Class War Bonfire

[Forward Union]

What do people think of this?

http://www.londonclasswar.org/images/bonf2.jpg

[Black Dagger]

That's gonna be thrown on a fire?

Do they have effigys of jesus and mose etc. as well?

If not, i think that is a dumb-fuckin idea.

[Forward Union]

They did burn an effigy of Jesus as well. But this has been universally criticised by the anarchist movement as racist divisive bollocks.

Some groups in the UK have decided to cut all ties with CW and expel cw members... it's pretty serious.

[The Feral Underclass]

So in order to make a protest against religion we have to include the main figures from all religions?

[Keyser]

They did burn an effigy of Jesus as well. But this has been universally criticised by the anarchist movement as racist divisive bollocks.

If the CW bonfire night burned other effigies too, representing other religions, as you said they did with Jesus, then there is nothing wrong with this and we should offer our support to CW against those fake 'leftists' who jump on the islamist bandwagon that their 'faith' is beyond any form of criticism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 12, 2006 12:48 pm
They did burn an effigy of Jesus as well. But this has been universally criticised by the anarchist movement as racist divisive bollocks.

Some groups in the UK have decided to cut all ties with CW and expel cw members... it's pretty serious.
I think it's quite an over-reaction to be honest.

[Keyser]

They did burn an effigy of Jesus as well. But this has been universally criticised by the anarchist movement as racist divisive bollocks.

Some groups in the UK have decided to cut all ties with CW and expel cw members... it's pretty serious.


I think it's quite an over-reaction to be honest

Agreed.

No doubt this bonfire night will get the SWP and it's islamist buddies in RESPECT into a fit. :rolleyes:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2006 11:55 am
I think it's quite an over-reaction to be honest.
If I had headed this "BNP bonfire" would you have the same position?

The thing is, this is a racial steriotype, it's practically a gollywog.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Love Underground+November 12, 2006 09:48 pm--> (Love Underground @ November 12, 2006 09:48 pm) But this has been universally criticised by the anarchist movement as racist divisive bollocks.
[/b]
It's a pretty dumb fuckin' idea, like throwing an animals head into a mosque or scrawling 'fuck muhammed' on a wall - it's completely unproductive and inflammatory, what was the point?

To express anti-muslim feeling? Anti-koranic feeling? Surely it is assumed that the majority of anarchists (fixed interesting typo) oppose organised religion, including islam, why, in the present climate of racism and bigotry, is it necessary to put an exclamation point on this by alienating as many muslims from 'class war' as possible? It makes anarchists look like bigots.

Why? Because given the climate of hate that already exists in the UK and oz surrounding the muslim community, this is the kind of thing white nationalists would applaud 'leftists' for doin - coz they 'hate' muslims too, fucking immigrants! Burning an effigy of a stereotypical 'muslim' (muhammed?) is something im sure the BNP or Australia First would have no problems with, when anarchists start organising events where the only difference between what goes down there and at a gathering of white nationalists is whats on the flags and banners, you're in fucking shit - i would have thought that was obvious.

In fact, this is exactly the kind of thing people were doin' during the 'cronulla' race riots in oz last year, where a group of several thousand young white men lynched a handful of supposed 'lebanese muslims', the cries of 'lebs go home' were mixed in with 'muhammed was a goatfucker' and other anti-muslim slogans.

I think this action has been RIGHTLY criticised, it's extremely ill-timed, divisive and feeds directly into the racist 'us vs. them' discourse that is propagated by the government, and white nationalist right et al, pitting the 'white mainstream' (the 'real' aussies/britons) against 'the muslims'.

I mean come on, a bunch of white people burning an effigy of a stereotypical 'arab'/muslim?


anarchism now
against those fake 'leftists' who jump on the islamist bandwagon that their 'faith' is beyond any form of criticism.


How the fuck is burning an effigy of a muslim caricacture an intelligent 'criticism of islam' or 'muslim faith'? Get a grip.

[Keyser]

If I had headed this "BNP bonfire" would you have the same position?

The thing is, this is a racial steriotype, it's practically a gollywog.

Would have been better to have had the quran, bible and the torah burnt, along with a large picture of the Pope, head of the English Catholic Church, head of the CoE and the head of the Muslim Council of Britain thrown in as well.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Love Underground+November 12, 2006 12:58 pm--> (Love Underground @ November 12, 2006 12:58 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2006 11:55 am
I think it's quite an over-reaction to be honest.
If I had headed this "BNP bonfire" would you have the same position?

The thing is, this is a racial steriotype, it's practically a gollywog. [/b]
The Prophet Mohammed wasn't a white anglo-saxon from Durham...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+November 12, 2006 01:01 pm--> (Black Dagger @ November 12, 2006 01:01 pm)
anarchism now
against those fake 'leftists' who jump on the islamist bandwagon that their 'faith' is beyond any form of criticism.


How the fuck is burning an effigy of a muslim caricacture an intelligent 'criticism of islam' or 'muslim faith'? Get a grip. [/b]
It was an effigy of the Prophet Mohammed, not of a Class War interpretation of an average muslim.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Love Underground+November 12, 2006 11:58 am--> (Love Underground @ November 12, 2006 11:58 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2006 11:55 am
I think it's quite an over-reaction to be honest.
If I had headed this "BNP bonfire" would you have the same position?

The thing is, this is a racial steriotype, it's practically a gollywog. [/b]
The BNP wouldnt have burnt an Effigy of Jesus, would they?

[Forward Union]

I think I've been quite vocal about my hatred of islam, and I think Class War get things right 9 times out of 10, they're all wicked people. But this simply goes about it in the wrogn way.

We want to attack religion and religious bigotry, and alienate the extremists, and totally embarrass and discredit their superstitions. But this will alienate everyone that's not a white atheist.

In the current political climate in Britain, this is a terrible thing to do.


The BNP wouldnt have burnt an Effigy of Jesus, would they?

Probably not, but Combat 18 might of. I meant in reference to that picture alone anyway.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 12, 2006 01:08 pm
We want to attack religion and religious bigotry, and alienate the extremists, and totally embarrass and discredit their superstitions. But this will alienate everyone that's not a white atheist.
Everyone? Perhaps it will alienate many muslims, but i#m quite confident it won#t alienate everyone.

Also, I don't see how the reaction by anarchists is in proportion to that criticism.

[Keyser]

How the fuck is burning an effigy of a muslim caricacture an intelligent 'criticism of islam' or 'muslim faith'? Get a grip.

I never said it was intelligent, I made the point that they should not feel that they can't do this because of some 'leftists' (namely the UK SWP/Respect) claiming that any attck on the islamic faith is a no-go.

Yes, white nationalists/racists/fascists/BNPers will attack Islam, not because they are athiests on a mission to wipe out stone age superstitions like islam and christianity, but because they want to wipe out and attack non-whites and use valid criticisms of islam (it's sexist and backwards and oppressive) to push their own agenda through.

But certain fascists (namely third positionists and national bolsheviks) also claim to be anti-capitalists. Does that mean us anarchists and communists should stop using terms like anti-capitalism, of course not.

Stalin used the term communist to describe his political beliefs, but that does not stop me from using the word communism to describe the society I strive for and want to see.

If the racist far-right attack islam, then that should not mean we should throw ourselves into the arms of reactionary islamic clerics and defend their reactionary ideology.

As far as I am concerned, Abu Hamza is just the other side of the coin to the BNP. the same can be said for Hitler and Bin Laden. Fascism and racism are not exclusive to white people, there are bigots, racists and reactionary arseholes the world over.

What about the stupid and hysterical reactions by Muslims to any critical remarks made about Muhammed or the quran? Why is burning a book filled with crap somehow more worse than rioting which killed innocent people in the Middle East in reaction to cartoons or articles?

As far as I am concerned, let us provoke the fundamentalists into their fits of rage, hopefully the saner and more rational people in the Middle East will see these lunatics for what they are and dump their shitty dogma.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 12, 2006 10:05 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 12, 2006 10:05 pm)
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 12, 2006 01:01 pm

anarchism now
against those fake 'leftists' who jump on the islamist bandwagon that their 'faith' is beyond any form of criticism.


