Aufhebengate

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
baboon
Aufhebengate
Printer-friendly version

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Aufhebengate. The discussion was initiated by baboon.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

baboon
I agree

I followed this discussion closely on libcom until it was done to death, deliberately or otherwise. It was important for the ICC and its sympathisers not to "jump in" at the time especially given the reasons in the article above. The  exposure to me of this policing activity showed how elements of anarchism/libertarianism can exist happily within the state, even alongside and helping its most repressive forces against the working class. What compounds this anti-working class activity is the excuses for it offered on libcom which were based on the defence of one's mates and the avoidence of political questions and class lines, ie, the circle spirit which is perfectly compatible with elements of anarchism. This police work that the individual worked on and which was supported or excused (and covered up) by other elements can only have a basis that belongs to the ruling class. I totally agree with the above article.

I was going to post a link to the article on libcom's "Copwatch" but decided against it. This deserves a wider discussion among proletarian elements.

mhou
Some of the analysis to come

Some of the analysis to come from that mess was well researched and very lucid. Particularly from TPTG and one of the former participants on Libcom's blog on the trajectory of modern policing methods and their relevance to the working-class and its communist minority. TPTG's first open letter contained a brief description of 'debt-crisis terrorism' as the primary mechanism for austerity via the state in the present period, which I think deserves further elaboration and discussion. It's unfortunate that so much material was produced in relation to it- most of which repeats and reinforces the 'personal' side of the ordeal rather than the political and theoretical questions involved.

radicalchains
'proletarian' from the

'proletarian' from the article was myself on the libcom forum which coincidentally is also my name when I comment on anarchist Ian Bone's blog. I wasn't being flippant in my comments about "madness" etc just trying to carefullly bring up the ICC because it was a very heated discussion and especially in that particular discussion was difficult for ICC members and sympathisers to express anything at all. I think the Libcom forum has really sufferred since the ICC was accused of 'spamming' and this more recent issue. 

petey
academic papers

i like libcom very much but this:

radicalchains wrote:
since the ICC was accused of 'spamming'

i remember ICC was accused of cutting and pasting alot; are we referring to the same thing? i though the accusation was very odd, what problem is there with making your argument as easily availalbe as possible, by putting it right in the comment?

about aufheben i said my bit on libcom and only want to repeat my astonishment that there is any corner of academia where one agrees to have one's name put on a  paper with the conclusions of which one disagrees or to which one did not contribute.

radicalchains
  As far as I'm aware the

 

As far as I'm aware the Libcom admins recieved complaints which they partly agreed with concerning ICC members steering any and all discussions into questions relating to ICC theory and programme. That is what I understood from the issue not just a simple question of posting hyperlinks to ICC articles.

But I think it was a broader issue. Some users of the forum didn't really accept the ICC on the forum at all, or wanted only anarchists on the forum. What I found most odd was that in practice various individual anarchists and groups would work with Trotskyists while mostly not criticizing them but wouldn't accept Left Communists on a communist internet forum let alone do joint work. If I've got this right Trotskyists are allowed on the Libcom forum but what are understood as Leninists are not particularly welcome.

That's how I saw it. But I don't have an 'inside view'. Apparently the ICC changed their approach to the forum because of this. 

 

LBird
A fly in the ointment?

I too used to post on LibCom, until I was banned, and followed the Aufhebengate debates and read condemnations of the ICC.

For my part, I always found the ICC posters on LibCom to be very comradely, even when I vehemently disagreed with them. Alf should be singled out, here, for special praise for their forebearance. This good experience is what lead me to this forum, and to far more profound discussions than take place on LibCom, and I'm still keen to participate here in them.

I'm not sure, though, that this is entirely welcome news to the ICC.

Alf
patience and humour....

I was temporarily banned for from libcom spamming because I put up a couple of links without developing a post. It was very petty and radical chains is quite right that there is a kind of pogrom mentality against the ICC among some elements on libcom. The ban was just an excuse. It was encouraging however that a lot of people, not only left communists, opposed it. But it's true that the ban, other aggressive responses (eg by the moderator Fallback when I dared to question Solfed's 'workplace organiser training' sessions), plus the Aufheben business, have made me and a lot of other comrades more wary than ever about participating on libcom. However, I do try to keep up some level of particpation. As the Aufhebengate article argues, we don't think libcom itself should be seen as 'beyond the pale'. 

