nazi scum at them all day.

[Lord Testicles]

Possibly to try and make it more militant to actually stop the fascists, and not stand by shouting nazi scum at them all day.

Hey, the UAF does a lot more than that, like give platforms to politicians from the three main political parties.

[IndependentCitizen]

Hey, the UAF does a lot more than that, like give platforms to politicians from the three main political parties.

Sorry, bro. Forgot to add the lack of class analysis.

[Manic Impressive]

Spitting in someone's face is majorly offensive, but to call on the state's tools that we oppose to oppress? Seriously, dumb fucking move.
I don't know why everyone is focused on the spitting threatening the guy with physical violence is much worse in my opinion. And lets not blow it out of proportion the police literally had his hand on Shelters shoulder when the weedy trot said "he assaulted me" that was a stupid thing to do but it was done out of spite because he felt threatened and that seemed like his only way of defending himself.

[Means to a end]

'Whose demo, our demo' chanted at the end.

Is that all the SWP are good for these days.

Whose 'insert term here, demo, streets, riot, protest etc etc' Our 'insert term here, demo, streets, riot, protest etc etc'.

They are like Ambulance chasers and attention seekers, ok go to the protest and respect it for what it is, but then putting your own agenda forward which has nothing to do with the orginal event whatsoever will get us nowhere.

[Martin Blank]

Perhaps the frequency which we hear about this things bears some relationship to numbers. I do remember hearing things about anarchists rowing with Maoists in San Francisco though.

There have been incidents in the past, that certainly is true. The difference I see, though, is that when such an incident happens here, most of the left is able to join together in condemnation of such acts.

[Queercommie Girl]

Spitting in someone's face is majorly offensive, but to call on the state's tools that we oppose to oppress? Seriously, dumb fucking move.


The institution of the police force in a capitalist state is reactionary, but rank-and-file police cannot be completely written off. Even the CWI has worked together with the National Union of Policemen in the UK before.

The same would generally apply to the armed forces.

And I agree with TC that not all of the police force's tasks in society are reactionary, for example dealing with genuine criminals, preventing hate crime etc.

I don't think calling the police in this particular instance is warranted, since spitting on someone is not a discriminatory hate crime. But personally I certainly will not rule out calling on the police to deal with actual discriminatory hate crimes by a supposed "leftist", e.g. racism/sexism/queerphobia.

If an anarchist or any other "leftist" actually assaults me for being queer for instance, I will call the police if the situation requires it. In this case there would be nothing wrong with it since a queerphobic "socialist" isn't a genuine socialist anyway.

[flobdob]

The institution of the police force in a capitalist state is reactionary, but rank-and-file police cannot be completely written off. Even the CWI has worked together with the National Union of Policemen in the UK before.


That's not something to be proud about on their behalf.

As much as I ain't no Trotskyist, he hit the nail on the head:



‘The fact that the police was originally recruited in large numbers from among Social Democratic workers is absolutely meaningless. Consciousness is determined by environment even in this instance. The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the capitalist state is a bourgeois cop, not a worker.’

[Tim Finnegan]

Possibly to try and make it more militant to actually stop the fascists, and not stand by shouting nazi scum at them all day.
I'm honestly not quite sure what this means, in real terms.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's not something to be proud about on their behalf.

As much as I ain't no Trotskyist, he hit the nail on the head:

Poor rank-and-file police officers generally have no real sense of "loyalty" to the bourgeois state. They join the police force to put food on the table.

Empirically it has been shown repeatedly that some of the rank-and-file police can be turned over to the revolutionary side in a revolutionary situation. Even the recent revolutions in the Middle East have demonstrated this to some extent.

[IndependentCitizen]

The institution of the police force in a capitalist state is reactionary, but rank-and-file police cannot be completely written off. Even the CWI has worked together with the National Union of Policemen in the UK before.

The same would generally apply to the armed forces.

I don't represent the CWI entirely, now do I? It amazes me how people on this board instantly point to an organisation you're a member of and automatically slap you in the face with that they do, as if I'm a blind sheep. Maybe for some, but I like to have my own thoughts and opinions. For instance, this - calling the cops because someone spat in my face due to the fact I was pissing them off? Oh god no. I'd collaborate with the police if a serious crime was committed.

There's also no such thing as a national union of policemen. There's associations, but no union. So please, in future. Don't make up a name.

And I agree with TC that not all of the police force's tasks in society are reactionary, for example dealing with genuine criminals, preventing hate crime etc.

This isn't a case of hate crime. It was people getting in the way of a protest, and being asked to stop chanting. That request should have been respected. I'm not gonna turn up at your birthday party, and turn the attention onto me.

I don't think calling the police in this particular instance is warranted, since spitting on someone is not a discriminatory hate crime. But personally I certainly will not rule out calling on the police to deal with actual discriminatory hate crimes by a supposed "leftist", e.g. racism/sexism/queerphobia. If an anarchist or any other "leftist" actually assaults me for being queer for instance, I will call the police if the situation requires it. In this case there would be nothing wrong with it since a queerphobic "socialist" isn't a genuine socialist anyway.
Yes, and? As would anyone else who isn't an Anarchist, surely?

[IndependentCitizen]

I'm honestly not quite sure what this means, in real terms.

Possibly by stopping them march, if that's what I've not made clear. Been a long day, with 4 essays regrettably left till the last minute to do. I'm shattered.

[Aesop]

The institution of the police force in a capitalist state is reactionary, but rank-and-file police cannot be completely written off. Even the CWI has worked together with the National Union of Policemen in the UK before.

There is a substantial difference between a group of people actively seeking to another leftist arrested for an incident who could have been resolved without state forces(while being part of a revolutionary organisation yourself), and seeking to cause a ideological split between the rank and file and the main proponents and representatives of the police institution.

[Tim Finnegan]

Possibly by stopping them march, if that's what I've not made clear. Been a long day, with 4 essays regrettably left till the last minute to do. I'm shattered.
Heh, fair dos. I suppose I'm just a bit wary of some of the banter that gets thrown around in anti-fascist contexts- a lot of it feels like borrowed '30s rhetoric, rather than a contemporary plan of action.

[The Man]

This kind of Bullshit is the reason why all of the leftists are sitting, and debating Dialectics all day, and not living in a Communist World. We need to stop sectarianism..

[Die Neue Zeit]

Could be something to do with the royalty in the Central committee.

Which royalty??? :ohmy:

[Die Neue Zeit]

What do you propose, keeping all 'anarchist hooligans' out of their 'political actions' through the use of some security force :rolleyes: You're a joke.

There's a reason why no self-proclaimed Greek "anarchist" (and by this I don't mean anarcho-syndicalists) mingles with the KKE crowd.

[Gorilla]

Which royalty??? :ohmy:

Callinicos. His maternal grandfather was the 2nd Lord Acton.

[Niccolò Rossi]

This kind of Bullshit is the reason why all of the leftists are sitting, and debating Dialectics all day, and not living in a Communist World. We need to stop sectarianism..

Wah wah wah

Nic.

[Qayin]

This really shows you what side there on when they call the pigs for help

[flobdob]

Poor rank-and-file police officers generally have no real sense of "loyalty" to the bourgeois state. They join the police force to put food on the table.

Empirically it has been shown repeatedly that some of the rank-and-file police can be turned over to the revolutionary side in a revolutionary situation. Even the recent revolutions in the Middle East have demonstrated this to some extent.

This is abstract babble. I am quite sure that there may be a handful of charming, delightful people in the police. This is, however, utterly irrelevant.

