Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[Steel Icarus]

That video makes me feel fucking sick. This, ultimately, is what this divisive obsessed with the self bollocks ends up as.

 

[phildwyer]

The weathermen all professors - this is your victory Ayers and Dohrn, to reduce all opposition to this individualised shit and to make sure it's passes your composition tests. You smiling fucking cunts.

What are you on about now? Why blame the Weathermen?

 

[frogwoman]

I cant believe there is actually a person called mary beard

 

[ViolentPanda]

...in using them for their own personal leverage.

The same song the middle classes have always sung.

 

[ViolentPanda]

well strummer certainly went out of his way to hide his middle class background. For a reason.

You're taking the piss!!
Strummer's background was known about back when he was in The 101ers, never mind The Clash. Nobody cared, because he'd been living in a squat, alienated from his family for years, by then. Mark Perry took the piss out of him because he used to slip back into a Public School accent when he got riled.
You know why we didn't care? Because the music resonated, regardless of the source!

 

[Casually Red]

Any thoughts on the exchange in the video from Richmond Virginia?

fucking fuck..thats the last straw..the last one. There isnt a gulag remote enough or cold enough .

I think after watching that I have absolutely nothing in common with those people, in fact theyre my enemy, i hate them, I refuse to be on the same side and I now want to officially resign from the left and then get in contact with my relative in the NYPD and encourage him to pepper spray fuck out of those twats like its going out of fashion . Im actually sorry now I never emigrated and joined the fuzz over there back in the 80s.
Bastards . No good lousy hippy bastards .

Hope killing, time wasting, attention seeking , shite talking , counter revolutionary, fifth columnist, weirdo hippy vegan bastards .

Those are my thoughts just at the moment . I may revise them after I calm down a bit . But not by much .

 

[muscovyduck]

The responses in the comments here are (mostly) pretty healthy

Oh fucking hell

 

[sihhi]

Transcribed because I think it gives a glimpse of how the weird (to my eyes) hand gestures can give weight to those accustomed to using them - the activist core with years of uni or activism-as-leisure experience will win - 9 times out of 10:

Now the guy in the middle is going to say something that's unpopular with others but the chair doesn't allow that full thought to be communicated, that guy also doesn't use any hand signals, not one of the in crowd - looks more of a townie than others not a bad thing. His turn is interrupted by someone else and another male takes over to suggest that people who don't accept the progressive stack are not being respectful of anti-racism/anti-sexism/anti-classism.

Chair (W): Some people are new here, I just want some people to be aware of what's going on is that they [Occupy New York] do things by a consensus which means everyone gets to be heard (jazz hands) and um the way people speak at their general assemblies is there are facilitators that keep a stack - which means a list of people who would like to speak. In New York, in New York they use something called a progressive stack which means if you have your name on a list and you come from a traditionally marginalised background, race, gender, ethnicity um anything that is traditionally marginalised you get bumped up the list

Noise: Woo hoo (jazz hands)

Chair (W): This means we want to be able to hear what everyone has to say. Also one of the things stressed at Occupy Wall Street is the step up step back (heavy stress) this means people who have been privileged all (hand stress) their lives erm mainly white men white women even - people who have been privileged need to realise that they need to step up and step back (stress) if they have said what need to say (jazz hands)

Voice 1 (M): (in the middle of jazz hands) Isn't this supposed to be an egalitarian movement?

Floor Male: Yea I think it doesn't matter whether, you know what, what their general background is, because you know the majority of us are already, you know, part of the marginalised class of people so it wouldn't matter 'cos more people who are already under that marginalised group would get to speak anyways and I think... (No hand gestures at all)

Voice 2 (F): *That's such sh..*

Floor Male: What? (non-agressive)

Male Near Chair: Alright, something we need to identify off the bat is when we talk about privilege we're talking about access to educational power OK those are things that come from skin colour, your sex, your class OK (emphasising lectern-hitting gestures) - and these are things you need to be aware of that you have prvilege over other people at different levels or you may have less privilege than other people um depending on who you are, Yes we may all be marginalised but some of us are far (stress) more marginalised than others and we need to be respectful of that and realise that there are some people way before now have lost all we need to help restore that.

Jazz hands and applause.

Voice 2 (M) *Thank you.*
Is it worth doing a poll here to ask whether or not this stack system should be applied more widely in this country? I can see some advantages but also dangers.
LP is pretty convinced although only mentions it briefly:

all decisions, from the smallest breakout circle to general assemblies of thousands, are made using the "consensus" model of direct democracy, waving hands in various simple signals and operating with discussion facilitators rather than leaders, a system that some say originated in the Quaker movement several centuries ago.
There are different dialects of hand-signal consensus in different countries-in Spain they wave their hands higher, in New York a system called "progressive stack" is designed to ensure that minority voices are heard -- but the principle is the same.
It's a principle of democracy done at ground level, and people involved in this "consensus" process find it incredibly empowering -- a refreshing contrast to the alienating remoteness and weary predictability of parliamentary representative democracy, which most people here see as totally irrelevant to their real lives.
The sense of collective engagement overwhelms the multiplicity of different strategies and suggestions within the movement: everyone turns up with their own problems and grievances, but the process of engagement becomes just as important . "I do not come here to affirm who I am already," one visiting Spanish activist in New York said last week, "I come here to discover who I can be with other people. This is a new kind of politics."
I believe that what we are seeing here is the beginnings of a substantive change not just to the nature of modern politics, but to the way in which it is done, demanded and delivered

 

[agricola]

"I come here to discover who I can be with other people. This is a new kind of politics."

I believe that what we are seeing here is the beginnings of a substantive change not just to the nature of modern politics, but to the way in which it is done, demanded and delivered

 

[butchersapron]

 

[Brainaddict]

I don't think the progressive stack is the right thing to do, but I can't get as angry at it as you lot. They're trying to deal with a political problem that some people are more visible or more heard in a group than others. From what I've see there is some correlation between the less visible people and gender and/or oppressed minorities. I think this should be dealt with by facilitators and group members being aware of the issue and trying to talk to the less shouty individuals - probably outside meetings - in order to see if they have views that aren't coming out, to see if they can overcome their shyness or have other people put their views forward for them and so on. This would involve building up relationships with people rather than just treating them as their apparent profile.

As I say, as a way to address this issue I think the above example is misguided because of its potential to be divisive, but I don't see the call for so much anger. They have their reasons for doing it and it seems to me like something that can be discussed, rather than turning the perpetrators into enemies.

 

[butchersapron]

You're all disagreeing in the wrong way. Jesus, you're as bad as her.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't think the progressive stack is the right thing to do, but I can't get as angry at it as you lot. They're trying to deal with a political problem that some people are more visible or more heard in a group than others. From what I've see there is some correlation between the less visible people and gender and/or oppressed minorities. I think this should be dealt with by facilitators and group members being aware of the issue and trying to talk to the less shouty individuals - probably outside meetings - in order to see if they have views that aren't coming out, to see if they can overcome their shyness or have other people put their views forward for them and so on. This would involve building up relationships with people rather than just treating them as their apparent profile.

As I say, as a way to address this issue I think the above example is misguided because of its potential to be divisive, but I don't see the call for so much anger. They have their reasons for doing it and it seems to me like something that can be discussed, rather than turning the perpetrators into enemies.

You want to discuss with this fanaticism?

 

[J Ed]

These are the sorts of people who in other times and societies would be religious fanatics feeling superior by berating their fellow man for not using the correct hand gestures to pray.

 

[sihhi]

Is it worth discussing the trend or not - it's a sidetrack from just talking about left celebrities but the whole thread has lots of sidetracks:-

What we have is advice like

http://criticallegalthinking.com/20...h-jodi-dean-on-democracy-occupy-and-communism

some of it good although should be good for all - e.g. risk of arrest should be explained to everyone properly.


5 Tips for White Allies in the Occupy Movement

having its final ending advice to

Support POC created events: Attend these events! At events organized by POC, focus on listening. Don’t jump in the spotlight. Be alert for white people who might be rude or aggressive at the event. If possible, ask them to stop their behavior and give them more information about the purpose of the event. Have this conversation away from the event, so they don’t disrupt it any further.

Why should people attend events created by immigrants if they aren't interested in them or engaged in them - simply out of a desire to be a better ally - even if these people say and do nothing the whole meeting I'd rather not have these people there. I don't want them policing meetings set up or called by immigrant groups - people who attend can police those who might be rude or aggressive by themselves.

It all seems like promoting the middle-class within immigrant groups who are au fait with the activist culture/approach/lingo - erasing capability and class differences within immigrant groups - all while providing opportunities for the whipping up of tremendous backlash.

 

[weepiper]

Fuck them giving us their permission to talk.

 

[butchersapron]

These are the sorts of people who in other times and societies would be religious fanatics feeling superior by berating their fellow man for not using the correct hand gestures to pray.

Spot on, they are Basij - and you don't discuss with Basij.

 

[Brainaddict]

You want to discuss with this fanaticism?

I've discussed with you in the past.

 

[butchersapron]

Is it worth discussing the trend or not - it's a sidetrack from just talking about left celebrities but the whole thread has lots of sidetracks:-
<snip>

It totally is for any number of reasons, the most insulting assumption of which weepiper nails above - i am off for the night though so can't offer much.

 

[sihhi]

They have their reasons for doing it and it seems to me like something that can be discussed, rather than turning the perpetrators into enemies.