How the fuck is burning an effigy of a muslim caricacture an intelligent 'criticism of islam' or 'muslim faith'? Get a grip.
It was an effigy of the Prophet Mohammed, not of a Class War interpretation of an average muslim. [/b]
Which also happens to conicide perfectly with the racialised caricature of a muslim man - even if this was not intended - the people responsible should have had the brains to see this, but then again if they had brains they wouldnt have gone ahead with this action at all. That it was 'meant' to be an effigy of muhammed doesnt make it acceptable, or obviously, any less offensive. Moreover you're skipping over the point of what you are quoting, yes it is a muslim caricature (even if it is meant to be muhammed, it can be both at the same time), but also it is NOT an intelligent criticism of islam or islamic 'faith', it's an appropiated act of what in the contemporary context, is akin to far-right bigotry.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 12, 2006 01:19 pm
That it was 'meant' to be an effigy of muhammed doesnt make it acceptable, or obviously, any less offensive.
I don't think Class War think about "acceptablity" when the do something which is clearly an attempt at being offensive.


Moreover you're skipping over the point of what you are quoting, yes it is a muslim caricature (even if it is meant to be muhammed, it can be both at the same time)

Yes, but it isn't! Just as the effigy of jesus was not a caracture of chritians.


akin to far-right bigotry.

Yes, it's similar - what's your point? I'm not of the opportunist position that we should do everything the far-right doesn't just because they're the far-right.

They oppose Islam - but so do I. Now what?

[The Bitter Hippy]

well i'm against religion, etc, but CW are just begging to be branded racists here. I agree that there is no logical basis for calling them that, but what's logical and what happens are rarely the same thing.

For those criticizing the effigy as a stereotypical muslim: what about jesus? was that effigy a stereotypical jew? if so do you have a problem with it? Although perhaps it would be more pertinent to use a faceless effigy, what with the whole "don't draw mohammed!" thing. Or a veiled one, but that'd be risky.

[Zero]

I don't see what the problem is.

Wait! Yes I do! Why would you wear a Ray Mysterio mask to a Koran-Thumper burning party?

[VonClausewitz]

It ammused me, and it's no worse than rabid Islamics burning flags, models of george bush etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 09:38 pm
It ammused me, and it's no worse than rabid Islamics burning flags, models of george bush etc.
Shut up you fucking idiot!

[VonClausewitz]

Shut up you fucking idiot!

You could try a little eloquence, it's never hurt anyone before now.

If that was meant to be a refutation, then pray tell, how is people burning model Muslims as a symbol of their hate any worse than Muslims etc burning models of other people as symbols of theirs ?

[bcbm]

I suppose fire and destruction if the way typical white privileged people deal with people of color doing and believing things they don't like.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 14, 2006 01:29 am
I suppose fire and destruction if the way typical white privileged people deal with people of color doing and believing things they don't like.
That's bullshit!

You cant attack Clas War for burning an effigy of Mohammed from the basis that they are inherently racist because they're western white people.

That's clearly ridiculous.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 12:04 am

Shut up you fucking idiot!

You could try a little eloquence, it's never hurt anyone before now.

If that was meant to be a refutation, then pray tell, how is people burning model Muslims as a symbol of their hate any worse than Muslims etc burning models of other people as symbols of theirs ?
I have no reason to be "eliquent" towards you or attempt to refute what you say. You're a fucking idiot and I told you so.

It was as simple as that.

[An archist]

In theory that action is a good idea, only burning an effigy of jesus woul be hypocritical, but knowing what you known about the Mulim's sensitivity towards pictures of Muhammed, it's clearly not a smart thing to do, that picture risks being used to depict Class War as racists.
So ideologically it's something to support, but strategically it's definitely not.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 14, 2006 06:19 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 14, 2006 06:19 am)
black banner black [email protected] 14, 2006 01:29 am
I suppose fire and destruction if the way typical white privileged people deal with people of color doing and believing things they don't like.
That's bullshit!

You cant attack Clas War for burning an effigy of Mohammed from the basis that they are inherently racist because they're western white people.

That's clearly ridiculous. [/b]
I didn't say they were inherently racist. I just said white folks tend to destroy non-white folks who don't believe as they'd like. Are you saying this isn't the case?

I'm certainly no friend of religion, but this action is fucking stupid and will do absolutely nothing to build ties with dispossessed elements in Muslim communities. It comes off like a vaguely racist binge (at best) from a bunch of privileged white fucks, probably because that is pretty much what it is.

You don't fight religion by inflaming tensions with oppressed communities through senseless offensive imagery.

[VonClausewitz]

I have no reason to be "eliquent" towards you or attempt to refute what you say. You're a fucking idiot and I told you so.

It was as simple as that.

A shame, I thought you might have had something intelligent to say.


You don't fight religion by inflaming tensions with oppressed communities through senseless offensive imagery.

But you fight capitalism by inflaming tensions with the oppressed proles through senseless offensive imagery, cartoons, satirical writings, etc.

Correct ?.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 10:27 am
But you fight capitalism by inflaming tensions with the oppressed proles through senseless offensive imagery, cartoons, satirical writings, etc.

Correct ?.
I'm not aware of anybody burning effigies of Wal-Mart employees.

[Enragé]

this is stupid as fuck.

way to alienate a great amount of people
this is not only going to alienate extremists, and not even just muslims, ITS GOING TO ALIENATE EVERYONE WITH A FUCKING BRAIN

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 14, 2006 04:52 pm
I didn't say they were inherently racist
Well, that's the implication.


I just said white folks tend to destroy non-white folks who don't believe as they'd like. Are you saying this isn't the case?

Not generally, no...


I'm certainly no friend of religion, but this action is fucking stupid and will do absolutely nothing to build ties with dispossessed elements in Muslim communities.

I'm not prepared to treat people like idiots. If someone self-identifies as a muslim then they are defending reactionary beliefs and institutions and will face criticism for it.

Perhaps it's my own sensibilities, but I have nothing but absolute contempt for religion and those who practice it and I don't care how "dispossessed" some muslims may be, just as I'm not interested how "dispossessed" some fascists would be; if you self-identify as a muslim or as a fascist, then you must be prepared to take the criticism.

If Class War want to burn an effigy of Mohammed then they are totally justified in doing so because Mohammed represents a set of morals that were totally antithetical to progression in any sense and if that pisses some people who self-identify as muslims then so what!

[bcbm]

I'm not prepared to treat people like idiots. If someone self-identifies as a muslim then they are defending reactionary beliefs and institutions and will face criticism for it.

How binary of you. :rolleyes:


Perhaps it's my own sensibilities, but I have nothing but absolute contempt for religion and those who practice it and I don't care how "dispossessed" some muslims may be, just as I'm not interested how "dispossessed" some fascists would be; if you self-identify as a muslim or as a fascist, then you must be prepared to take the criticism.

Well, unless you plan to somehow find liberation after alienating the majority of the world, or hope for some sort of miracle, your attitude has nowhere to take you but a dead-end. Perhaps it would be better to figure out why people turn to fascism and religion and then figure out how something more positive could fulfill that function. Most people's beliefs are grounded in the material reality around them, after all. This is pretty simple anthropology.


If Class War want to burn an effigy of Mohammed then they are totally justified in doing so because Mohammed represents a set of morals that were totally antithetical to progression in any sense and if that pisses some people who self-identify as muslims then so what!

If you think Islam has never represented progression in any sense, then you are ignorant of history, but that is neither here nor there. I'm not a fan of religion either, but I can at least recognize that pissing them off for no fucking reason, and looking like racists to boot, isn't progressing anything.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 15, 2006 06:04 am

I'm not prepared to treat people like idiots. If someone self-identifies as a muslim then they are defending reactionary beliefs and institutions and will face criticism for it.

How binary of you. :rolleyes:
Either you are a Muslim or you aren't. Anyone who talks about progression in the context of their religion is talking nonsense.

You cannot be religious and progressive at the same time.


Well, unless you plan to somehow find liberation after alienating the majority of the world

I'm glad that you think that I can single handedly change the world, but that's not the case I'm afraid and having already admitted that this is my personal gripe I think it's fair to say that I'm not going to alienate the majority of the world.


your attitude has nowhere to take you but a dead-end.