Talking of "poor rank and file police" is equally ridiculous. In the UK the starting salary for a Police Constable is £23,259; within two years it increases to £27,471. This is before we consider rank rises etc; a sergeant gets £36,519 starting salary, and so on. The median salary in the UK is £23,244; this is of course distorted by class, with the relatively fewer high income people "pushing up" the average (when we consider that the top 10% has an income equivalent to 100x that of the bottom 10%, it becomes clear what I mean). But this is only in term of salaries; the police also get privileged working conditions, pension plans, holidays and sick care etc. In Britain, the "poor rank and file policeman" is a myth.

Even if we eschew this, it is almost impossible to continue to uphold the idea that cops might have some class consciousness from being drawn from the working class (based on the assumption that they are - when in fact the majority are from a more privileged background anyway). It's hard to have a working class consciousness when your role in society is to prevent the working class from actually doing anything.

If you want to talk about what the police do in a situation of class struggle, you look at the facts. This is quite different to the image you portray. In Wisconsin the cops lasted barely a few hours before they were called in to drag out protestors from the state capitol. Just in the last couple of months in the UK we've seen the cops kettle and beat anti-cuts demonstrators (http://revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/britain/2060-political-policing-frfi-219-febmar-2011), subject anti-cuts groups in Newcastle (http://defencecampaign.wordpress.com/) and Glasgow (http://glasgowdefencecampaign.blogspot.com)to nakedly political policing, and have been involved in the death-in-custody of Smiley Culture.

The "cops are workers too!" argument serves only to reconcile the working class to the very forces which beat and repress it on a daily basis.

[Devrim]

Which royalty??? :ohmy:

I think the term the poster meant is actually aristocracy, not royalty. Here is the reference from 'the peerage.com'

John Alexander Callinicos1
M, #1972

Last Edited=6 Jun 2008
John Alexander Callinicos is the son of Alexander Theodore Callinicos.1 He married Hon. Ædgyth Bertha Milburg Mary Antonia Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton, daughter of Richard Maximilian Lyon-Dalberg-Acton, 2nd Baron Acton of Aldenham and Dorothy Lyon, on 7 July 1949.1
Children of John Alexander Callinicos and Hon. Ædgyth Bertha Milburg Mary Antonia Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton
Dr. Alexander Theodore Callinicos1 b. 24 Jul 1950
Anastasius John Callinicos+1 b. 12 Jan 1957

Devrim

[Ravachol]

There's a reason why no self-proclaimed Greek "anarchist" (and by this I don't mean anarcho-syndicalists) mingles with the KKE crowd.

:rolleyes:

If you think Anarcho-Syndicalists never engage in 'Black Bloc' activity or whatever you define as 'Anarcho-Hooliganism' you are living in another dimension but hey whatever bro it's your party.

[pastradamus]

John Alexander Callinicos is the son of Alexander Theodore Callinicos (http://thepeerage.com/p198.htm#i1973).1 He married Hon. Ædgyth Bertha Milburg Mary Antonia Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton (http://thepeerage.com/p198.htm#i1971), daughter of Richard Maximilian Lyon-Dalberg-Acton, 2nd Baron Acton of Aldenham (http://thepeerage.com/p190.htm#i1899) and Dorothy Lyon (http://thepeerage.com/p191.htm#i1907), on 7 July 1949.1
Children of John Alexander Callinicos and Hon. Ædgyth Bertha Milburg Mary Antonia Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton (http://thepeerage.com/p198.htm#i1971)



Dr. Alexander Theodore Callinicos (http://thepeerage.com/p198.htm#i1974)1 b. 24 Jul 1950
Anastasius John Callinicos (http://thepeerage.com/p198.htm#i1977)+1 b. 12 Jan 1957



Thats some serious inbreeding.:lol:

[Obs]

This kind of Bullshit is the reason why all of the leftists are sitting, and debating Dialectics all day, and not living in a Communist World. We need to stop sectarianism..
Part of that might be if we stop ratting out revolutionaries to the pigs.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't represent the CWI entirely, now do I? It amazes me how people on this board instantly point to an organisation you're a member of and automatically slap you in the face with that they do, as if I'm a blind sheep. Maybe for some, but I like to have my own thoughts and opinions. For instance, this - calling the cops because someone spat in my face due to the fact I was pissing them off? Oh god no. I'd collaborate with the police if a serious crime was committed.


Well I'm not even a CWI member, only a critical supporter.

And do read what I actually wrote. I never said in this particular instance calling the cops is the right thing to do. I just made a general political comment about the police force, and the fact we cannot write off the rank-and-file of the police.



This isn't a case of hate crime. It was people getting in the way of a protest, and being asked to stop chanting. That request should have been respected. I'm not gonna turn up at your birthday party, and turn the attention onto me.


I didn't say calling the police is warranted in this particular case. However, I don't think actually spitting on someone is warranted either.

[Queercommie Girl]

There is a substantial difference between a group of people actively seeking to another leftist arrested for an incident who could have been resolved without state forces(while being part of a revolutionary organisation yourself), and seeking to cause a ideological split between the rank and file and the main proponents and representatives of the police institution.

Yes, that's true.

But then as I said to Independent Citizen, do actually read what I posted. I never said in this particular instance, calling the cops was really warranted.

[black magick hustla]

It is one thing for that anarchist who organized the kiss-in to act like a common thug and spit on a political opponent. It is another thing entirely for a member of the SWP to appeal to the cops to arrest the anarchist because he was acting like a common thug. Both acted like unprincipled little shits, but what the SWPer did was fundamentally worse.

Every time I read a thread like this, I wonder if the European left has any sense of principle at all. The British call the cops on each other; the Greeks and Turks use weapons to settle political differences; groups all across Europe are willing to let organizations not of their specific doctrine or tendency stand alone when they're facing state repression.

American leftists can be accused of many things, but we don't make a habit out of physically assaulting each other and we seem to have a better understanding of the principle that "an injury to one is an injury to all".
i think it is only 'cuz the left in the us is tiny. In the 60s, the different factions in the sds would routinely get into brawls and fights.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well I'm not even a CWI member, only a critical supporter.

And do read what I actually wrote. I never said in this particular instance calling the cops is the right thing to do. I just made a general political comment about the police force, and the fact we cannot write off the rank-and-file of the police.

I didn't say calling the police is warranted in this particular case. However, I don't think actually spitting on someone is warranted either.

I gave this some thought. Here is what I think about this...

You are right. We can not write off the rank-and-file of the police. We also should not. But there is something very important that needs to be added.

We can not write of the rank-and-file of the police as induviduals who might possibly be turned in the event of a revolution...

So long as they continue their job the police can not be trusted....and we should only use the police in very, very, very rare instances in which it can not be avoided when there are no other people around to assist us or willing to assist us.

There is no lack of annecdotes or instances in which sympathetic policemen helped resistance either directly or turned a blind eye. There are also instances in which some policemen refused to perform their duties...often at their own expense. These induvidual acts are to be commended and recognized...but we should realize that these are induvidual acts which are a personal rejection of their own job and function in society...not something which can be relied upon and can easilly, more easilly go against us.

To give you an idea...

When the situation in Hungary happened...Holland was immediately plagued by anti-communist riots. Buildings of the party were besieged and the homes , of, families of and induvidual communists were assaulted. The police refused to perform their duty...helped people to take bricks out of the streets to throw, lending them tools and assistance, and used their spotlights to light buildings and homes so people would not mistakenly throw the rocks at wrong houses or buildings.

At numerous demonstrations the police is known to use exceptional ferocity to induviduals who display leftwing symbols...they also use more force and violence towards leftwing demo's or protests than against right wing.