 

Lbird, stay keen and stay particpating. 

jk1921
What do people think about

What do people think about the "jury of honour" idea? It seems to me that at this stage in the development (regression) of the milieu, that no such jury is really possible and even if it was constituted, it would carry little legitimacy as anyone receiving an unfavorable verdict or one they didn't agree with would just scream politics. This begs the question of what stage must the milieu reach before such a mechanism could be legitimate? Is it plausible to believe that different groups/organizations could reach such a level of trust in one another that such a multi-organizational jury of honour could actually function and its decisions be accepted as legitimate? The idea seems like a total fantasy at the moment, so what can be done in the meantime? The article seems to be very pessimistic that anything is really possible right now.

On the aufheben mess: What is the psychology that would permit someone to participate in radical politics one minute and advise the police the next? Could the individual in question really have convinced himself that his activites were only helping hapless liberals? Where do we draw the (class) line? Working with the police? But doesn't the repressive power of the state run much deeper than mere head crackin' (as the article suggests)? So, does having a job in which one advises or works with social service agencies, etc. --which have their own repressive function--also verboten? If we take this too far, we won't be left with very many acceptable professions for revolutionaries to earn a living in until the revolution comes.

LBird
Theoretical mess, too

jk1921 wrote:
On the aufheben mess: What is the psychology that would permit someone to participate in radical politics one minute and advise the police the next?

Perhaps it's the 'psychology of someone' who believes that they are using an 'objective scientific method', and so its results are above mere 'politics'? That they are producing 'objective knowledge' which is socially-neutral and can be used by anyone, both radicals and the police?

And don't forget, the guy is an 'academic' - and I don't mean that as a compliment!

baboon
libcom

I continue to post on libcom albeit "warily". There's still a very much anti-ICC "pack" on there where, if one puts a foot wrong, will take the piss, misrepresent what's said, etc. But some points made by the ICC and its sympathisers have been well received and contributed to the discussion. As the text says, libcom is an important proletarian resource and does attract working class elements. Should the ICC post this text on libcom? - I think it should.

One of the major concerns of the bourgeoisie now is how to confront the outbursts of class struggle that are and will arise from the deepening attacks. Repression,  whether outright or indirect,  is one of the growth industries of capital and one of the main arms of this repression is the police forces of various states. I think that there are some fuzzy lines around other state  agencies that are involved in repressive activities but working with and advising police forces about how to deal with, defuse or defeat working class struggle seems a clear class line. This also applies to attempts to excuse or cover up such anti-working class activity.

radicalchains
Like LBird I discovered the

Like LBird I discovered the ICC texts and website through Libcom. I was impressed by their comradely attitude on the Libcom forum and their level of discussion. It was very useful to be able to go and read something they had written which gave a deeper and historical view on their website during a discussion. But I think that opportunity has gone now, sadly.

I have read many of the articles about the Jury of Honour and don't see it as something possible today. Principally, I think joint work must precede it. Joint work, including a level of trust and solidarity would have to be built up first. 

One of the issues around the problem was that some people didn't recognise it as a problem because it was not in their country and/or it was only a journal and not an organization. In both respects I thought this was a very narrow view.

How much joint work exists between say ICC, ICT and anarchist organisations? 

petey
otoh ...

radicalchains wrote:
Like LBird I discovered the ICC texts and website through Libcom.

i discovered libcom through ICC texts

 

Alf wrote:
I put up a couple of links without developing a post.

that's what i was  thinking of. (also @ radicalchains)

 

(btw i can't log out.)

 

jk1921
ODD

LBird wrote:

jk1921 wrote:
On the aufheben mess: What is the psychology that would permit someone to participate in radical politics one minute and advise the police the next?

Perhaps it's the 'psychology of someone' who believes that they are using an 'objective scientific method', and so its results are above mere 'politics'? That they are producing 'objective knowledge' which is socially-neutral and can be used by anyone, both radicals and the police?

And don't forget, the guy is an 'academic' - and I don't mean that as a compliment!

 

Well, that would be doubly odd then considering Aufheben got a name for themselves through the critique of "objectivism."

LBird
The Odd Dialectics of Aufheven?

jk1921 wrote:
Well, that would be doubly odd then considering Aufheben got a name for themselves through the critique of "objectivism."

Perhaps it's a manifestation of 'dialectics', jk!

Two 'odds' interpenetrating each other, to produce a higher level of 'oddness', or the quantity of one 'odd' added to another one 'odd' producing a qualitative change to 'double-oddness'!

Or do they negate each other, which leaves Aufheben Evenness? A new group called Aufheven?

petey
(pardon...)

petey wrote:
(btw i can't log out.)

(i solved this, sorry for the interruption)