ads without products

fuck(t)wittery

with 14 comments

Sifting around on twitter tonight for stuff in relation to the occupations. Found this from Mark Fisher. Obviously read it bottom to front.

  1. @PennyRed @leninology and it’s not as if anyone died or got very seriously injured.7:55 PM Nov 28th via web
  2. @leninology @PennyRed I agree – and the images are something that can be used to motivate others too7:52 PM Nov 28th via web in reply to leninology
  3. @PennyRed The police charge enabled that strategic victory, it didn’t prevent it.7:50 PM Nov 28th via web in reply to PennyRed
  4. @PennyRed We should be cold and clinical right down the line. What was the protest about if not winning a strategic victory?7:50 PM Nov 28th via web in reply to PennyRed
  5. @PennyRed it’s powerful propaganda in battle for hearts and minds, plus it emphasises antagonism and ruling class phobic panic7:44 PM Nov 28th via web in reply to PennyRed
  6. @PennyRed on the contrary, cops charging kids is surely a good thing, strategically speaking.

He’s talking about this of course:

Anyone who advocates, you know, people getting run over by police horses in the service of a cause, however just, doesn’t need to be listened to. This ain’t the Terminator, version 1 2 or 3. Spend some time at an occupation, and you’ll see that  “strategic victories” are achievable without weird Accelerationist ideas. (Alternately, if you’re not sure about this – pick the situation / organization that you like the least. Dunno, the Tories, the G8, or the Catholic Church. Celebrate when they do their worst, as it is only a sign that things are moving towards the end, despite, well, the human cost…. This is what he’s talking about….)

I mean, honestly, why not suggest Mark gets run over by a fucking horse in order to enable our strategic victory. It’s happening again tomorrow – bet the horses will be out.

Written by adswithoutproducts

November 30, 2010 at 12:42 am

Posted in crisis

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Mark’s statements are surely a stupid thing, strategically speaking.

    Dave

    November 30, 2010 at 2:02 am

  2. yep. email yr way as soon as things die down / I lose my job for occupation support. I have – honestly – 41 unopened emails in my box right now. And I read them chronically on the phone, so you see!

    adswithoutproducts

    November 30, 2010 at 2:22 am

    • Your reply should be secondary to participation in the present events. I hope they continue to build strength such that you’re too busy to catch up!

      Dave

      November 30, 2010 at 2:35 am

  3. No it’s all good. Sad that you’re not here to see!!!! But the video below, which has little to do directly with the main issue at hand, or everything who knows, should give a (visceral) sense of the intensity of all this.

    Am lucky to be a part. Honestly. Never, ever, ever been so proud to be a teacher.

    adswithoutproducts

    November 30, 2010 at 2:42 am

  4. wow, I missed those, terrible; I was getting annoyed enough by his series of tweets defending television, as if they were new arguments

    Richard

    November 30, 2010 at 3:44 pm

  5. [...] that has drawn some ire. The most pointed critique I read was from Ads w/out Products titled “fuck(t)wittery.” Ads writes, “Anyone who advocates, you know, people getting run over by police horses [...]

  6. “Anyone who advocates, you know, people getting run over by police horses in the service of a cause, however just, doesn’t need to be listened to.”

    Bit of a disingenuous move there Ads. Mark isn’t advocating it – he was responding to a depressed Laurie Penny to say that some good could be made out of a situation, an event that’s already occurred and that needs to be dealt with.

    There has been a sea-change in how the protests are reported & reacted to – and it came after the police kettled kids, charged peaceful protesters etc. The occupation you’ve been talking about has, by contrast, been much less reported, and certainly hasn’t had the same effect on public sympathy. (That’s not to knock it for a moment.)

    Granted, the phrase ‘cops charging kids is surely a good thing’ is almost begging to be misunderstood and quoted out of context. But then the quote I pasted from you could be equally be taken in isolation and queried. Does *no* cause justify facing a mounted police charge? Really?

    other than that, #solidarity!