In 1994 some Dutch communist, later turned anarchist, was arrested in Berlin and got the shit beaten out of him even though he not even resisted arrest. He was "liberated" eventually by some policeguy who seemd sympathetic but only turned out to do so because he wanted to gain trust and get information. When that did not come he started beating the guy. Who was fortunately truely liberated a short while later by other demonstrators who stormed the police line.

Several years later in a stupid dispute over somebodies microwave somebody from another flat kicked in the door and punched or pushed a girl in the face and kicked her after she tried to stop him...in order to get his microwave back from the guy who borrowed it but was not there...the cops were called. Instead of helping they, illegally, searched the place after finding a PKK flyer lying around in the common room. They found other incriminating material in some guys room and then proceeded to arrest him when he showed up. Fortunately the DA was aware enough to understand the search was illegal and had to set the guy free. But nothing happened with the original situation. (The guy profusely apologized sending her flowers the very next day (which halted intentions to take action ourselves on her request) and continued to do so for several weeks and eventually they ended up dating)

That very same year police were called involving an incident with Somali drug dealers threatening to enter the same student house in the middle of the night after a girl told them to stop making noice and go away. They were actively trying to gain enterance through the fire escape window and yelling threats to assault her. Same guy woke up...wearing a che-T-shirt. Took a baseball bat and went outside to chase them away. Cops showed up saw the basebal bat....no Somali dealers. Arrested the guy. Searched his room...again found stuff...and took him in. stuff was confiscated. fortunately the DA this time was a former college friend who let the guy off with merely a huge fine (and this time charges would have stuck and would have resulted in conditional conviction...so he was lucky...again). Nothing happened with the problem of the dealers until several months later when somebody eventually did get assaulted.

Agian several years later. Internal dispute turned ugly. Two members of a group had had a relationship for years which suddenly turned sour
She cheated with another member of the group. It was a one time thing, But arguments ensued to such an extend the group was seriously disrupted. Both were talked to...but she continued antagonizing behaviour during meetings making snide remarks and generally trying to seduce every other member of the group in front of her now ex. She wa warned several times...ranging from a nice chat to downright telling her to stop. This continued for several weeks. I'll come back to this. For the disrupting behaviour the girls was suspended for a time out...which infuriated her and she left the group. She did however call the cops on the group at a time when the group had a meeting....claiming she was hit by her ex during an overheated argument which later turned out to be true...she had called him, they met, she told him she would take him back, they slept together and then continued to dump himm immediately after....which made him flip. Cruel and his emotions were understandable but his actions were inexcusable. The ex was ousted from the group after a serious...hmm...talk.. Since the meeting was attended by some representatives of another group which was not appreciated by the law...everybody got arrested and one person was ousted from the country. Most were held for the maximum amount of time staying several nights in jail. Eventually they could not prove collaboration or the topic of the meeting and everybody who was a national was released. Nothing happend with the abuse charges...everybody had a file.


So no...given the above annecdotes which I naturally have entirely from hearsay...I do not trust police even in the execution of their so called "acceptable" duties.

[Olentzero]

Could be something to do with the royalty in the Central committee.


Callinicos. His maternal grandfather was the 2nd Lord Acton.There's a fellow by the name of Ulyanov at the door who'd like a word with you two on the subject.

[Hit The North]

I'd like to arrest all of the SWP and all of the anarchists for both thinking that the other victimizes them.

I wouldn't have called cops to arrest someone for spitting at me but I'd knock the fucker down. And if any self parody anarchist considers that "macho" then lol.

but calling the police is shameful.

The freedom-loving spitting anarchist has so successfully censored this video that I'm unable to watch it, so I can't comment on the details of it. But it is clear from the written account here (http://whatismatt.com/a-kiss-is-just-a-kiss-say-londons-proud/), which is starkly anti-SWP, that the cop intervened into the argument and was not called by the SWP members:

Thank goodness a copper was there to step in and lead the burly gentleman away for some cool-down time. The smarmy SWPs would have pushed and pushed until the large man's self-control was lost, and that wouldn't have been much fun for anyone.

Neither does this article claim that the assaulted activist called on the cop to press charges, except as a riposte to someone who claims the opposite in the responses section below. But even if "I want to press charges!" is called out by an individual under stress from assault, this in no way reflects on the politics of the SWP.

The SWP does not advocate calling the cops on its political opponents.

[Martin Blank]

i think it is only 'cuz the left in the us is tiny. In the 60s, the different factions in the sds would routinely get into brawls and fights.

I'm aware of that, but they were often denounced for such antics by nearly everyone else outside of SDS 1 for acting like thugs and gangsters. And, honestly, I think a lot of that belligerence was "imported" from other countries along with each current's pet ideology.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ British haughtiness, perhaps?


:rolleyes:

If you think Anarcho-Syndicalists never engage in 'Black Bloc' activity or whatever you define as 'Anarcho-Hooliganism' you are living in another dimension but hey whatever bro it's your party.

There are Black Bloc exceptions to the general rule, but I was mentioning the general rule.

[caramelpence]

I'm aware of that, but they were often denounced for such antics by nearly everyone else outside of SDS 1 for acting like thugs and gangsters. And, honestly, I think a lot of that belligerence was "imported" from other countries along with each current's pet ideology.

What, because American leftists could never be aggressive and thugish of their own accord? Are you kidding? Trust me, American leftists are capable of their fair share of physical violence - clearly you aren't familiar with the fist fights that used to go on between different Maoist groups during the 70s, often outside factory gates where they were trying to sell papers and post factory bulletins, which were at least as violent as physical combats between leftists in Europe. If the conflicting reports of the Sparts and groups like the ISO are anything to go by, physical fighting is not limited to the past or to Maoists either. As a Marxist, I'd prefer to think that leftists being aggressive to one another has less to do with alleged national characteristics or "mores" that were imported along with their respective ideologies (what are you, some modern-day Tocqueville?) and more to do with material conditions - in which case the existence of aggression between leftists is rooted in their isolation from the working class movement and the lack of opportunities for resolving their disagreements through praxis, in and through that movement, were it to have a meaningful existence.

Are you sure your forum name isn't intended to convey a pretty disgusting level of national chauvinism?

[Olentzero]

If the conflicting reports of the Sparts and groups like the ISO are anything to go by, physical fighting is not limited to the past or to Maoists either.I was a member of the ISO for 14 years in Washington DC and saw the Sparts at larger demonstrations there and for a while at our conferences in New York and Chicago. In all that time I heard of exactly one incident in which the Sparts physically got kicked out of an ISO meeting (in Boston, I believe) and that was because they were seriously disrupting the proceedings. Though I don't remember really running across them all that much after around 2001, through the early 90s the instructions were very clear: don't engage the Sparts. Roll your eyes as you pass by, mutter something under your breath, but don't get into it with them because the sectarian little shits are just looking to start something and they would love an excuse to keep slandering us.

Hell, I remember one demonstration in DC where the ISO had a lit table and I came up to a comrade arguing with someone. Turned out it was a Spart who wanted to buy a copy of the ISR and the comrade wouldn't sell it. I busted in, said "Here's your copy, that'll be $5" and the Spart went on her way. The comrade - relatively new, as I remember it - was all "Why the hell did you do that? That was a Spart, they'll just use it to trash us in Worker's Vanguard." I said "So? They just gave us $5, and more importantly they'll be reading the ISR and exposing themselves to an alternative to their sectarian politics." Dude had to admit I had a point.

Long story short: the ISO is not all about getting into it with the Sparts. We're not a street thug organization masquerading as a socialist organization. I would hazard a guess that individual incidents between ISO comrades and Sparts would be more owing to the comrade being a relatively new member and not being used to the Sparts' usual MO of being aggressive fuckwads.

