DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:The following link takes us to a Prof Peter Waddington and his promotion of the use of kettling by British police.
Other than them both being academics I fail to see what the connection of this is to John Drury.Here's the abstract from the paper that John Drury co-authored and appeared in the journal Policing
Drury et al. wrote:Much public order policing is still based on the assumption that crowds are inherently irrational and dangerous. We argue that this approach is both misinformed and counter-productive because it can lead to policing interventions that increase the influence of those advocating violence in the crowd. We challenge traditional assumptions about crowd psychology and demonstrate how widespread conflict derives from the interactions between police and crowds. From this, we develop general guidelines as to how policing can reduce crowd violence and lead crowd members themselves to self-police violent groupings in their midst. We then use examples from anti-globalisation protests and the Euro 2004 football championships to show how these guidelines can be applied in practice and how effective they can be. We conclude by arguing that such knowledge-based crowd policing can turn crowd events into opportunities to overcome seemingly intractable conflicts between the police and groups within our society.They are towing in the other direction. John Drury has also had articles published in journals related to the fire services, not surprising for someone who has a theoretical background in crowd behaviour.But the fact of the matter is this.Does the fact that John Drury, a key contributor to the journal Aufheben, has had articles published in the journal Policing affect the truth or validity of anything written in the aforementioned journal?The answer is no. The truth and validity of any argument depends on it's internal logic and how well it fits in with the observed facts.Has John Drury contradicted himself by writing for a police journal? Only if he has said you should not do so. Personally I am not the slightest bit interested in this aspect of the argument though.Trying to claim Drury or Aufheben is the leader of a movement of millions, as the article that Jondwhite posted is ridiculous. If this presumed leadership where true I would like to know how it is manifested. Groups of black block spraying in depth critiques of decadent theory on bill boards perhaps?
SocialistPunk wrote:A major "theoretician" among a communist group helps the police in their divide and rule tactics, kettling etc. Basically helping the state machinery control the demonstrators.I don't think Drury's work is about kettling etc. But I've not read it, if it is I'm prepared to stand corrected.
So you assess the trustworthiness of source by reading what other people say about it?Surely if you want to know about something it's best to start by getting it from the horses mouth?The articles written by Drury are listed in an appendix here:http://anarchistnews.org/content/cop-out-%E2%80%93-significance-aufhebengateIf Drury is some kind of "collaborator" where do you draw the line? Are tradesmen who do repairs to police buildings collaborators? People off the street that volunteer for ID parades?Seems to me this kind of moralism doesn't lead us anywhere expect up the garden path.
Like with any matter an opinion is only valid to the extent that it's holder is in possession of the full facts.I only have a fleeting knowledge of the matter, but from what I can gather Drury's report was not along Draconian lines. If he we're suggesting rioters or demonstrators should be mustard gassed it would be a different matter.There was a long thread on this on libcom, I think the link to Drury's report is probably in there somewhere. If you're that interested why not give it a read and report back.I'm not sure just copy and pasting a bunch of quotes from the article you chose achieves anything. Again, would be nice to know what you think about the quotes you have chosen.
This is old news.Dr John Drury is an expert on mass crowd psychology. Some of his work has been used by the Police. Big fucking deal!What's your take on this, Jon?
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi AdminI was wondering about moderation warnings on this site. Would you be able to inform the forum as to how long a warning stays active?Thanks.It depends on what seems reasonable given the unique circumstances concerning each post. Though certain offences may be deemed worthy of an instant suspension or moderation.With regards to moderation queues, users who have been placed on this stay there until they have demonstrated a change in posting behaviour.If users think they are being treated unfairly, the Executive Committee has authorized an appeals process outlined in the webforum rules. If the moderators really do have a systemic bias, as has been alleged, then the normal appeals process is certain to discover and remedy this after the first couple iterations.
Brian wrote:the Internet Dept. seem to want to have it both ways by applying an ad hoc interpretation to the guidelines and rules has and when it suits them.Brian, do you have any concrete evidence to back up this assertion? Unless you've managed to hack into the internet departments emails you cannot. I, and no doubt the other 5 members of the commitee, take strong offence at this comment.By "both sides of the debate" I believe Alan was referring to those who "contributed in support of the moderator" and the accusers. If any of the moderators have made contributions using "intemperate and inexcusable language" I would like to see them.PS. If people want to send private messages to each other please use the message feature and not a forum comment.
SocialistPunk wrote:I have just watched the documentary provided by Brian on #16. I think that about does it for the human nature debate going on here. Shock horror! It is a two way street and that our genes are heavily influenced by our environment.Just had a look at it. I think it's a clip from 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward'. Here's the full film below, well worth a watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Wealth is created by labour being applied to materials supplied by nature.In capitalism all wealth takes the form of commodities and therefore 'value'.So workers do not create all wealth, nature provides a hand, but in capitalism 'value' is created solely by the activity of the workers.
I haven't read the Harvey article or the response, but the title would suggest that Harvey is critiquing some kind of strawman Anarchism.Here's a bit of Bakunin
Bakunin wrote:Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed on me by no one, neither by men nor by God. ions and even their directions Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htmjondwhite wrote:Does the establishment of a socialist society other than on earth count as what Engels dismissed as utopian socialism?Sounds like science fiction socialism to me!
The group forum has now been set up. I've got my paperback copy and ready to make a start.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/reading-groups/ii-rubin-essays-marxs-theory-value
A bit of a cop-out of an answer I know, but here's a party pamphlet that came out at the time:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/beveridge-re-organises-poverty