What on earth am I or anyone else doing?

Another thing to bear in mind is how the progressive stack bit comes right at the start for someone attending for the first time - this is from Grand Rapids Michigan the hand symbols were from Gainesville.

At the start of each meeting we review the process and hand signals for the benefit of new folks.

Meeting Outline
Welcome

Explain process to new people as needed; go over hand signals, “stack”
Explain “progressive stack
Go over “WAIT” (Why Am I Talking?) and “Step Up, Step Back”

If there is a chair in any meeting like the video one already committed to a progressive stack it can be die is cast situation. The point of being a chair should be to try and be neutral only and let a meeting proceed as equal citizens ONLY in deadlock extreme should a chair have to cast a vote.
With the cases like OWS, the chair is already committed to progressive stack and step up-step back meaning a heavy diversion or fracture before a damn thing of tactics has even been brought up!

 

[Brainaddict]

What on earth am I or anyone else doing?

Another thing to bear in mind is how the progressive stack bit comes right at the start for someone attending for the first time - this is from Grand Rapids Michigan the hand symbols were from Gainesville.

If there is a chair in any meeting like the video one already committed to a progressive stack it can be die is cast situation. The point of being a chair should be to try and be neutral only and let a meeting proceed as equal citizens ONLY in deadlock extreme should a chair have to cast a vote.
With the cases like OWS, the chair is already committed to progressive stack and step up-step back meaning a heavy diversion or fracture before a damn thing of tactics has even been brought up!

It's a good point. But big unfacilitated meetings don't really work, and if you do have facilitation you start with some baseline rules. I agree though that the facilitation - in London as well - came from an activist class with their own language. This was pretty offputting for a lot of people. A lot of it came just as much from anarchist groups as from other middle class frames of thought we might dub 'liberal'. The 'activist' package in UK and the US stinks of failure and decay in my opinion. These people will step up to the front next time too...so the point wasn't to defend their methods really. But they're not some foreign beast with inexplicable actions either.

 

[sihhi]

It's a good point. But big unfacilitated meetings don't really work, and if you do have facilitation you start with some baseline rules. I agree though that the facilitation - in London as well - came from an activist class with their own language. This was pretty offputting for a lot of people. A lot of it came just as much from anarchist groups as from other middle class frames of thought we might dub 'liberal'. The 'activist' package in UK and the US stinks of failure and decay in my opinion. These people will step up to the front next time too...so the point wasn't to defend their methods really. But they're not some foreign beast with inexplicable actions either.

Yes meetings should be chaired (with the position rotated - like any other), what gave you the impression I thought meetings shouldn't be chaired?

 

[DrRingDing]

'Progressive' stack is bollocks but a good facilitator will take note of who hasn't spoken and I think there's a good argument if a couple of macho blokes have been windbags all night to allow someone else speak before they carry on with their thoughts.

 

[agricola]

If there is a chair in any meeting like the video one already committed to a progressive stack it can be die is cast situation.

The die is cast? As a classicist you must get to speak last, if at all then.

 

[Brainaddict]

Yes meetings should be chaired (with the position rotated - like any other), what gave you the impression I thought meetings shouldn't be chaired?

The point is that facilitation means rules and the first meeting a group has will be facilitated with undiscussed rules. You can say those rules should be 'neutral' but I'm sure the people running that meeting thought that their rules were very neutral - in that they were levelling the playing field by taking account of a historical imbalance.

Anyway, we both agree it is a crap method. I just saw people saying how awful it is without really saying much else.

 

[treelover]

Jesus

Got any links/info on that?

sorry no, will ask my friend who went..

 

[treelover]

If you're in a position to help build a democratic, non-sectarian socialist movement, committed to women's liberation, anti-racism, and the fight against environmental degradation, please consider donating what you can. Thank you.

perhaps the new ISN, SWP breakaway will invite her to join, no mention of poverty, inequality, austerity, at least Laura writes about them...

 

[treelover]

Transcribed because I think it gives a glimpse of how the weird (to my eyes) hand gestures can give weight to those accustomed to using them - the activist core with years of uni or activism-as-leisure experience will win - 9 times out of 10:

Now the guy in the middle is going to say something that's unpopular with others but the chair doesn't allow that full thought to be communicated, that guy also doesn't use any hand signals, not one of the in crowd - looks more of a townie than others not a bad thing. His turn is interrupted by someone else and another male takes over to suggest that people who don't accept the progressive stack are not being respectful of anti-racism/anti-sexism/anti-classism.