[PhoenixAsh]

The SWP does not advocate calling the cops on its political opponents.

Ok...I believe you. See my 1st post.

So...which measures have they taken against the member who did during a rally under their banner?

[IndependentCitizen]

Heh, fair dos. I suppose I'm just a bit wary of some of the banter that gets thrown around in anti-fascist contexts- a lot of it feels like borrowed '30s rhetoric, rather than a contemporary plan of action.
Yeah, same - but I'd still rather have people regardless of them being Stalinist, Trotskyist or Anarchist intervening in anti-fascist demonstrations to find militant people to use direct action to stop a march.

Well I'm not even a CWI member, only a critical supporter.

And do read what I actually wrote. I never said in this particular instance calling the cops is the right thing to do. I just made a general political comment about the police force, and the fact we cannot write off the rank-and-file of the police.



I didn't say calling the police is warranted in this particular case. However, I don't think actually spitting on someone is warranted either.

Dat cool, brah - but I didn't say anything about you being a member of the CWI at all, no idea why that was bought up. In this instance, no - not a serious crime. Can be settled quite easily, in serious cases. Yes, I'd support the use of the police, mainly because they'd probably use forensic and psychological elements rather than the frontline bobby, who'd prefer to crack skulls than crack cases. I am aware of the SP's involvement with police ASSOCIATIONS, (Police can't join unions, so no idea where the 'NUP' came from). But I don't agree with them, but I'm not going to leave the party because of one thing, that'd be counter-productive.

I don't believe it is warranted, but there's more ways to solve an issue than run to the police. I would hope all socialists would use the police as a last resort for these type of issues.

I hope this doesn't come off aggressive in any sense, comrade.

[Ravachol]

^^^ British haughtiness, perhaps?



There are Black Bloc exceptions to the general rule, but I was mentioning the general rule.

Which is? The Black Bloc is a tactic, not a group defined by any ideological unity or homogenous demographic. And for exactly that reason making these vague general statements about it is about as sensible as saying 'those damned workerist hooligans and their striking/sabotaging/factory-occupation bloc' or whatever. There is no general 'rule', unless you can ofcourse enlighten me about the internal make-up of the Black Bloc to which I am somehow unaware :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Black Bloc tactics don't have working-class roots.

[Martin Blank]

What, because American leftists could never be aggressive and thugish of their own accord? Are you kidding? Trust me, American leftists are capable of their fair share of physical violence - clearly you aren't familiar with the fist fights that used to go on between different Maoist groups during the 70s, often outside factory gates where they were trying to sell papers and post factory bulletins, which were at least as violent as physical combats between leftists in Europe.

Yes, and those organizations very quickly found themselves isolated and drummed out of the broader movement.


If the conflicting reports of the Sparts and groups like the ISO are anything to go by, physical fighting is not limited to the past or to Maoists either.

I think Olentzero answered this pretty well, and it matches up to my own experiences (all 24 years worth) of observing both organizations.


As a Marxist, I'd prefer to think that leftists being aggressive to one another has less to do with alleged national characteristics or "mores" that were imported along with their respective ideologies (what are you, some modern-day Tocqueville?) and more to do with material conditions - in which case the existence of aggression between leftists is rooted in their isolation from the working class movement and the lack of opportunities for resolving their disagreements through praxis, in and through that movement, were it to have a meaningful existence.

The problem with your argument is that much of the violent confrontation that has taken place between and among left currents has been during times when it was possible to test out disagreements -- the late 1960s and early 1970s in North America and Europe, for example. You cannot use the "isolation" argument to explain the thuggery practiced by the New Left in that period any more than you can use that argument in relation to the conflicts between Greek anarchists and socialists today.

It is rather sad that you have such an incredibly angular and impressionistic method of analysis. If you had bothered to take a breath and approach what I wrote with more than just piss and vinegar in your veins, you might have noticed that I was actually putting more emphasis on the question of "each current's pet ideology", not so much on their countries of origin, only noting that they had their origins in other countries and were "imported" to the U.S.

If we look at these "pet ideologies", we see a common trend: they are all based in one way or another in the petty bourgeoisie, not the working class. New Leftist "vanguards", Maoist and Guevarist guerrillaism, "New Communist" anti-revisionism, adventurist anarchism -- each of these ideologies rejected the working class as the only really revolutionary class, choosing to substitute this or that non-proletarian force in the world that matched their own class outlook and consciousness: peasants with guns, student squadists, individual terrorists ... everything but the self-organized and active working class.


Are you sure your forum name isn't intended to convey a pretty disgusting level of national chauvinism?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Ahahahahahahahaha! You're funny.

[gestalt]

Black Bloc tactics don't have working-class roots.

Need some solid evidence for this assertion.

Considering it is an evolution of autonomist tactics, good luck finding any.

[PhoenixAsh]

Black Bloc tactics don't have working-class roots.

Yes...I have always found them elitist as well :)

Ahum...are you kidding there?

[Ravachol]

Black Bloc tactics don't have working-class roots.

Considering the big bulk of those who participate in Black Bloc tactics are working-class, and considering the Black Bloc originated as an Autonomist tactic in the '80s in Germany amongst militant working-class youth, I say, well, you're spouting bollocks. Care to try and back it up or just leave it at that?

[Hit The North]

Ok...I believe you. See my 1st post.

So...which measures have they taken against the member who did during a rally under their banner?

As pointed out, no SWP member did call the cops.

Meanwhile, as an anarchist, what authoritarian measures do you think the SWP should take against the member who was assaulted?

[Tim Finnegan]

Considering the big bulk of those who participate in Black Bloc tactics are working-class...
That doesn't really speak of any particular class character. Orange pipe bands are primarily working class in their membership, but I doubt you'd consider them to have "working class roots".


...and considering the Black Bloc originated as an Autonomist tactic in the '80s in Germany amongst militant working-class youth...I thought that it was first developed by anti-nuclear protesters? That's not really a class issue, as such.

[chegitz guevara]

When the cops bash your fucking skulls in, not giving a shit whether you call yourself an anarchist or a communist or a revolutionary socialist, hopefully you see your blood flowing together, and notice that it's just as red as everyone else's.

[PhoenixAsh]

As pointed out, no SWP member did call the cops.

He did make fine use of them. I really do not see the difference between calling them and using them to snitch if they magically or non magically appear...

I would once again stress that, if you look at my OP, I am seeing this as an induvidual action. Its the members responsibility...

But seeing as he did so under party banner...I think its also the responsibility of the party to correct this sort of behaviour at the very least during party organised events or evenst taking place under the parties banner,.



Meanwhile, as an anarchist, what authoritarian measures do you think the SWP should take against the member who was assaulted?

Seeing as I see political parties as authoritarian structures...I think I can answer this question without having to knee jerk to the subtile ad hominim....I see what you did there :tt2: :D

I think the party should explain very calmly, in a nice tone of voice, over a cup of coffe (or tea if he prefers...it can even be soda, juice or water) why his actions are unacceptable. Then...after they have also given him a cooky...they should take him to a nice comfortable garden prefereably during a sunny day...and let him smoke a nice sigarette against a tree, wall or ther upright structure of his choosing. Then...I think they should offer him a blindfold..which..he is totally free to take if he so wishes...and....


All kidding aside...

They should explain him why his actions were wrong and unacceptable and perhaps feature an anonimised article about such actions in their party papers editorial or website....saying the SWP does not condone members doing such things. Perhaps maybe even suspending him temporarilly from the party...but I am also not incensitive to thepost made by SamB of this member perhaps being a tad bit inexperienced and blindsighted....so a good and serious talking too should suffice.