Well, we'll see.


Perhaps it would be better to figure out why people turn to fascism and religion and then figure out how something more positive could fulfill that function.

Fear mostly.

Irrationality is one of the first things to go in order to create a communist society and it is a communist society that I wish to see created. That means the negation of god ad the destruction of organised religion.

That is the truth, that is the position I take and I am not going to compromise on that or water it down in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of people who actively believe in a lie.


If you think Islam has never represented progression in any sense, then you are ignorant of history,

Are you saying that Islam and communism are compatible?


I'm not a fan of religion either, but I can at least recognize that pissing them off for no fucking reason, and looking like racists to boot, isn't progressing anything.

I find it totally intolerable, that when people attack Islam or its iconography they are automatically assumed to be racists. This has nothing to do with race and anyone with half a mind can see that.

This is about religion and it's reactionary oppressive hold over people.

[bcbm]

Either you are a Muslim or you aren't. Anyone who talks about progression in the context of their religion is talking nonsense.

You cannot be religious and progressive at the same time.

Being a "Muslim" can mean many, many, many different things, some of which I find more progressive than a lot of the shit so-called progressives spout on here. Religions are rarely simplistic and religious people, even of similar traditions, rarely believe the same thing. To automatically discount everyone and everything associated with a religion without digging a little deeper seems fairly naive and misguided to me.


Fear mostly.

That's a start. What are people afraid of? And can you think of a better way to try and answer those fears than saying "Fuck you?"


Irrationality is one of the first things to go in order to create a communist society and it is a communist society that I wish to see created. That means the negation of god ad the destruction of organised religion.

Well, let me impart a hint on you. You aren't going to negate god in people's minds and destroy organized religion by setting religious icons on fire. Such overt attacks tend to put people entirely on the defensive, and that is not going to advance such a thing.


That is the truth, that is the position I take and I am not going to compromise on that or water it down in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of people who actively believe in a lie.

You don't have to compromise or water anything down. I just think you need to go at the problem from a different angle. Needless antagonism won't solve shit. You'll get more flies with sugar than vinegar.


Are you saying that Islam and communism are compatible?

I am saying that Islam has, in some ways, been historically progressive. How you got that interpretation out of what I said must have been some Olympic level mental gymnastics.


I find it totally intolerable, that when people attack Islam or its iconography they are automatically assumed to be racists. This has nothing to do with race and anyone with half a mind can see that.

This is about religion and it's reactionary oppressive hold over people.

Well, I think communities of non-white people who happen to be Muslim and have been faced with a number of racist attacks in recent times will perhaps interpret a bunch of white people setting a brown person with a Koran on fire in such a way. You might not like it but, well, that's life, isn't it?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This was an act of class war against who exactly and on whose behalf?
Was this a demonstration of members of the Arabic or Persian or African or Kurdish community against Islamic clerics? Was this a display of solidarity with people living in such communities who are oppressed by Islam?

It a pointless attack on a foreign culture.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Awesome act of symbolism. Anything that can antagonize religious individuals, regardless of class, is beneficial. Through such violent action, people will be pressured into disbanding their beliefs via psychological breakdown.

In other words, insult the fuck out of someone until they stop believing something stupid. This can work for things that are correct, too, but this is not how it is being used here. If every day you hear that your an idiot, you start believing it unless you rationally know it isn't true. Religion doesn't have the rational defense. Someone cannot believe something for psychological reasons and keep believing it when other psychological pressures overrule.

Of course, antagonizing won't work on all individuals. More advanced psychological methods will be neccessary for those people.

[t_wolves_fan]

Oooh this one's a fun one.


In other words, insult the fuck out of someone until they stop believing something stupid. This can work for things that are correct, too, but this is not how it is being used here. If every day you hear that your an idiot, you start believing it unless you rationally know it isn't true.

Doesn't work. I use it every day on you communists and I don't see any of you changing your minds.


Religion doesn't have the rational defense. Someone cannot believe something for psychological reasons and keep believing it when other psychological pressures overrule.

Neither does communism. According to folks on this board, it has never existed, so there is no reason to assume it will work. Second, it rests on several preposterous assumptions such as technocracy and central economic planning by consensus.


Of course, antagonizing won't work on all individuals. More advanced psychological methods will be neccessary for those people.

Wow. What do you have in mind? Protests? Because I can tell you that I used to witness several of your cute little protests in the streets of DC (I even took part just for fun) and it did nothing to change my mind.

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 09:43 pm
Doesn't work. I use it every day on you communists and I don't see any of you changing your minds.

I'm going to have to agree with this one ;) ; in my experience, the more you insult people for something they believe in, the more resolve they have to defend it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 09:43 pm

Religion doesn't have the rational defense. Someone cannot believe something for psychological reasons and keep believing it when other psychological pressures overrule.

Neither does communism. According to folks on this board, it has never existed, so there is no reason to assume it will work. Second, it rests on several preposterous assumptions such as technocracy and central economic planning by consensus.
That's clearly a strawman. Communism no more rests on technocracy than it does on Maoism. You've simply argued with one or two people, seen technocracy is gaining popularity amongst communists and somehow assume it is a central tenet of the theory. Which is odd as Marx was writing in th 19th century and technocracy as an idea didn't come about until the 20th century.

The reasoning for assuming it will work is rooted mainly in historical materialism. That and logic.

Why don't you fuck off you inbred troll?

[t_wolves_fan]

That's clearly a strawman.

Well let's see.

Nearly every poster here says communism will provide enough for all through some mix of technocracy, central planning, and people just magically not wanting stuff anymore.

So no, it really isn't a strawman.


The reasoning for assuming it will work is rooted mainly in historical materialism.

Either of which supports communism how, exactly? Because I still haven't seen any evidence at all.


That and logic.

Right. The statement, "If a magical fairy sprinkled us with fairy dust and all the workers gained CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS and revolted and all agreed to not be too materialistic and all reached consensus on an incredibly complex economy and all worked for the common good, then that system would work" is indeed logical.

But that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Ya dig?


Why don't you fuck off you inbred troll?

Hmmmm...now there is a good argument. You are sure to be taken more seriously with that one.

:wacko:

[Connolly]

I think they could have done something more constructive to attack religious belief, something like extracting quotes from the Bible which expose its outdatedness and plastering them on some banners - since most Christians havnt even bothered to read their "holy" scriptures which they base their faith.

I also think attacks against, and attention given to Islam presently have been too emphasised, by the BNP, Newspapers, Class War, Sky News etc. and only plays into the grand scheme of things for which the bourgeois government want.

Emphasis on Islam should be played down by the left IMO. It only serve to divide people, turn them against the muslim minority and help party's like the BNP gain seats, aswell as promote the pipe dream which is the 'war on terror'.

Instead, leftists should emphasise on home grown religions like Christianity and expose its brutal side.

On the up side, I support attacks against all religion - but not emphasising on any particular religion, especially one which has got too much attention from other sources and serves the right-wing.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 10:28 pm

That's clearly a strawman.

Well let's see.

Nearly every poster here says communism will provide enough for all through some mix of technocracy, central planning, and people just magically not wanting stuff anymore.

So no, it really isn't a strawman.
What the fuck do you know of "nearly every poster here"? You only get the posters who bother with OI. To be quite frank that's not a lot of people. Also technocracy may well be gaining popularity with us but it isn't central to communism. I personally think that it will come about between socialism and communism. Also communism does not preculde people having stuff, for fuck's sake you;d think we'd have managed to ram that one fact into your tiny brain.




The reasoning for assuming it will work is rooted mainly in historical materialism.

Either of which supports communism how, exactly? Because I still haven't seen any evidence at all. Read marx then you inbred hick, I have no reason to babysit you through an eductation you should have, frankly, recieved when you were 11.


That and logic.


Right. The statement, "If a magical fairy sprinkled us with fairy dust and all the workers gained CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS and revolted and all agreed to not be too materialistic and all reached consensus on an incredibly complex economy and all worked for the common good, then that system would work" is indeed logical. No it isn't. Furthermore I'd like to challenege you to bring up a direct quote of any communist supporter, theortician or leader that has ever said that in all seriousness under any circumstance at all.That is possibly the most ridiculous of all your strawmen so far.


But that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Wait, you actually think that was an example of logic? What the fuck is wrong with you?


Ya dig? Oh stop pretending to be down with my class.



Why don't you fuck off you inbred troll?

Hmmmm...now there is a good argument. You are sure to be taken more seriously with that one.

:wacko: It wasn't an argument it was a question. Let's try again shall we: "Why don't you leave this fucking message board you useless strawmanning, mouthbreathing **** and ram your keyboard sideways up your arse while you're at it?" Please answer.

[BreadBros]

If I had headed this "BNP bonfire" would you have the same position?


Hmm, something similar, but not quite the same happened in the States. The "United American Committee" a conservative activist group with ties to the Minutemen burned an effigy of Bin Laden in front of the King Fahd mosque in Culver City, California. Obviously it was different because it was an effigy of Bin Laden, although the event was held in front of a heavily-visited mosque in LA, and obviously having several hundred rabid anti-Islamic conservatives outside of the place burning effigies was threatening to the people inside.


Awesome act of symbolism. Anything that can antagonize religious individuals, regardless of class, is beneficial. Through such violent action, people will be pressured into disbanding their beliefs via psychological breakdown.

:huh: OK, so you're going to trick people into revolution by causing them to have psychological breakdowns? Great plan dude, good luck with that. Only material reality can effect change in consciousness. I doubt burning an effigy will cause anyone to break with religion, just like how carrying a sign that says "Break with bourgeois political parties" or some such slogan at a march/protest wont effectuate change unless it reflects people's experiences. At this time, Muslims are under heavy scrutiny and pressure from the imperialist countries and the bourgeoisie both abroad and at home, so banding together with those who are oppressed like them makes the most sense in terms of social cohesion. If anything, this type of event will only cause people to band together even more tightly into their social units and reinforce the place of religion in their lives.


In other words, insult the fuck out of someone until they stop believing something stupid. This can work for things that are correct, too, but this is not how it is being used here. If every day you hear that your an idiot, you start believing it unless you rationally know it isn't true. Religion doesn't have the rational defense. Someone cannot believe something for psychological reasons and keep believing it when other psychological pressures overrule.

Sorry Dooga, I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but this has to be one of the stupidest things I've read on RevLeft. Being determines consciousness, I thought we established that over a hundred years ago, but apparently some fail to understand what that means. Insulting people does not bring about progressive change in any way. First of all, people have no reason to give a fuck about your insults unless it effects their material reality. Second of all, if you start attacking people's religion, and the religious community is the only place that will grant them protection, sustenance, some form of social identification, etc. that will only cause them to identify even more greatly with religion against a common threat.


Of course, antagonizing won't work on all individuals. More advanced psychological methods will be neccessary for those people.

I wonder what "anarcho-communism" in your ID line means. You may be an anarchist, but you are definitely not a communist in the Marxist sense. Psychological methods to bring about change?? Thats called idealism.


Either you are a Muslim or you aren't. Anyone who talks about progression in the context of their religion is talking nonsense.

You cannot be religious and progressive at the same time.

Yes it can. The problem with your logic is that you fail to see religion for what it is, a social construct/tool meant to mask class conflict. Its logic has often been appropriated, particularly in nationalist anti-imperialist struggles, towards progressive ends.


Are you saying that Islam and communism are compatible?

He asked you if Islam could ever be progressive, not if it represented a shift in class society. Capitalism isn't compatible with communism, but I'm fairly sure all of us would agree it represented a positive progression from feudalism.


I find it totally intolerable, that when people attack Islam or its iconography they are automatically assumed to be racists. This has nothing to do with race and anyone with half a mind can see that.

This is about religion and it's reactionary oppressive hold over people.

Ok, thats a flaw in terminology. We don't really have a term like "religionist" so people use racist, the point is people use it in regards to someone targetting someone because of their social identity. I find it hard to believe that you can't see why people might call people this in situations like this. This isn't happening in some abstract vacuum of thought. It's aparrent to everyone that the US ruling class is waging a war against a swath of Islamic countries, whether directly (Iraq, Afghanistan) or indirectly (Palestine). The motives of these wars may be economic, but the logic it uses to win over the populace is definitely rooted in trying to foster racial and religious divides. When people see something like this, they automatically associate it with reactionary thought because its employing the same logic, and seems to be coming out of the blue from a leftist POV. Its difficult to see how it accomplishes anything progressive and instead seems to foster and support reactionary thought, especially when its happening in the UK, a country engaged in imperialist war with Islamic countries at the moment.

Ultimately this is the problem I encounter with a lot of Anarchist practice, its rather idealist and abstracted from reality.

[t_wolves_fan]

What the fuck do you know of "nearly every poster here"?

About as much as you do.


You only get the posters who bother with OI. To be quite frank that's not a lot of people.

I peruse the other playpens as well.

The "Gift Economy" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58337)

Gift economics is one of the central ideals of anarcho-communism. Let's say me and you are farmers. I had a good season, and farmed more than enough food to sustain myself. You had some bad luck, and you might not have enough to keep yourself satisfied. The gift comes when I give you some of my excess food. In return, it's agreed upon that you will do the same thing for me. – Red Tendency

It's how most communists perceive a future revolutionary society will be run. A free access system must have recirprocal altruism in order to work rather than the type of trade that we see today. – Janus

Technocracy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56869), which you certainly didn’t seem to rail against in that instance, did you? Hell you even bookmarked it and called it "efficient", which makes me wonder why you’re so angry that I refer to it here?


Also technocracy may well be gaining popularity with us but it isn't central to communism. I personally think that it will come about between socialism and communism.

Well since neither of the three have any prayer of working, I have little to fear.


Also communism does not preculde people having stuff, for fuck's sake you;d think we'd have managed to ram that one fact into your tiny brain.

Well, the theory you espouse certainly does not preclude people from having stuff. But in practice, due to its inefficiency and just plain impracticality, it will result in people having less stuff.




The reasoning for assuming it will work is rooted mainly in historical materialism.

Either of which supports communism how, exactly? Because I still haven't seen any evidence at all. Read marx then you inbred hick, I have no reason to babysit you through an eductation you should have, frankly, recieved when you were 11.

Marx is theory. Theory is not evidence that theory will work. Try again.




Right. The statement, "If a magical fairy sprinkled us with fairy dust and all the workers gained CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS and revolted and all agreed to not be too materialistic and all reached consensus on an incredibly complex economy and all worked for the common good, then that system would work" is indeed logical. No it isn't. Furthermore I'd like to challenege you to bring up a direct quote of any communist supporter, theortician or leader that has ever said that in all seriousness under any circumstance at all.That is possibly the most ridiculous of all your strawmen so far.

This is a challenge I cannot meet and I will tell you why: because no communist has yet been able to provide any details on how the system would actually work beyond slogans about workers uniting. Every single time I have probed further and asked what happens when demand exceeds supply, or there is a dispute between workers and technocrats, I have never gotten a straight answer. The only answers I have gotten revolve around “consensus” and “councils”, and even funnier I’ve gotten responses that workers and the technocracy will never disagree because everyone will magically behave “rationally” and reach consensus through councils, who are elected and who get to decide how much you’re paid. That’ll work! :lol:

If you want to debate these issues instead of complaining that the views of your compatriots are strawmen, then step to the plate.


It wasn't an argument it was a question. Let's try again shall we: "Why don't you leave this fucking message board you useless strawmanning, mouthbreathing **** and ram your keyboard sideways up your arse while you're at it?" Please answer.

Because your simple-minded anger is far too entertaining to miss, ace.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm not going to trick people into believing communism. I am going to cause them to have pyschological breakdowns which will cause them to disband what they currently believe. The same technique could be used to convince people communism is right, but I wouldn't advocate that. Modern psychological is grounded in materialism so I don't know what you are going on about.

As for your comments on insulting people, I think it does accomplish things. Thoughts are part of the material reality so making someone think they are believing falsely does do something. Sure, some people may become stronger believers in response to insults. However, this is to be expected. It is a war. Things get worse before the end.

Again, this is for people who believe in god primarily because of psychological reasons. Some people have simply been culturally indoctrinated and can be convinced through reason.

[BreadBros]

I'm not going to trick people into believing communism. I am going to cause them to have pyschological breakdowns which will cause them to disband what they currently believe.

The human mind doesn't work that way. Psychological breakdowns are usually the result of brief reactive psychosis from extreme stress or trauma. Have you ever heard of false confessions under torture? If you insult someone to the point where they collapse mentally, they may profess to believe in communism or hate religion or some such idea, but the result is usually a reactive action in order to stop the trauma and relieve overpowering emotions resulting from an inability to deal with the trauma. It is usually resolved within two weeks or so as the mind accepts and resolves the complex emotions, although occasionally hospitalization and medication is required if self-harm or suicide becomes possible. So their disbelief in religion will be very short-lived, only until their mind is capable of resolving the emotions resulting from their nervous breakdown.


The same technique could be used to convince people communism is right, but I wouldn't advocate that.

I highly doubt it, any communist society based on this would either:
1. It will dissolve within 2 weeks, and people will vehemently hate communism after that for causing them mental distress
2. Your society will have to take the form of an extremely hierarchical society, with an upper class focused on continually destroying people's opinions through continued harassment, mental stress and torture. Some people have postulated that this form of beratement and mental attack is a feature of fascist totalitarian societies.
3. Everyone will resort to dealing with their mental destruction by suppressing all emotion and personal will, meaning it'll more or less become a society of drone slaves.


Modern psychological is grounded in materialism so I don't know what you are going on about.

You are right that studies of brain chemistry are grounded in materialism. You seem to be making some sort of logical leap that this somehow justifies that any psychological action is thus material. This is false, in fact a materialist study of brain chemistry only reveals the mechanisms behind mental breakdowns and shows that they aren't "true conversions". In fact, modern psychology very much justifies Marx's theories of materialism. Marx said being determines consciousness. That means that no matter how much you argue, talk to, insult, berate, attempt to convince etc a person, they will not change their worldview or consciousness until it reflects their material reality. This is the main problem with your ideas, they are extremely idealist. People may have a temporary mental breakdown that results in inability to comprehend their emotions, in which they may profess to believe in anything you want them to. This is only temporary, and is no more reflective of truth than someone who confesses to a crime after being brutally tortured.


As for your comments on insulting people, I think it does accomplish things. Thoughts are part of the material reality so making someone think they are believing falsely does do something

Thoughts are part of material reality, but only in as much as they formed and a reflection of material reality. If they don't coincide with reality, they're useless and are discarded. I highly doubt the possibility of your "methods" resulting in any progressive change, but apparently theres a large amount of people who feel that wasting a lot of their time with such foolishness is worth it, so be my guest.


Sure, some people may become stronger believers in response to insults. However, this is to be expected. It is a war. Things get worse before the end.

Actually its not a war. This is the idealist mistake Leninist organizations (and apparently some anarcho-communists too) make. Sorry to break it to you, but no matter how unified, cohesive, organized or active your group is, no matter how many effigies you burn, it will never bring about anarchist or communist revolution unless the historical development of society and economic classes is capable of producing it. The only way in which it mirrors a war is that whoever has the better weapons wins, and the weapons are our analysis of society, which people will decide between to take upon as changes occur. I highly doubt a PsychOps department will be a part of such changes.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Someone will stop believing in religious ideals temporarily or as long as the hostile environment towards those ideals continues. I am advocating a change of the material reality to one where religion is berated and looked down upon. Perhaps I used some jargon that gave you the wrong idea about what I am talking about.

Religion is a set of incorrect beliefs. People sometimes continue believing incorrectly even when the majority of society looks down upon them for it. However, if they are directly insulted for having that belief, there is a chance they will abandon it. Either that will occur, or they will, as you said, commit suicide or isolate themselves.

Either way the problem is dealt with by my solution. I prefer using means to eliminate religion that maintain the lives of religious people. However, I put class war and revolutionary ideals - things that effect my material reality - over the so-called right of of others. You don't seem to do so.

And of course people will become revolutionary or disband religious beliefs when material conditions cause them to do so. However, how will those material conditions be created? I am suggesting a way - the marginalization and oppression of religious views.

I am not 100% set in my opinions on matters of religion since I know I take an unpopular stance, one which is quite limited in the theoretical support it has. For this reason, I often have a difficult time explaining myself. However, knowledge comes from our senses, and my senses tell me that I am on the right track. I cannot articulate this fully, and my senses may be deceiving me. I have no reason to believe this is the case. Perhaps I am the one with the psychological problem that needs to be solved. It's hard to say.

Overall though, I know this train of thought will appeal to me and I need to explore it to, at least, quell my curiousity.

[BreadBros]

Someone will stop believing in religious ideals temporarily or as long as the hostile environment towards those ideals continues. I am advocating a change of the material reality to one where religion is berated and looked down upon. Perhaps I used some jargon that gave you the wrong idea about what I am talking about.

I think I understand, but that doesn't change much, some sort of sustained environmental change that makes religion unpopular. The problem with this type of coercion is that it generally doesn't result in actual change. Socialist and atheist rhetoric was a large part of the Soviet Union. Obviously the material conditions kept pressing on people and the result was capitalism instead. On a practical basis, your idea is a bit hard to implement. How do you create a hostile environment? It implies some sort of societal control by a differentiation of classes, and it implies that a lot of people still feel religion somehow can explain reality.


Religion is a set of incorrect beliefs. People sometimes continue believing incorrectly even when the majority of society looks down upon them for it. However, if they are directly insulted for having that belief, there is a chance they will abandon it. Either that will occur, or they will, as you said, commit suicide or isolate themselves.

Or, considering their numbers, they'll band together and overthrow you.


Either way the problem is dealt with by my solution. I prefer using means to eliminate religion that maintain the lives of religious people. However, I put class war and revolutionary ideals - things that effect my material reality - over the so-called right of of others. You don't seem to do so.

I never argued for any "rights" to be religious, I said it was pointless and uneffective. I don't know where you live, but in the US your model would not imply a class war. It would imply a war between a "representation" of the working class (seeking to impart atheism) and the bourgeoisie and one way or another would result in 1. a class society 2. the implication that the proletariat is not fully class-conscious and not capable of establishing communism yet. The representation of the working class in the actual working class's place has been tried before, didn't work out particularly well.


And of course people will become revolutionary or disband religious beliefs when material conditions cause them to do so. However, how will those material conditions be created? I am suggesting a way - the marginalization and oppression of religious views.

How does any societal or economic change come about? Generally its not by a small minority imposing it on everyone else. Did a small elite of the bourgeoisie decide republican/bourgeois ideals were better than monarchical/feudal ones? Things change, and people's opinions change with them. For one thing, among the general populace religion is already being discredited. Science has done a lot towards reducing whatever sway religion had in explaining the world. Religion has to resort to increasingly paper-thin arguments attempting to "disprove" evolution, the history of the planet, cosmology, etc. These arguments are laughable to increasing segments of the population. Furthermore, as Marx points out in the Manifesto, capitalist production has contributed towards the subversion of religion. Life in a capitalist society is incompatible with a lot of religious ideas. Generally women (while they still may be objectified) arent treated as mere chattel, nor is it cool to kill them wantonly (they're needed in the workplace afterall, and violence is the domain of the state) nor is an eye-for-an-eye very possible, etc. The increased knowledge of workers (the average blue collar guy today probably knows a lot more about the world than a middle-class Victorian person, which is needed since better educated workers = more labor power = more wealth created) also means the machinations of politics and power and increasingly visible and science is more accessible, contributing to the erosion of religion's sway over people.

So now, why are most people religious today? Yes, theyre are the religious nutcases, those people tend to have either deep-seated psychological problems or are somehow vying for power by trying to be as reactionary as possible. Im talking about the average working-class person. In my opinion the answer tends to be because religion provides comfort and community. When Marx says religion is an "opiate" he not only means it makes you dumb or placated, he also means it provides comfort, cohesion, even euphoria (just like real opiates) in a crazy world that often may not "make sense" to people. As people begin to see the possibility of community and a world that makes more sense outside of religion and capitalism and they see the success of that possibility, I think they'll increasingly adopt it and it's outlook on life.


I am not 100% set in my opinions on matters of religion since I know I take an unpopular stance, one which is quite limited in the theoretical support it has. For this reason, I often have a difficult time explaining myself. However, knowledge comes from our senses, and my senses tell me that I am on the right track. I cannot articulate this fully, and my senses may be deceiving me. I have no reason to believe this is the case. Perhaps I am the one with the psychological problem that needs to be solved. It's hard to say.

Overall though, I know this train of thought will appeal to me and I need to explore it to, at least, quell my curiousity.

Fair enough.

[Hiero]

I guess we have to think what would muslims or people considered to be muslim (Arabs, Africans, Iranians, Turks) think about this? Considering they are already under attack and survilance by the UK government and the Anglo citizens, I think this would scare the hell out of many immigrants from muslim countries. Great job "Class War" don't expect any immigrants to join your ranks any day soon.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor:

It is stupid to believe insults will change people. Show me where this has ever happen? It hasn't Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus Buddhist, all religioins where found to be the minority and in some cases discriminated against grow stronger and more closer. Durkheim found this out in his studies of Catholic and Protestant minorities over Europe.

On the other hand if we look to examples of China, Russia, Cuba and many other countries which defeated the religious authority, they did so based on mass mobilsation and mass education. They fought with the hope of a better society. They didn't fight because they they felt like shit under the boot of some arrogant anarchist. "Hey your world and history is based on a rapist, ignorant and incest religion, now become an atheist you stupid basterd"

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'll never deny the importance of education. However, education isn't always the solution when it comes to psychological problems. That is why I advocate psychological methods (although perhaps better methods exist than my suggestion) to help eliminate religion. A person with depression gets therapy or medication - they aren't convinced through education that their illogical to be depressed, in most cases.

I am simply trying to suggest a possible means to deal with the obvious psychological elements of religious belief that, at least, occur in a certain segment of the religious population.

For instance, I have a friend who used to be Christian. He wasn't against abortion but was against gay marriage. He is now an agnostic. I mocked his beliefs openly and debated with him logically. It is possible that my logic swayed him alone. However, the logic is avaliable to everyone. Are that many people just illogical? No.

[Raisa]

I think that shit was stupid, not because of my own thoughts but on the revolutionary level, thats a waste of time.
It is uninspiring to the people. Its disrespectful and divisive.

Some intellectual college fuck ups among the left want to use Islam as the new scape goat for the fact that their leadership is getting the people no where.

You can make bonfires all day it isnt doing shit.
Alienating muslim people by buring effigies of prophet mohammad isnt going to get anyone no where.

Most muslim people in hte world dont give a shit if some dirty white kids with crazy hair burn effigies. Have fun, but youre not getting the people anywhere.

[PaulMarsh]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 12, 2006 11:48 am
They did burn an effigy of Jesus as well. But this has been universally criticised by the anarchist movement as racist divisive bollocks.

Some groups in the UK have decided to cut all ties with CW and expel cw members... it's pretty serious.
This is a complete lie.

What do you base your astounding claims on?

Which Class War members have been expelled - and from what groups and organisations?

Which groups have formally condemned it, and in which publications?

[PaulMarsh]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 15, 2006 07:15 pm
This was an act of class war against who exactly and on whose behalf?
Was this a demonstration of members of the Arabic or Persian or African or Kurdish community against Islamic clerics? Was this a display of solidarity with people living in such communities who are oppressed by Islam?

It a pointless attack on a foreign culture.
Well we had a black woman at the bonfire burn the American flag (see 1st picture on the link below)

http://www.londonclasswar.org/newswire_bonfirenight.php

Is that acceptable to you, or have we committed an act of racism against Americans?

[PaulMarsh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 08:21 am
On the other hand if we look to examples of China, Russia, Cuba and many other countries which defeated the religious authority,
Oh dear.

The Russians did a great job at defeating religious authority in the Soviet bloc didn't they?

Can you complete this word?

Mujahid--n?

I seem to remember Catholicism in Poland being in quite a healthy state as well.

Still you have your fantasies I suppose.

[Keyser]

Most muslim people in hte world dont give a shit if some dirty white kids with crazy hair burn effigies. Have fun, but youre not getting the people anywhere.

Nor do we care if some braindead Muslims worship a non-existant being and subscribe to a backward and barbaric belief system.

It's not our job nor our duty to do things based around the issue of not upsetting or being offensive to reactionary philosophies or systems, of which Islam is one of many.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Anarchism [email protected] 20, 2006 08:58 pm

Most muslim people in hte world dont give a shit if some dirty white kids with crazy hair burn effigies. Have fun, but youre not getting the people anywhere.

Nor do we care if some braindead Muslims worship a non-existant being and subscribe to a backward and barbaric belief system.

It's not our job nor our duty to do things based around the issue of not upsetting or being offensive to reactionary philosophies or systems, of which Islam is one of many.
Well if you want to move forward in your causes, pissing off a whole lot of people for no good reason when there are better approaches to combatting religion probably isn't the smartest idea.

[Xiao Banfa]

Anyone I see doing this is going to get smacked so fast and so badly they won't know what fucking month it is.

Other muslims will do worse!
:angry:

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 28, 2006 09:43 pm
Anyone I see doing this is going to get smacked so fast and so badly they won't know what fucking month it is.

Other muslims will do worse!
:angry:

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
So you would assault someone for taking advantage of their own freedom?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 29, 2006 05:43 am
Anyone I see doing this is going to get smacked so fast and so badly they won't know what fucking month it is.

Other muslims will do worse!
:angry:

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
Yet another example of Islamic fascism. Clearly we know what side you'll be on come the revolution. Certainly won't be the working class.

[Hiero]

The Russians did a great job at defeating religious authority in the Soviet bloc didn't they?

In Europe, yes they did.


I seem to remember Catholicism in Poland being in quite a healthy state as well.

I said religious authority.


Yet another example of Islamic fascism

There is no such thing. Fascism is something more then being mean and oppressive.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 01:33 pm

Yet another example of Islamic fascism

There is no such thing. Fascism is something more then being mean and oppressive.
In any case, it's still an appropriate title for people like Tino.

[pastradamus]

A group of Supposed Socialists buying into the racist Bush belief that all Muslims are evil. I couldn't see them doing that say 15 - 20 years ago. Its only because of recent news that their ideology is suddenly changed.

Its an insulting image, simply for the sake of being insulting.

These assholes need to grow up. The recent Terrorism is caused by reactionaries and fanatics, not by the man depicted.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 05:19 pm
A group of Supposed Socialists buying into the racist Bush belief that all Muslims are evil. I couldn't see them doing that say 15 - 20 years ago.
I could, easily. They're highly anti-religious and that means they may well be opposed to islam, what with it being a religion.


Its only because of recent news that their ideology is suddenly changed. Bollocks, nothing has changed. It's only because of the recent news that leftists feel the need to leap to the defense of idiot superstitions.


Its an insulting image, simply for the sake of being insulting. Good. Fucking insult the religious.


These assholes need to grow up. The recent Terrorism is caused by reactionaries and fanatics, not by the man depicted. Terrorism is neither here nor there. Islam is not the 'religion of terrorism' but it sure as fuck is no 'religion of peace'. All religions are religions of war, fuck them all.
Yes, this does mean fuck the Jewish faith, the Christian faith, the Hindhu faith and all the other crackpot superstitions.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Love Underground+--> (Love Underground)What do people think of this?[/b]

Not a lot. But, if you're right and this has received quite a bit of attention -- "it's pretty serious"; hadn't heard anything about it myself -- then that's rather ... well, odd. I mean, it didn't even get top billing:


Class War
Yesterday saw London Class War's annual bonfire night party in London Fields, Hackney. We were determined to make this years event bigger and better than last year, and we think we succeded!

A beautiful fire was very quickly built and the range of Guys burnt was our most impressive yet. Those going up in flames included Tony Blair and Hackney mayor Jules Pipe, whilst George W Bush was tied to a nearby tree and used to launch catherine wheels. In a clear response to the Metropolitan Police's intention to ban flag burning, the American flag was burnt whilst officers stood gormlessly on the other side of the park, "earning" overtime.

Later in the evening there was a special parade around the bonfire by the Queen, the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus, who was not only nailed to a cross but sporting a very sexy pair of white Y fronts. All three burnt brightly - a fitting farewell to an excellent evening.

See you all next year!

After all, who has made such a big fuss about this? That's a serious question, as well. Class War is hardly headline material these days ... so I don't think this attention has come from outside.

Rather, as you alluded to, this is something the "anarchist movement" has been nattering about. (And, maybe a couple of left sects as well.) But, apart from these specific groups, I doubt any other fucker has noticed ... which makes the three pages of discussion we've seen here, rather pointless.

That is, if no fucker has noticed this, then it won't have any kind of effect. Divisive or otherwise.

All it will do, is what we see here. Provide something for various "leftists" to argue about. It's a chance for "leftists" to brand other "leftists" as racists and then feel good about themselves. Nothing deep ... or particularly meaningful.

After all, we've had no real discussion on why Class War would burn an effigy of "the Prophet Mohammed" ... and all the other people on the list. That is, there's been no real critique here of Class War itself and the methods they use. Which is a shame, because it kinda' suggests that most people here, regardless of ideological stripe, think this kind of stuff is worthwhile.

When, in reality, having an elaborate excuse to get pissed is nothing of the sort. It's just an attempt at headline grabbing.

And, unfortunately, headline grabbing is what Class War is all about. As one left-communist critique from the early 90's (?) put it, they're the bastard child of Thatcherism ... more concerned with their own fame and ability to command a catchy headline, then anything else.

It's anarchism for tabloids ... or tabloid anarchism. It's the modern, and more moderate, representation of propagande par le fait ... and it's worth sweet fuck all.

And that, for me anyway, if far more important than the discussion on whether the decision to include "the Prophet Mohammed" in the ceremony, whether he looks like "a gollywog" or not, has "racist undertones". (Or whatever you want to call it.)

But that discussion isn't what we've had over the last three pages, which says a lot.

[Zero]

Oh no! Look out! Here comes the Sectarian PC Police!

[Xiao Banfa]

Clearly we know what side you'll be on come the revolution. Certainly won't be the working class.

I fight on the side of the working class. I promote anti-discriminatory politics.
I believe in workers democracy.

If you want to shit all over my politics, you better have some basis for it.

Those "class war" idiots are worse than shit. They'll be lucky to get a punch in the head.

You don't divide the working class with hate-mongering and cultural/religious insensitivity.

I think you'll find as Bush and Blair have that Muslims are the wrong people to fuck with.

[Cryotank Screams]

I think you'll find as Bush and Blair have that Muslims are the wrong people to fuck with.

Oooo, how scary, truly, I'm terrified, you convinced me, :rolleyes: . Please, I would burn a koran in mecca while shouting curses to allah, how is that?

Fuck Islam! Fuck Allah! Burn the Koran! All praise be to Iblis!

Hail Iblis!!

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 29, 2006 06:53 pm

I think you'll find as Bush and Blair have that Muslims are the wrong people to fuck with.

Oooo, how scary, truly, I'm terrified, you convinced me, :rolleyes: . Please, I would burn a koran in mecca while shouting curses to allah, how is that?

Fuck Islam! Fuck Allah! Burn the Koran! All praise be to Iblis!

Hail Iblis!!
Someone should start an anti-religious website called:

www.picturesofprophets.com

Put up some degrading pictures of all religious figures as well as arguments against God and religion. That would get major publicity. I guarantee it.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 29, 2006 10:00 pm
Someone should start an anti-religious website called:

www.picturesofprophets.com

Put up some degrading pictures of all religious figures as well as arguments against God and religion. That would get major publicity. I guarantee it.
I like it, nice idea comrade.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 29, 2006 11:51 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 29, 2006 11:51 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2006 01:33 pm

Yet another example of Islamic fascism

There is no such thing. Fascism is something more then being mean and oppressive.
In any case, it's still an appropriate title for people like Tino. [/b]
Why?

Is he proposing a system of merging capital with a Islamic state? I don't think so.

[The Feral Underclass]

Only fucktards and anally retentive nutjobs make an issue of people using the word "fascist" as a generic term for people who want to impose their views on others with violence.

Get over yourself, and fuck off!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 06:19 pm
A group of Supposed Socialists
They aren't socialists!


buying into the racist Bush belief that all Muslims are evil. I couldn't see them doing that say 15 - 20 years ago. Its only because of recent news that their ideology is suddenly changed.

I know you're powers of perception and rationalisation are limited but perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us with reason - how burning an effigy of Mohammed "buys into the racist Bush belief that all Muslims are evil"

They burnt an effigy of Mohammed and Jesus to make a genral point against religion. If you can't understand that, then educate yourself!


Its an insulting image, simply for the sake of being insulting.

And...


These assholes need to grow up.

Into what exactly?


The recent Terrorism is caused by reactionaries and fanatics, not by the man depicted.

Interesting that you have made that connection completely unprovoked and without any reason to.

What has this got to do with terrorism or fanatics? How have you made these connections?

That says more about you than those activists.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30, 2006 06:22 pm
Only fucktards and anally retentive nutjobs make an issue of people using the word "fascist" as a generic term for people who want to impose their views on others with violence.

Get over yourself, and fuck off!
He doesn't want to convert you "at the sword," just throw some punches at a bunch of people being idiots.

Using fascist as a catch-all term for things you disagree with is stupid and takes away from the seriousness of actual fascism.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 01, 2006 11:22 am
Only fucktards and anally retentive nutjobs make an issue of people using the word "fascist" as a generic term for people who want to impose their views on others with violence.

Get over yourself, and fuck off!
You're a fascist because you're mean to me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+December 01, 2006 02:03 am--> (black banner black gun @ December 01, 2006 02:03 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 30, 2006 06:22 pm
Only fucktards and anally retentive nutjobs make an issue of people using the word "fascist" as a generic term for people who want to impose their views on others with violence.

Get over yourself, and fuck off!
He doesn't want to convert you "at the sword," just throw some punches at a bunch of people being idiots. [/b]
How do you know? Don't trust religious zealots!


Using fascist as a catch-all term for things you disagree with is stupid and takes away from the seriousness of actual fascism.

No it doesn't.

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 01, 2006 12:27 am
They aren't socialists!

I know you're powers of perception and rationalisation are limited but perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us with reason - how burning an effigy of Mohammed "buys into the racist Bush belief that all Muslims are evil"

They burnt an effigy of Mohammed and Jesus to make a genral point against religion. If you can't understand that, then educate yourself!

And...


These assholes need to grow up.

Into what exactly?

Interesting that you have made that connection completely unprovoked and without any reason to.

What has this got to do with terrorism or fanatics? How have you made these connections?

That says more about you than those activists.

They aren't socialists!

I meant leftists, my mistake.


I know you're powers of perception and rationalisation are limited but perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us with reason - how burning an effigy of Mohammed "buys into the racist Bush belief that all Muslims are evil"

My powers of perception and rationalisation are limited. Take a look in the mirror buddy. Its an attack & an Insult on the muslim faith which incoporates 1 billion people. Do you see how that works?


They burnt an effigy of Mohammed and Jesus to make a genral point against religion. If you can't understand that, then educate yourself!

I Understand it. Theres a bit of a big line between understanding and accepting.


And...

and what? Why dont they burn an effigy of Che?(though I would kill anybody that did that) He condoned the marxist-leninist state.


Interesting that you have made that connection completely unprovoked and without any reason to.

What has this got to do with terrorism or fanatics? How have you made these connections?

That says more about you than those activists.

Firstly You know nothing about me. Yet in the CC several refrences were made to the recent terrorism....unless of course you believe this topic is completely unrelated....which it is not.

I do not advocate religious violence, but i believe insulting somebody based on their religion is about as mature as insulting them about their etnicity. despite the fact i am not religious.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 09:51 pm

I know you're powers of perception and rationalisation are limited but perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us with reason - howburning an effigy of Mohammed "buys into the racist Bush belief that all Muslims are evil"

My powers of perception and rationalisation are limited. Take a look in the mirror buddy. Its an attack & an Insult on the muslim faith which incoporates 1 billion people.
I am not of the opinion that we should placate reactionary beliefs just because allot of people all over the world happen to believe in them. If we did that then we'd never be able to destroy capitalism.

Also, you didnt explain how burning an effigy of Mohammedis the same as "buy into the racist Bush belief that all Muslims are evil"?


Do you see how that works?

Yes, it's political opportunism.



They burnt an effigy of Mohammed [i]and Jesus to make a genral point against religion. If you can't understand that, then educate yourself!

I Understand it. Theres a bit of a big line between understanding and accepting.

So you reject opposition to religion? Because that was what this bonfire was?



And...

and what? Why dont they burn an effigy of Che?(though I would kill anybody that did that) He condoned the marxist-leninist state.

:rolleyes:


Firstly You know nothing about me. Yet in the CC several refrences were made to the recent terrorism....unless of course you believe this topic is completely unrelated....which it is not.

This topic has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism!


I do not advocate religious violence, but i believe insulting somebody based on their religion is about as mature as insulting them about their etnicity.

It's not the same at all!

Ethnicity is something that is an inalienble characteristic. Religion is not. You can't choose your ethnicity but you can choose what religion you are.

Attacking someone based on something they cannot alter is totally unfair (among other things) but attacking someone based on a choice to believe in ideas that are reactionary is totally justified.

We should not support reactionary ideas - including religion and this should be represented in our actions and our propaganda. That's not to say that at times we shouldn't be sensitive.

If you think CW were insensitive then that is fine, but it was not unjustified.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 05:19 pm
A group of Supposed Socialists buying into the racist Bush belief that all Muslims are evil.
That's absurd in capital letters.


I couldn't see them doing that say 15 - 20 years ago. Its only because of recent news that their ideology is suddenly changed.

It hasn't changed at all (in this regard). Class War have always opposed religion, of all types and variations. However, it is only recently that organised Islam has posed a threat to the working class in the uk.


Its an insulting image, simply for the sake of being insulting.

I agree that this image out of context doesn't necessarily shine well. That's why I thought I'd stir up some debate. If you mean burning Mohammed is insulting, then quite frankly, that's the point. If depicting your prophet, or even, disgracing that image insults you, fuck off.

It's not a millionth as insulting as our desire to abolish organised religion, and promote science.

[tambourine_man]

(black dagger)

Which also happens to conicide perfectly with the racialised caricature of a muslim man - even if this was not intended - the people responsible should have had the brains to see this, but then again if they had brains they wouldnt have gone ahead with this action at all. That it was 'meant' to be an effigy of muhammed doesnt make it acceptable, or obviously, any less offensive. Moreover you're skipping over the point of what you are quoting, yes it is a muslim caricature (even if it is meant to be muhammed, it can be both at the same time), but also it is NOT an intelligent criticism of islam or islamic 'faith', it's an appropiated act of what in the contemporary context, is akin to far-right bigotry.


that's true, especially considering that there are no historical pictures or sculptures of mohammed to go by since depicting his form would be contrary to islam's opposition to idolatry...so that makes it even more obvious that this is a racist caricature...

(the anarchist tension)


Ethnicity is something that is an inalienble characteristic. Religion is not. You can't choose your ethnicity but you can choose what religion you are.

Attacking someone based on something they cannot alter is totally unfair (among other things) but attacking someone based on a choice to believe in ideas that are reactionary is totally justified.


you seem tobe under the absurd impression that believing in god and religion is a wholly voluntary act that can be attributed to autonomous individual decision alone, rather than the product of social conditioning and influence...

what i mean is, if somebody is born and raised a muslim in a muslim household then his "faith" is hardly the product of clear personal judgement, and so appealing to reason in a constructive way, rather than taking a such a pointlessly offensive, hostile, borderline-racist stance would probably be more effective?

all that considered, anyone who would support something like this especially in a political climate in which muslims are often targetted because theyre immigrants rather than cause of any progressive opposition to all religion in general, is clearly a bit of an idiot...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 09:13 am
you seem tobe under the absurd impression that believing in god and religion is a wholly voluntary act that can be attributed to autonomous individual decision alone
That's not my opinion at all.


rather than the product of social conditioning and influence...

I'm certain social conditioning influences peoples belief in god, it would be absurd to argue otherwise, but so what? There are many choices that exist and they are readily available for people to view and understand. If a choice exists, one is able to choose.


what i mean is, if somebody is born and raised a muslim in a muslim household then his "faith" is hardly the product of clear personal judgement

Until such an age when one can clearly define the choices to be made: Does god exist or does he not exist?

The reality is, when faced with that question most religious people make the choice that god does in fact exist.


appealing to reason in a constructive way, rather than taking a such a pointlessly offensive, hostile, borderline-racist stance would probably be more effective?

I don't live in fairy land. I live in reality. Clearly you haven't spent a great deal of time talking to be people who believe in god, because "appearling to reason" rarely works and in fact never has for me.

While you sit down and talk about the belief in god, I'll get on with destroying it.


all that considered, anyone who would support something like this especially in a political climate in which muslims are often targetted because theyre immigrants rather than cause of any progressive opposition to all religion in general, is clearly a bit of an idiot...

People who want to project their liberal [usually middle class] prejudice about "respecting peoples opinions" or following an opportunist agenda can fuck off!

I'm opposed to Islam. If you have a problem with me displaying that opposition then that's just tuff fucking luck.

Class War have every reason to be angry and feel abhorent towards religion and if they choose to burn an effigy of Christ and Mohammed then they are perfectly justified in doing so.

[Devrim]

I didn't see this here when it came up. I just saw a link to it from another thread: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64661&st=175&#

We commented on this at the time on Libcom:

http://libcom.org/forums/thought/class-war-bonfire-party


Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)


Originally posted by coffeemachine+--> (coffeemachine)The accusation of racism is a serious one.[/b]

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Originally posted by Tallchris99
It seemed even handed to me having one of Jesus and one of Mohammed.

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


Originally posted by Tallchris99
anti activist student middle class wankers

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

Devrim[/b]


Originally posted by Devrim

Originally posted by coffeemachine

Originally posted by Devrim

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


I think you do yourself and your comrades a disservice devrim

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

as i said there does seem to be an overwhelming concern that the effigy is racist without anyone really explaining why this is so.


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Now on to Glory hunter's comments.


Originally posted by Glory hunter
What is being said, is absurd, and ridiculous, and barely worth answering, but then it says everything doesn't it, that the person concerned never could get his head around Class war, but falls for the ICC, (almost) hook line and sinker.

Yes, I never could get my head around Class War. I always had the strange idea that it was patronising shite written by people with university educations for what they imagined to be the working class. Oh, and I don't fall for the ICC half as much as you think.


Glory [email protected]
But let me answer this idea that Class war somehow imitated tabloid politics ? the form may have been copied, but the politics never were.

What I was suggesting is that in my opinion the form, and the content are deeply connected. It is not something that you can just use without falling into some of the politics.


Glory hunter
For example, when Class war put out a papers in the middle of the miners strike with the paper tigerish general line that was saying "Open up the second front, riot in the inner city to take pressure of the mining areas" with all the implications of having said that, and at a time when this was a real possibility, and we also were selling tens of thousands of papers out on the street. In reality, all of this was "deeply linked to bourgeois politics" and it's not as if I couldn't give hundreds of other examples.

This is more interesting as I think that it is a much more important thing to be discussing. There is very little reflection on how we behaved in struggles of the past. There should be. I don't think that this was the right line to take. I think that it is just empty posturing. What does it mean to call for riots. Were people supposed to read Class War, and then go out, and start a riot. I know Glory hunter, and I am sure that he has an understanding of how riots start, and this is not it. I think that it was nothing more than empty sloganeering, something that comes with the tabloid presentation, a sort of anarcho-populist version of calling for a general strike. I think though that the miner's strike, and how people responded to it would be a really worthwhile discussion.

Also, I didn't say that CW's activity was 'deeply linked to bourgeois politics'. I said that the tabloid form was.

Devrim