    ZSTC

    December 1, 2010 at 1:45 pm

  7. My quote couldn’t be misunderstood like his. Seriously read it again – I don’t write things that beg to be misunderstood. If you want, systematically misunderstand it on here for the amusement of my readership!

    You know that we’re dealing with weird fucking accelerationism from mark in the quote above. Why does everyone rush to defend him from his own stupidity? Bizarre.

    adswithoutproducts

    December 2, 2010 at 3:37 am

    • We don’t know any such thing. A lot of Communists write that same sort of thing, and they carry it out on microlevels of extreme dishonesty. You’re much more leftist than I am, but Fisher’s remarks don’t seem particularly strange; frankly, you sound pretty accelerated with all this moving around so. The student protest is convincing enough, and impressive, it’s gotten a decent article in the NYTimes daily (I didn’t see one today, but there probably is something), so it’s taken me a few days to understand its importance–because it’s a fairly big story newspaper-wise, but not huge.

      Anyway, there are different modes of standing by one’s own words. I don’t support any of the Communist extensions of this protest in the way that Seymour and Fisher do, but they’re both decent ways to keep up on what’s going on. And if you take Communism more seriously than I do, then my impression is that they take it more seriously than you. You’re middle-class, educated at a privileged univsrsity etc. I can see how it would be a complex lot of perceptions if you’re a professor at one of the institutions that’s being mentioned a lot, but really…I don’t care what you do personally, but you don’t really make a new case, from what I can tell (which doesn’t mean you’re not active and energetic, after you initial withholding during the first protest, you know, the famous one in which people discussed whether ‘violence’ was a suitable word to use, or even ‘vandalism’, and one person even wrote ‘the left is not violent. It is not within their power to be’. That’s the dumbest line I myself have heard since this thrust began. It’s just that it’s nor so clear-cut when you’re one of the professors, you may find the students ‘excellent’, but you’re not one of them. Isn’t it possible you can’t fully sympathize with them.

      Of course, I personally don’t believe in running over kids with horses, but I can’t see that he’s ‘advocating people getting run over by horses’, and I’m no fan of his, rarely ever reading him. That’s just ‘commie excitement’ as far as I can see it.

      pjm

      December 2, 2010 at 4:36 am

      • I’m confused by your use of the word “communism.”

        A lot of Communists write that same sort of thing, and they carry it out on microlevels of extreme dishonesty

        Your argument is sort of taking the form: what MF said = communism and because MF is a communist therefore Ads is wrong to criticize what he’s said. That doesn’t make much sense to me – is the leap that you’re making that I’m a communist too therefore….

        It’s just that it’s nor so clear-cut when you’re one of the professors, you may find the students ‘excellent’, but you’re not one of them. Isn’t it possible you can’t fully sympathize with them

        No, I’m not one of them you’re right. And I am very, very aware of that in my dealings with them. But we have quite a lot of common cause – in fact it’s hard to see where their desires contradict mine, nor mine theirs.

        I’m no fan of his, rarely ever reading him. That’s just ‘commie excitement’ as far as I can see it.

        Well see, that’s just it. Perhaps if you read him you’d see where the position comes from. It’s not just “commie excitement” but rather is a small-scale expression of something consistent with other positions… With which I happen to disagree.

        adswithoutproducts

        December 2, 2010 at 10:01 am

    • “I don’t write things that beg to be misunderstood.”

      People rarely think they do. But it has been known for people to be misunderstood despite their best efforts and intentions. It wouldn’t be hard for your statement to be construed as an absolute pacifism which some would deplore.

      The real point is, it’s not accelerationism we’re looking at here. Mark is clearly agitating against the cuts agenda. The accelerationist standpoint would go something like, bring on the fees, make them as high as possible, let Oxbridge charge £30k/yr, exacerbate the class divide until the system collapses! etc.

      The accelerationist wouldn’t be talking about how best to resist the state apparatus, or making points that fall into a long-standing (pre-accelerationist) debate about the merits of direct action, personal risk, non-violent protest etc in effecting political change.