Chair (W): Some people are new here, I just want some people to be aware of what's going on is that they [Occupy New York] do things by a consensus which means everyone gets to be heard (jazz hands) and um the way people speak at their general assemblies is there are facilitators that keep a stack - which means a list of people who would like to speak. In New York, in New York they use something called a progressive stack which means if you have your name on a list and you come from a traditionally marginalised background, race, gender, ethnicity um anything that is traditionally marginalised you get bumped up the list

Noise: Woo hoo (jazz hands)

Chair (W): This means we want to be able to hear what everyone has to say. Also one of the things stressed at Occupy Wall Street is the step up step back (heavy stress) this means people who have been privileged all (hand stress) their lives erm mainly white men white women even - people who have been privileged need to realise that they need to step up and step back (stress) if they have said what need to say (jazz hands)

Voice 1 (M): (in the middle of jazz hands) Isn't this supposed to be an egalitarian movement?

Floor Male: Yea I think it doesn't matter whether, you know what, what their general background is, because you know the majority of us are already, you know, part of the marginalised class of people so it wouldn't matter 'cos more people who are already under that marginalised group would get to speak anyways and I think... (No hand gestures at all)

Voice 2 (F): *That's such sh..*

Floor Male: What? (non-agressive)

Male Near Chair: Alright, something we need to identify off the bat is when we talk about privilege we're talking about access to educational power OK those are things that come from skin colour, your sex, your class OK (emphasising lectern-hitting gestures) - and these are things you need to be aware of that you have prvilege over other people at different levels or you may have less privilege than other people um depending on who you are, Yes we may all be marginalised but some of us are far (stress) more marginalised than others and we need to be respectful of that and realise that there are some people way before now have lost all we need to help restore that.

Jazz hands and applause.

Voice 2 (M) *Thank you.*
Is it worth doing a poll here to ask whether or not this stack system should be applied more widely in this country? I can see some advantages but also dangers.
LP is pretty convinced although only mentions it briefly:

I wonder what Seeds Of Change who have done some very good work on democratising meetings, etc think of all that?

 

[treelover]

I don't think the progressive stack is the right thing to do, but I can't get as angry at it as you lot. They're trying to deal with a political problem that some people are more visible or more heard in a group than others. From what I've see there is some correlation between the less visible people and gender and/or oppressed minorities. I think this should be dealt with by facilitators and group members being aware of the issue and trying to talk to the less shouty individuals - probably outside meetings - in order to see if they have views that aren't coming out, to see if they can overcome their shyness or have other people put their views forward for them and so on. This would involve building up relationships with people rather than just treating them as their apparent profile.

As I say, as a way to address this issue I think the above example is misguided because of its potential to be divisive, but I don't see the call for so much anger. They have their reasons for doing it and it seems to me like something that can be discussed, rather than turning the perpetrators into enemies.

one of the great things about RTS (and of course there were many issues like class not being recognised) is that organically a lot of the key people were women, not imposed, just developed..

 

[sihhi]

The point is that facilitation means rules and the first meeting a group has will be facilitated with undiscussed rules. You can say those rules should be 'neutral' but I'm sure the people running that meeting thought that their rules were very neutral - in that they were levelling the playing field by taking account of a historical imbalance.

Anyway, we both agree it is a crap method. I just saw people saying how awful it is without really saying much else.

• Yes, the aim is to increase immigrant and women's self-assertion and expression (part of increasing working-class self-assertion as a whole) within political meetings - as much in any other arena. I agree with it wholly.

• The way in which it has been effected here is potentially divisive and dangerous. A not insignificant number of white w/c people have experienced part of school or work under direct management of second or third generation immigrants managers/power figures. It's possible they will not consider themselves 'privileged' because however much they accept racist laws and structures assisted their parents' generation, they are do not see their advantaged privilege today. Fractures could emerge at their being demoted in a stack behind those whom they perceive as middle-class immigrants.

• Who came up with it for Richmond Virginia? It's been taken from Occupy Wall Street because the chair/facilitator in the video visited there. There it was decided - my guess - by the general university student centre of gravity at the street protest and Zuccotti Park occupation that progressive stacks were the way to go.

• This explains something of the OWS progressive stack as conducted by a stack-keeper.

Another check on structurelessness comes in the form of the “progressive stack,” in which the “stack-keeper,” who is in charge of taking questions and concerns from the audiences at general assemblies, is given the ability to privilege voices from “traditionally marginalized groups.”

In other words: women and minorities get to go to the front of the line. Yesenia Barragan, 25, a Columbia student and longtime activist, notes that in reality, progressive stack often means, “my partner, who’s a white man, has to wait twenty minutes or more to say his piece. That’s how it works,” and how it should work, she says. “We need to address those power relations.”

• I don't have any problem with this - the partner is probably middle-class like the woman, however situations could emerge where a non-university worker is structurally demoted down whilst a 25-year postgraduate student is promoted up the order.

• Perhaps the aim should not always be massive meetings but smaller meetings with single reps sent via mandate and recallability. Massive meetings produce 'who speaks first' issues much more heavily.