[Ravachol]

That doesn't really speak of any particular class character. Orange pipe bands are primarily working class in their membership, but I doubt you'd consider them to have "working class roots".


Exactly. It's rather irrelevant whether the 'tactic' has 'working class roots' (whatever that may mean) or not.



I thought that it was first developed by anti-nuclear protesters? That's not really a class issue, as such.

As far as I know it was first developed by the German squatting movement, in the Netherlands we had a similar phenomenon at the same time sometimes referred to as the 'Zwarte Helmen Brigade' (Black Helmet Brigade). Seeing as how the housing issue clearly is a class-issue, well.

But non of that really matters, what matters is that DNZ is moving in circles around the fact that the Black Bloc is a tactic, nothing more, nothing less and cannot be evaluated in some theoretical bubble but only in each concrete case.

[Hit The North]

He did make fine use of them. I really do not see the difference between calling them and using them to snitch if they magically or non magically appear...


Fortunately, the British fuzz have not perfected the skill of appearing magically! But in what way did he snitch? Remember, I cannot watch the video (because, apparently, someone is too embarrassed to have it out there) but according to the written account by the film maker:


Thank goodness a copper was there to step in and lead the burly gentleman away for some cool-down time. The smarmy SWPs would have pushed and pushed until the large man's self-control was lost, and that wouldn't have been much fun for anyone.

In other words, if the police hadn't intervened, the 'large man' would have probably beaten on the 'smarmy' activist. So I'm guessing that the activist was angry and frightened. Even if his first response was inappropriate, as far as we know, no charges have been pressed. The 'large man' is free to go about his business spitting on socialists. So we can assume the party has nothing in particular to reproach the member with, except, perhaps, an inappropriate response to being screamed at and spit on.

If the party was to offer any advice to the comrade it should be to get Kung Fu lessons so he can administer the appropriate response next time some fuckwit spits in his face.

h20/20, you've really contributed to a sham of a thread, made with only the intention of trying to embarrass the SWP (as if they're not good enough at doing it for themselves, anyway). I really can't be arsed to contribute any more time to it.

[Decolonize The Left]

This thread is ridiculous. Everything can be assessed simply be commonsense:

1. Dude1 shouldn't have spit/pushed the other dude.
2. Dude2 shouldn't have freaked out over something so minor.
3. Police shouldn't be involved.

There's no reason to let tensions rise between leftists over shit like this. And there's absolutely no fucking reason for the authorities to become involved. Seems like folks don't really want to talk things through when that simply action might have solved this whole thing.

- August

[PhoenixAsh]

Fortunately, the British fuzz have not perfected the skill of appearing magically! But in what way did he snitch? Remember, I cannot watch the video (because, apparently, someone is too embarrassed to have it out there) but according to the written account by the film maker:

Ok...that sucks.

*snip* redundant. see below.




In other words, if the police hadn't intervened, the 'large man' would have probably beaten on the 'smarmy' activist. So I'm guessing that the activist was angry and frightened. Even if his first response was inappropriate, as far as we know, no charges have been pressed. The 'large man' is free to go about his business spitting on socialists. So we can assume the party has nothing in particular to reproach the member with, except, perhaps, an inappropriate response to being screamed at and spit on.

But wether or not charges were pressed is irrelevant. The SWP guy had no way of knowing what P. was involved in aqnd if there was an outstanding file or warrant or if the arrest would perhaps link him to other situations.

*snip* redundant...see vid below


Also...as you can see in the video below...he was nowhere near that guy...already walking away.


If the party was to offer any advice to the comrade it should be to get Kung Fu lessons so he can administer the appropriate response next time some fuckwit spits in his face.I think he would have to spend several years...but at least THAT kind of response would not be snitching to the burgeoisie...and I would even found that totally justified....as I have stated in previous posts.

But...interesting to see your position...here. Silently condoning snitching.



h20/20, you've really contributed to a sham of a thread, made with only the intention of trying to embarrass the SWP (as if they're not good enough at doing it for themselves, anyway).I have no investment with the SWP...at all. No stake in it at all nor (previous) opinion on the SWP at all. Hell...before this thread I had heard of the SWP...but knew fuck all about them...

My first post would have been my last in this thread if it weren't for the fact another member started advocating and justifying snitching....which is what I argued against and I consider an issue.



I really can't be arsed to contribute any more time to it.Nobody asked you to get involved from the start.

[Devrim]

But in what way did he snitch? Remember, I cannot watch the video (because, apparently, someone is too embarrassed to have it out there) but according to the written account by the film maker:

It is linked to and quoted earlier in the thread. It comes up OK for me:


I think the filth step in, but then the spineless little shit starts yelping, "he just assaulted me!" and "I'd like to press charges."
EDuJcf9tNCY

Devrim

[Hit The North]

It is linked to and quoted earlier in the thread. It comes up OK for me:
Devrim

Yes, but for me and anyone else in the UK, if you click on the video it reads, "This content is not available in your country due to a legal complaint."

This indicates that it is the gobbing anarchist who is resorting to the law, not the SWP activist.

[Hit The North]

But...interesting to see your position...here. Silently condoning snitching.



Have you added mind-reading to your list of talents? :rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

This thread is ridiculous. Everything can be assessed simply be commonsense:

1. Dude1 shouldn't have spit/pushed the other dude.


True.


2. Dude2 shouldn't have freaked out over something so minor.True - but have you seen the size of the fucker? I'm not surprised the little activist freaked out.


3. Police shouldn't be involved.
Police were already there. It was a demo.

[Devrim]

Yes, but for me and anyone else in the UK, if you click on the video it reads, "This content is not available in your country due to a legal complaint."

This indicates that it is the gobbing anarchist who is resorting to the law, not the SWP activist.

The person in the SWP group says "He just assaulted me", then follows the Policeman saying "he just assaulted me. I'd like to press charges." twice.

It is pretty indefensible really. You can hardly argue that he was scared of being attacked, or anything like that whilst the policeman was leading the other guy away.

Devrim

[PhoenixAsh]

Ok, maybe he was outraged at being spat in the face and this got the better of him. So what, Devrim? Do you have any political point to make or is this just another example of your liking for jumping into these threads to give the SWP a kicking?



Well, Bob, most snitches have their motivation and reasoning....

Are you suggesting its ok for him to behave in such a fashion?

Because for all your snipes about mind reading your posts come off as awfully apologetic for snitching to cops.


Even if his first response was inappropriate



edit: aha....the in this posted quoted post seems to be deleted


edit2: you can watch the video here http://vimeo.com/22989044 password: revleft

the part missing from the video is Shelter approaching the group who are using a bullhorn to shout unrelated stuff. he states he already asked them to stop. he then proceed to say they should knock it off. Because they are fucking up a nice event. That it is his event he organised. That he doesn't want them there and they should fuck off. Thats where the second (this) video more or less starts.

[Obs]

Jesus Christ. I hadn't managed to see the video before now, and now that I have seen it, I am fucking shocked. The shameless way he walks up to that pig, exactly like any old reactionary would do, counting on them to fight his battles for him. It's like he thinks the demo's a fucking game and now that it got serious he should back out and go tell the grown-ups. Hope he ends up getting hurt bad, and often.

[Hit The North]

The shameless way he walks up to that pig, exactly like any old reactionary would do, counting on them to fight his battles for him.
Actually, like any ordinary citizen would who has just been assaulted and there's a pig present. As a socialist activist should he be above that typical behaviour? Yes, he should. It would have been great if he'd acted better, (given that he'd already won the argument, but he didn't.


It's like he thinks the demo's a fucking game

Whereas the anarchist thinks the demo's his private property!