      ZSTC

      December 2, 2010 at 10:35 am

      • ““I don’t write things that beg to be misunderstood.”

        People rarely think they do. But it has been known for people to be misunderstood despite their best efforts and intentions. It wouldn’t be hard for your statement to be construed as an absolute pacifism which some would deplore.”

        I agree, and couldn’t be said better.

        {I’m putting the reply to both here, because the Reply Function is not under Ads’s post, none of these comments Reply things are ever adequate.

        Ads–well, you needn’t be ‘confused about my use of the word Communism’, but it’s all right with me if you are. If you’re ‘not one’, that’s cool. You’ve often said your politics were ‘rougist’, and you said the other day that you’d been ‘re-radicalized’. Okay, I can see the fine line you’re looking for (or finding, god knows you’ve asked to have to find one.) You wrote that post about not liking marches or protests, or something ‘although you’ve done them’. Well, yes, in the old days, one was considered a leftist for doing these things, by now one isn’t by the hard left. To make fun of ‘communists’ is not considered okay as I’ve done it, by anyone considereing themselves to be leftists on these bleugs, but I really just don’t care. I’ve never pretended to be one, and someone’s work will mean the same to me if they call themselves a communist or a fascist. I don’t care what they call me, you ought to know that by now. But what Socialists do have as part of their creed is that communism is ‘good’ and fascism is ‘bad’. ‘Socialism’ a la Western European versions is still never good enough even just talking about it, even though it’s those I sympathize with. Hearing total shit like ‘the left is not violent. It is not within its power to be’ makes me know how stupid self-proclaimed Communists are capable of being, because the left is as violent as the right, and has all history to prove it. It’s just they rationalize it like Lori Berenson is, and if some of them come back to the U.S., they might as well be arrested for TREASON too! i.e., they always think it’s a ‘righteous militancy’, therefore it can’t ever be called ‘criminal’ or ‘violent’. Fuck that shit, it can so.

        But my main point was, take Richard Seymour (and probably Mark Fisher), they are looking beyond this immediate situation with the tuition and the students more than you are, I think. They are looking for ‘the Revolution’ as true Communists, and they call themselves Communists. You are probably not that kind of Communist at all, I’m just not going to observe the pieties when I don’t think these ‘true Communists’ are exactly on the right side all the time. They’re mostly down freaks, although Seymour is a fine writer, despite being full of shit. But they want to ‘break this government’ in a very serious way, by extending these protests to the labour movement, etc., so that Seymour wrote yesterday “The sense that we can win it, that we’re in it to win, not merely to protest, is palpable. We can break this government.” So that my main emphasis is that their interest in the students’ energy is much broader than yours could possibly be. They’re British, for one thing, and there’s a limit as to how much interest you can have in a government not your own. You might think that ‘breaking this government’ was a sentiment you could sympathize with, but you wouldn’t do it based on the firefighters, most likely, I’d guess.

        Also, you can’t really be this kind of communist anyway, because you’re pretty much going the Establishment route, which is fairly centrist. Your book reviews I’ve by now read some, and they were good as fas as I can tell (meaning I hadn’t read some of the books, so I don’t know in some cases.) Those journals are mainstream, at least some of them. Also, there are the practical matters of cuts in salary that could be affected too, I saw some mention of that, but I’d have that in mind in any endeavour I was in, just wouldn’t say anything about it.

        Frankly, I don’t think what Fisher said was good either, “Well see, that’s just it. Perhaps if you read him you’d see where the position comes from. It’s not just “commie excitement” but rather is a small-scale expression of something consistent with other positions… With which I happen to disagree.”