Originally Posted by hindsight20/20 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2092950#post2092950)
the part missing from the video is Shelter approaching the group who are using a bullhorn to shout unrelated stuff. he states he already asked them to stop. he then proceed to say they should knock it off. Because they are fucking up a nice event. That it is his event he organised. That he doesn't want them there and they should fuck off. Thats where the second (this) video more or less starts.


"A nice event"! "his event"! "he doesn't want them there"! He must fancy himself as someone important. Next time he wants to hold a private event he should hold it in his fucking yard.

I'm not surprised he wanted the video taken down. What a loser.


Originally Posted by hindsight20/20 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2092950#post2092950)
Because for all your snipes about mind reading your posts come off as awfully apologetic for snitching to cops.

What the fuck does that mean? If you accuse me of "silently condoning snitching" and you can't see me, then you must be reading my mind. It's not a snipe, sunbeam, it's a deduction.

[Devrim]

Actually, like any ordinary citizen would who has just been assaulted and there's a pig present. As a socialist activist should he be above that typical behaviour? Yes, he should. It would have been great if he'd acted better, (given that he'd already won the argument, but he didn't.

I obviously live in a very different world to you because I don't think that it is normal behaviour to run to the police complaining about assault after somebody has spat at you.

It is certainly unacceptable behaviour for anybody who calls himself a socialist, and it is also noteworthy in my opinion that none of the people with him had the sense to try and stop him.

Devrim

[TC]

This really shows you what side there on when they call the pigs for help

Its really that simple? So if a husband is beating up his wife and she calls the police, you would side with the husband, cause the wife is a "snitch" and according to some here a "scab?"

This is not in any way to compare the assault on the SWPer for defending Libyan people, to domestic abuse, but to point out that its really not a simple case where whatever side the pigs happen to join is always the wrong side, or that pigs never do anything useful like stop domestic abuse despite being primarily a repressive force.

I am not an anarchist. I support present socialist states like Cuba, and there are cops in Cuba who carry out the same types of useful functions (preventing assault and battery, rape, murder, domestic abuse, etc) while not carrying out many of the repressive ones (protecting private property - Cuban police still do repressive things like enforce drug laws).

When people do socially useful acts, the usefulness of the act does not depend on who did it. People get arrested for doing innocent things like smoking marijuana or nothing at all like driving while black or being at a protest - and people have the audacity to whine about someone complaining to everyone around him (amongst them cops) when a much larger man spit on him and threated to bash his head in (cause the "anarchist" apparently supported bombing Algeria). You have to be kidding me.

[Ele'ill]

Its really that simple?

Yes and no.


So if a husband is beating up his wife and she calls the police, you would side with the husband, cause the wife is a "snitch" and according to some here a "scab?"

This is not an accurate analogy as the consequences are much different given the nature of the event and the 'unknown' history of what we'd have to assume are political activists. It can put a lot of people at risk.


, but to point out that its really not a simple case where whatever side the pigs happen to join is always the wrong side, or that pigs never do anything useful like stop domestic abuse despite being primarily a repressive force.

If a leftist was put in a situation where they needed help during a domestic situation I would hope they'd have a basic understanding that calling the police often makes things twice as volatile. I hope they would have contacts who they could call in such a situation over the option of calling the police.




and people have the audacity to whine about someone complaining to everyone around him (amongst them cops) when a much larger man spit on him and threated to bash his head in

It takes two to tango and the consequences given the event and their political position made 'running to the police' a really shitty move. Police may perform 'useful' tasks on a daily basis however they are not a 'neutral entity'.

[Thirsty Crow]

Its really that simple? So if a husband is beating up his wife and she calls the police, you would side with the husband, cause the wife is a "snitch" and according to some here a "scab?"

Wow, here we go again. Baseless analogies. I guess that you'd persist in calling the incident a "hate crime" (lumping it along with violent attacks upon African Americans by white nationalist scum). So a husband beating his wife is analogous to that specific anarchist spitting at SWPers who provoked the incident (maybe the wife provoked it in your hypothetical little world)? Just fucking ridiculous (I forgot how lawyers can be, it seems).

So, what say you regarding the "hate crime" bit?

[Queercommie Girl]

This incident definitely isn't a hate crime, and indeed portraying it as a hate crime is trivialising and disrespecting real hate crimes against minorities.

But yeah in a real hate crime situtation, I won't hesitate to call the cops. My life is worth infinite times more than ultra-leftist dogmas.

[TC]

This is not an accurate analogy as the consequences are much different given the nature of the event and the 'unknown' history of what we'd have to assume are political activists. It can put a lot of people at risk.


Please see my very next line:


This is not in any way to compare the assault on the SWPer for defending Libyan people, to domestic abuse, but to point out that its really not a simple case where whatever side the pigs happen to join is always the wrong side, or that pigs never do anything useful like stop domestic abuse despite being primarily a repressive force.

I wasn't making an analogy or comparison, it wasn't supposed to be an analogy or comparison - it was instead a direct counter-example to AMKsurgency's general statement.

[black magick hustla]

But yeah in a real hate crime situtation, I won't hesitate to call the cops. My life is worth infinite times more than ultra-leftist dogmas.
i would do true, but the only reason why i would call the cops if my security was on peril, not so much to be a crybaby about some dude spitting on me that was already being taken by the cops

[Anarchrusty]

"A nice event"! "his event"! "he doesn't want them there"! He must fancy himself as someone important.
I'm not surprised he wanted the video taken down. What a loser.




No, he doesn't want these tossers to hijack a demo about homophobia by dragging in subject matter that has no place in THAT particular place.

Turn it around. A demo about Lybia and Shetler comes barging in screaming about a gay couple banned from a London pub.
Not only is it unrelated, it is fucking annoying to the people who have set their mind to opposing what it is about.

[Queercommie Girl]

i would do true, but the only reason why i would call the cops if my security was on peril, not so much to be a crybaby about some dude spitting on me that was already being taken by the cops

It's not just the quantity of the incident, it's also the quality of the incident.

This kind of attack due to personal reasons and at most political sectarianism is nothing compared with assaults against minorities and women in the qualitative sense. So if one person is being spit on literally for being Asian or Black then it would also be much more serious than this current incident, even if in both cases, objectively it's the same kind of "spitting".

That said, I clearly condemn the act of spitting on people you don't like, generally speaking, even though I don't agree with calling the cops in this instance. Sometimes the political methods of certain anarchists and socialists can be rather hooligan-like.

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually, like any ordinary citizen would who has just been assaulted and there's a pig present. As a socialist activist should he be above that typical behaviour? Yes, he should. It would have been great if he'd acted better, (given that he'd already won the argument, but he didn't.

He didnt and he should. Which means it snot ok and that he should be educated.




Whereas the anarchist thinks the demo's his private property!
And that is an entirely different event and has nothing at all to do with calling the cops. As you have noticed...the anarchist did NOT call the cops.



"A nice event"! "his event"! "he doesn't want them there"! He must fancy himself as someone important. Next time he wants to hold a private event he should hold it in his fucking yard.Or...perhaps others should not attempt to hijack the event which was specifically organised around support for the LGBT community with their own personal agenda. BUt hey..THAT is also a different discusion.




I'm not surprised he wanted the video taken down. What a loser.
we agree on that



What the fuck does that mean? If you accuse me of "silently condoning snitching" and you can't see me, then you must be reading my mind. It's not a snipe, sunbeam, it's a deduction.Yes...one based on your reactions...as I have quoted. Good to see you adjusted that somewhat.

[PhoenixAsh]

Its really that simple? So if a husband is beating up his wife and she calls the police, you would side with the husband, cause the wife is a "snitch" and according to some here a "scab?"

This is a strawman argument. Not to mention the fact that you compare apples with pears here. And you are even twist what has actually been argued. Nice! But unfortunately: busted an no dice.

First; you try to take this out of the political setting about political disputes in which this occured and to which arguments were made...to argument something entirely different. This is a political setting In a political setting this is that simple. None of what you suggest in this post or other posts occured here. Not to mention the the issue has alreaqdy been adressed in the course of this thread.

Second; the scab part was specifically argued against hijacking the demo NOT about calling the cops. Nice to try to twist the arguments which were actually amde to fit your own arguments.
(The argument was made by a hand full of people inc. Psycho and me...so am going to assume this was directed at least in part at me and intended as a snipe. I see what you tried to do there ;-) )



This is not in any way to compare the assault on the SWPer for defending Libyan people, to domestic abuse, but to point out that its really not a simple caseIts good to see you altered your opinion on that. For that you have my respect.

But yes. This is that simple a case. You do not snitch to the police against other revs.



where whatever side the pigs happen to join is always the wrong side, or that pigs never do anything useful like stop domestic abuse despite being primarily a repressive force.The police is primarilly a repressive force. Anything useful they actually manage to do is incidental. I am very sure I do not have to remind you that, running with your example, the police stepping in into domestic abuse cases is actually a relatively recent thing.

This, incidental, usefullness however is a far cry from running to the police or calling the police in political situations concerning fellow revs. In order to at least attempt to find some common ground here I will add to this: when there is no serious risk to life or physical abuse.


I am not an anarchist. I support present socialist states like Cuba, and there are cops in Cuba who carry out the same types of useful functions (preventing assault and battery, rape, murder, domestic abuse, etc)Mwah. Preventing is something which happens incidentally. Mostly the police get involved after the fact.


while not carrying out many of the repressive ones (protecting private property - Cuban police still do repressive things like enforce drug laws).I still have problems with this. But I will run with this because I think that is another debate.

I will however point out we do not live in a quasi-, semi- or socialist state. The police here are very much indebted to the burgeoisie.



When people do socially useful acts, the usefulness of the act does not depend on who did it.I will interject that the usefulness of the act depends on the act and the context...and very much on who did it and why they did it. The arsenist who saves three people from the house they just set on fire is performing a useful task.

Same: The repressive burgeoisie tool who upholds the system in which these things are actually condoned, caused and in many cases causes them (think patriarchy; social and economic problems; discrimination etc) is actually performing a useful task solving a single induvidual case while perpetuating the system. I am not going to thank them for it.



People get arrested for doing innocent things like smoking marijuana or nothing at all like driving while black or being at a protest - and people have the audacity to whine about someone complaining to everyone around him (amongst them cops) when a much larger man spit on him Not to anybody...to the cops. That is the difference.



and threated to bash his head inHe was walking away imediately after the spitting. So this argument is nonsense in this case.



(cause the "anarchist" apparently supported bombing Algeria).Or...you know...had a sepcific topiced event to support the LBGT community.


You have to be kidding me.ditto

[Kléber]

Wow, this "hate crime" bullshit is still going on? Yeah, I'm just sooo afraid every time I walk outside, not that cops will hassle me but because big gay anarchists might spit on me and do unprovoked hate crimes against me just for being a trot. :rolleyes:

Is the imperialist bombing of Libya also justified, because you can compare rebel leaders calling for US airstrikes to a victim of domestic violence calling the cops on her partner?

[Olentzero]

Stepping back in for a moment to ask hindsight something. Taking you at your word that the organizer of the event actually said "I don't want you here, fuck off" to the SWP member, I want to ask how you would react if you were at a demo and the organizer came up and told you the same thing?

[Queercommie Girl]

Wow, this "hate crime" bullshit is still going on? Yeah, I'm just sooo afraid every time I walk outside, not that cops will hassle me but because big gay anarchists might spit on me and do unprovoked hate crimes against me just for being a trot. :rolleyes:


You have a point of course, but objectively speaking sometimes political sectarianism between different left groups do get somewhat out of hand. Anarchists and Leninists in Greece have clashed with each other violently, for example. Of course, this is still fundamentally of a different character from any kind of hate crime. But violent sectarianism is not a good thing for the left in general.

However, in this particular case I don't think the incident was even motivated by political sectarianism, let alone a "hate crime".

[Thirsty Crow]

Wow, this "hate crime" bullshit is still going on? Yeah, I'm just sooo afraid every time I walk outside, not that cops will hassle me but because big gay anarchists might spit on me and do unprovoked hate crimes against me just for being a trot. :rolleyes:

It's still going because TC cowardly refuses to comment on some of us calling bullshit (serious bullshit).

[PhoenixAsh]

Stepping back in for a moment to ask hindsight something. Taking you at your word that the organizer of the event actually said "I don't want you here, fuck off" to the SWP member, I want to ask how you would react if you were at a demo and the organizer came up and told you the same thing?

Would this be before or after I tried to hijack it? ;)

Since I do not do that to other leftwing events...I imagine I would be annoyed and pissed and laugh in his or her face.

[Martin Blank]

Honestly, if five people with a megaphone can "hijack" a demonstration of several hundred, then it really wasn't much of one to begin with, now was it?

[PhoenixAsh]

Honestly, if five people with a megaphone can "hijack" a demonstration of several hundred, then it really wasn't much of one to begin with, now was it?

Thats why megaphones were invented...but honestly...who gives a damn.

Neither how much the event was nor the amount of SWP-ers trying to hijack an event does not matter for their attempt to do so nor for the snitching to the cop.

[Martin Blank]

Neither how much the event was nor the amount of SWP-ers trying to hijack an event does not matter for their attempt to do so nor for the snitching to the cop.

There's no excuse for the snitching by the SWP member. Period. But the fact that a handful of them could come into a protest of hundreds and "hijack" it by shouting a few slogans into a bullhorn shows that there wasn't much organization to the protest in the first place. Even when have small protests of less than 50, we make sure there is a team in place to maintain some semblance of order and direction. Maybe that makes us "authoritarian" in your eyes, but our protests don't get pwned by a few meddling kids and their dog, Scooby.

[PhoenixAsh]

There's no excuse for the snitching by the SWP member. Period. But the fact that a handful of them could come into a protest of hundreds and "hijack" it by shouting a few slogans into a bullhorn shows that there wasn't much organization to the protest in the first place. Even when have small protests of less than 50, we make sure there is a team in place to maintain some semblance of order and direction. Maybe that makes us "authoritarian" in your eyes, but our protests don't get pwned by a few meddling kids and their dog, Scooby.

I don't know if they hijacked it. They tried to do so...

My experience with such teams is that before the team could interfere there would actually be an attempt to hijack and depending on the situation this could be after an act towards this.

In such cases I imagine they would ask the person to stop. Would they ask the attempting hijackers to leave? If that fails...how would this escalte?

[HEAD ICE]

You gotta remember TC is a lawyer, so pushing this as a hate crime would probably do the client a lot of good in court.

[Thirsty Crow]

You gotta remember TC is a lawyer, so pushing this as a hate crime would probably do the client a lot of good in court.
So, TC, still not a word from you?

[Martin Blank]

I don't know if they hijacked it. They tried to do so...

My experience with such teams is that before the team could interfere there would actually be an attempt to hijack and depending on the situation this could be after an act towards this.

In such cases I imagine they would ask the person to stop. Would they ask the attempting hijackers to leave? If that fails...how would this escalte?

Depending on the level of dickery you're dealing with, the team (usually no more than two or three) can either be responsive or pre-emptive. There's a group we've had to deal with a couple times that makes a habit out of "hijacking" protests, so with them we took a pre-emptive approach.

They tried to take control of an antifascist protest we organized (they did this once before successfully, and we learned from it). We had two teams of three -- most of the team members being very large and strong Port Division Teamsters -- who picked up each of them up by the neck of their jackets and back of their pants, calmly carried them to the fringes of the protest and set them down outside of it. Once they reached their destination, the organizers (including me) told them that if they tried to hijack the protest again, their ride to the outside of it would not be as smooth. They listened (sort of), and stayed on the fringe of the protest where they belonged.

It was forceful, but non-violent; none of them were harmed or assaulted. And the protest was a success.

[PhoenixAsh]

Depending on the level of dickery you're dealing with, the team (usually no more than two or three) can either be responsive or pre-emptive. There's a group we've had to deal with a couple times that makes a habit out of "hijacking" protests, so with them we took a pre-emptive approach.

They tried to take control of an antifascist protest we organized (they did this once before successfully, and we learned from it). We had two teams of three -- most of the team members being very large and strong Port Division Teamsters -- who picked up each of them up by the neck of their jackets and back of their pants, calmly carried them to the fringes of the protest and set them down outside of it. Once they reached their destination, the organizers (including me) told them that if they tried to hijack the protest again, their ride to the outside of it would not be as smooth. They listened (sort of), and stayed on the fringe of the protest where they belonged.

It was forceful, but non-violent; none of them were harmed or assaulted. And the protest was a success.

This situation is not so much different....but I completely agree that it is very much more ineffective than your method and therefore it did end in unacceptable behaviour.

Personally I do not have a problem with teams protecting the integrety of revolutionary demo's and events around a specific topic. At least its self organised and maintained. I do not really see any necessary problems with that.

For me the guidelines are pretty simple. Marching in demo's or attending events organised by other revolutionary groups means I either agree with their structure and goal or, if I do not, I do not go.

If a demo is multi group...then its a different matter and I would go my own way. But then again...In such cases I would normally stay with my own network or with like minded.

Offcourse non revolutionary demo's and events...well...I do not have to extend them any comeradely courtesy whatsoever...

[Tim Finnegan]

Honestly, if five people with a megaphone can "hijack" a demonstration of several hundred, then it really wasn't much of one to begin with, now was it?
Maybe it just proves that we've been doing this "revolution" thing wrong the whole time. We should just turn up in the spectator's gallery in parliament with megaphones, and the country shall be ours! ;)

[The Idler]

Picking people up and forcibly removing them sounds like what the Labour Party did to Walter Wolfgang when he tried to "hijack" Jack Straw's speech. Or more recently what police did to activists in London prior to the Royal Wedding in case they "hijack" that event. Both of these incidents were appalling behaviour and against free speech.

[PhoenixAsh]

Picking people up and forcibly removing them sounds like what the Labour Party did to Walter Wolfgang when he tried to "hijack" Jack Straw's speech. Or more recently what police did to activists in London prior to the Royal Wedding in case they "hijack" that event. Both of these incidents were appalling behaviour and against free speech.

The first example...perhaps is the same. They do not like us, we do not like them. Unfortunately for them...this means we are not obligated to show comeradely behaviour imo and therefore we try to obstruct or hijack their events to show our voice. We would do the same to them if they would try the same with us.

The second I think is entirely different from either of these. This was not moving them outside of an event and letting them do their thing there....this was removing them completely....and yes...as such I think it was a severe violation of the right to protest and free speech and a clear indication that these rights do not exist in a burgeoisie society at all but are mere privileges to be taken away when the system wants to exert authority over each and everybody who does not agree with them or pressently does not suit their fancy and goals. Its a sign of repression which is inherrited in the system by removing the freedom and selfautonomy completely.


In the first two cases, though I do not completely feel comfortable...I do not necessarilly have a problem with it. The right of authority is at least derived from the group itself and is organised by them. Its exerted within the group and not outside of it. Meaning the right of free speech is not denied or obstructed, its just placed outside the group. It also means there is no further restrictions or consequences unless the police are called in. Which is treasonous behaviour. I would not expect this from fellow revolutionaries but would entirely expect this from parties who operate inside the system, collaborate with it and actively try to preserve it. Its just one more indication of their political and ideological treachery.

[Martin Blank]

Picking people up and forcibly removing them sounds like what the Labour Party did to Walter Wolfgang when he tried to "hijack" Jack Straw's speech. Or more recently what police did to activists in London prior to the Royal Wedding in case they "hijack" that event. Both of these incidents were appalling behaviour and against free speech.

The people I'm talking about had a policy of going to picket lines or protests and provoking the cops into attacking the participants, in order to "educate" workers about the "necessity of fighting back".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Depending on the level of dickery you're dealing with, the team (usually no more than two or three) can either be responsive or pre-emptive. There's a group we've had to deal with a couple times that makes a habit out of "hijacking" protests, so with them we took a pre-emptive approach.

They tried to take control of an antifascist protest we organized (they did this once before successfully, and we learned from it). We had two teams of three -- most of the team members being very large and strong Port Division Teamsters -- who picked up each of them up by the neck of their jackets and back of their pants, calmly carried them to the fringes of the protest and set them down outside of it. Once they reached their destination, the organizers (including me) told them that if they tried to hijack the protest again, their ride to the outside of it would not be as smooth. They listened (sort of), and stayed on the fringe of the protest where they belonged.

It was forceful, but non-violent; none of them were harmed or assaulted. And the protest was a success.

Comrade, doesn't the KKE in Greece do that with its demonstrations too? Although there are turnovers of Black Bloc'ers over to the cops, the KKE takes precautionary measures to intimidate any hooligans who might attempt to break through.

[Tim Finnegan]

Picking people up and forcibly removing them sounds like... what police did to activists in London prior to the Royal Wedding in case they "hijack" that event. Both of these incidents were appalling behaviour and against free speech.
There's a pretty fundamental difference between refusing to give somebody a platform and denying them any sort of expression whatsoever. You may as well claim that, say, my refusing to let you live in my house is akin to forced deportation.

[The Idler]

So is forcibly ejecting a group with a megaphone at a demo to be considered "stopping free expression" or "refusing them a platform"? Basically, where do you draw the line?

[PhoenixAsh]

So is forcibly ejecting a group with a megaphone at a demo to be considered "stopping free expression" or "refusing them a platform"? Basically, where do you draw the line?

Well...I think that is a good question. But one that can not so easilly be answered. It depends on many factors.

What is the topic of the event? Is it a closed event, or an event around a specific topic, were you and your group invited or not? Whose event is it? Who is using the megaphone? What is being said through it (does it fit with the topic, message of the organisers...or not)?

edit:
And not unimportant, especially in cases from the example given by Uncle Sam, who is participating in the demo? If (for example) you have groups inciting riots and purposefully drawing the attention and violent reaction of the police (which in itself I do not have a problem with if it fits) hijacking a demo with a lot of children and elderly or unprepared adults in the demo...then obviously some measure of protection should be considered to prevent them from being caught up in this.

[Tim Finnegan]

So is forcibly ejecting a group with a megaphone at a demo to be considered "stopping free expression" or "refusing them a platform"? Basically, where do you draw the line?
As Hindsight suggests, that's a circumstantial distinction, depending on a variety of factors too broad and too analogue to draw up some simple chart. However, if a group is actively trying to hijack a demonstration for selfish and anti-democratic ends, such as instigating police violence, then they're clearly beyond the pale. They can pick a fight with coppers on any street corner, they don't need to get other people involved.