        I’ve read enough of him, I just said I ‘rarely read him’, and ‘am not a fan of his’. Frankly, I think all the hard-leftists have exactly that same sentiment, in fact do think the horse-mauling would be fine for their ’cause’, but usually have sense enough not to say it. They are not interested in some pure ‘non-violence’; that’s just bullshit talk because they’re so self-righteous about their Communist stance. Seymour is interested in ‘strategy’ of ‘whatever kind it takes’ too, but is a bit more facile with words, except when it comes to somebody like me, who doesn’t give a shit about appearing to be a ‘professional socialist’ to anybody: He told me that my nephew, who went to Iraq as a paramedic for a year, should die there, because that would mean ‘one less Iraqi civilian’ killed. This idiot ‘Rosa Lichtenstein’ agreed with him, and then they wondered why I just didn’t think this math was worthless. Well, it wasn’t, and I’ve never had cause to speak to them again, but I don’t know who thge Rosa Lichtenstein is, nor care. SOME mathematicians: don’t even have the right to talk about such things, if they think that one American death automatically = one less Iraqi death. What a crock. But people talk like this.

        As for “The real point is, it’s not accelerationism we’re looking at here. Mark is clearly agitating against the cuts agenda. The accelerationist standpoint would go something like, bring on the fees, make them as high as possible, let Oxbridge charge £30k/yr, exacerbate the class divide until the system collapses! etc.”, Fisher DID say, after the Accelerationism conference he took part in, that he’d write more about it, as he was thinking of Accelerationism as an anti-capitalist tool. But big deal. Accelerationism has its merits.

        Anyway, you’re in the thick of it, and it reminds me of ‘double-life situations’ I’ve just begun to resolve, although the form is very different. Helping and working and sympathizing with the students doesn’t mean you’re a communist, but frankly, almost all people, at some point, would adopt this ‘strategic use of their own victims’, it probably doesn’t vary that much from hard-left to hard-right, but with more mercy in between. Obviously, the extreme right-wing will do it, but the hard leftists are the same way; they don’t want to talk about Stalin and they don’t want to talk about Mao (his bloodletting, I was told by one of these types, was at least ‘not racist’), and they do want to talk about minor language used by English about Chinese as being ‘racist’ and ‘china-bashing’ even when it’s actually just accurate. ‘sinopop’ IS shit music, and the Chinese even know it.

        But one’s personal work security is a legitimate concern, there’d be others more likely to knock that. It’s just that, although Fisher is also in academia, he’s more an insider to the British socialist movement, so his slip probably was meant literally (despite what I wrote last night), but I’m also aware of so many other uses of cheap rhetoric that that one just seems normal to me at this point. If I say ‘commie excitement’, I’ll do so, though. It would be the same in the ‘heat of battle’ for the left and the right, who are both equally violent, and those early discussions on words like ‘violence’ seem esp. silly by now, but it’s a fact that casualties have to be a part of one’s strategy in ‘warfare’, you’re just not that hardcore, I think, in this case (I’m not either, but that’s even more distant. I finally really didn’t like the trebling of tuition even in a distant, but familiar, country, but hey, the business in North Korea is more serious to me, as was the Oil Spill, and by a LONG SHOT. This is serious, but it’s also ‘small potatoes’). But mainly, it just doesn’t matter what Mark Fisher thinks, and I never have listened to him. If you dislike his position as ‘leader within the bleugs’, I can understand that, as I never thought he was esp. outstanding, but his performance at Goldsmith’s accelerationist conference was not convincing. He’s never had any charisma to me, and that’s mainly what I’ve fo9und bewildering, that so many people (including Seymour), take him so seriously.

        Or, at least that’s part of it. The ‘double life’ dilemma you’ll ether work out or not. Good luck. You know, that’s at least one thing these ‘out Communist academics’ don’t have to contend with: They’re not having to try to be ‘all things to all men’, which is why Fisher wouldn’t really mind making such a statement. But it’s really no different from what Seymour said to me about my nephew.

        pjm

        December 2, 2010 at 7:07 pm

  8. a depressed Laurie Penny

    Oh come on. An elated LP – she gets some copy out of it!

    adswithoutproducts

    December 2, 2010 at 3:39 am

  9. I agree, it’s poor mathematics. Given the fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in Iraq, the real equation should be “one less uniformed US mass murderer = one hundred less civilian deaths, at least’.

    Rosa Lichtenstein

    January 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 438 other followers

%d bloggers like this: