|
Post by Mitch on May 5, 2005 9:38:14 GMT
Salford Borough Council have been chipping away for a while. They've recently withdrawn their support and funding for the Working Class Movement Library in Salford. There are those on the committee of the Working Class Movement Library that Barry may want to talk to regarding Salford Borough Council. "The WCML is currently going through some major changes. Our patron since 1987 - Salford City Council - is no longer able to maintain the level of financial support it has been giving. We are looking for fresh sources of funding and ask you to help in whatever way you can. Please support our Special Appeal" www.wcml.org.ukDedicated volunteers are keeping it going. I have some email contact addresses for WCM committee members if Barry wants to email me at catmadmitch@yahoo.co.uk. Best Mitch
|
|
|
Post by billy smith on May 5, 2005 11:28:37 GMT
If the local councils mentioned constitute a one party state why have the Burnley Voice group joined the Burnley Community Alliance which is all part of the Labour Party regeneration scheme, funded by the government and closely linked to Burnley borough council? Bit hypocritical don’t you think?
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on May 5, 2005 13:16:23 GMT
If the local councils mentioned constitute a one party state why have the Burnley Voice group joined the Burnley Community Alliance which is all part of the Labour Party regeneration scheme, funded by the government and closely linked to Burnley borough council? Bit hypocritical don’t you think? You're information is out of date. The Burnley Voice has not been allowed to be a member of Burnley Community Alliance because it has been deemed as a political organisation. I'm not sure you understand what the Burnley Voice is, and I don't think Burnley Community Alliance do either for that matter, so to help you I'd refer you to Susan Ewens' article in the Burnley Voice in 1976 - listed again below. There is a strong anarchist presence on this board, including myself as a new anarchist, but this is a community web forum for community campaigns and for those in the community who have been pushed out of every other space to have their say here. If this is what you are attacking Mr Smith, well that's a shame, and there's been a few having a go but we appear to be still here. I will let Michele fill you in on the reasons for joining the Burnley Community Alliance, but my understanding was that it was for practical reasons to do with help with photocopying and access to the web for Burnley Voice members. It would be a ridiculous scenario in a small local community like ours for people not to work together on certain issues, or indeed to go on a course or something run by Burnley Community Alliance that they would benefit from simply because it's part of such and such. Taking your argument further, Mr Smith, shall I dump my boyfriend because he believes in god and I don't, or shall I not help and support East Lancs Friends of the Earth because I'm an anarchist, and some in that group are Labour party members or whatever, or shall I lock myself in my attic room and never come out and speak or do anything (the latter here is becoming increasingly tempting I might add, but myself and others will not be silenced). For goodness sake, use your loaf, and spit out clearly what you're trying to do here - are you too trying to silence us. The Burnley Voice in the 1970s had a number of poison pen letters, which read much like you statement above. More fool, them and you for you are attacking one of the few remaining spaces in Burnley and Pendle where people concerned about their community, the environment, housing, drugs, fighting the fascists in their community and many other issues can come together and raise awareness/discuss issues without force and in their own ways. Over to you Susan:- THE BURNLEY VOICE, ISSUE 5, 1976, Page 2. POLITICALLY MOTIVATED? Several people seem to think this magazine is too "political". What they mean by "political" I'm not quite sure. I certainly don't think the people who write for the Voice are any more "political" than writers for The Times, The Guardian or The Sun, for example. In fact, in terms of party politics, we are much less political than any of them. The Burnley Voice doesn't back any party. We are far more concerned with what People want than with what Parties want. We are interested in the ways people can increase their power so that they can have an effective say in deciding what happens to them, to their town and to their country. We have been encouraged for too long to leave all important decision-making in the lap of the Gods - that is, with the political parties, the employers, the M.P.'s, the councillors - all those people who delight in telling us what to do. It's about time the people took over the running of their lives instead of relying on the goodwill of someone else. Look at the state of the economy, for example. We have people out of work, factories empty, machines idle. Who decided that? Not the people, that's for certain. The men upstairs decided all this should happen - the financiers who decide where and how much money should be invested; the government who back them up by giving them our taxes that should be spent on social services; the directors of companies like Philips, Chrysler and Ford who treat working people like pawns in a gigantic international chess game. Only when control of industry and government comes down to the ground floor, to us the people, shall we have just and fair policies. This is what The Voice stands for and if that's being political I think our politics makes darned good sense." Susan Ewens
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on May 6, 2005 0:26:30 GMT
Mitch, thank you for explaining more about The Burnley Voice and our previous membership of the Community Alliance to Billy, and thanks too for that superbly written article by Susan Ewens, which makes as much sense today as it did back in '76 when it was originally printed.
Billy, Mitch is correct in stating that we became members of the Community Alliance in order to access cheaper photocopying, free use of their Computer equipment, use of their resource library...specifically aimed at giving information to community groups, and for the opportunity to receive free training in courses which again are specifically aimed at helping community groups to grow and be aware of their responsibilities to their members etc. The Alliance has a 'no political involvement' policy which is why they felt that we should not be allowed as members, because in spite of Anarchist meaning, I believe, 'no government', Anarchists are seen as a 'political' movement.
The Burnley Voice group is gradually moving more and more towards working with lots of campaigning groups in the Burnley and Pendle areas, and I think that this is fantastic and should be encouraged in every way possible. By appearing in the Community Alliance directory we would have been recognised as a community group and this would have raised our profile, plus we may have been able to apply for funding to help the campaigns which we are backing. I do not think it is wise to 'cut off your nose to spite your face' when these things are available to you, just because the 'party' which originally helped to set up the Alliance is not one that you support. I think it is unfortunate that the word 'political' has hindered our efforts to help campaigners more than we are currently able to do.
I must say that I was not aware of the involvement of the Labour Party or Burnley Borough Council with Community Alliance, having only visited their premises once or twice before joining them, I thought they were an autonomous group. Certainly they have not been promoting the Labour Party at this time of the Election, I didn't see any 'Vote for Kitty Ussher' stickers/posters around ;D
Perhaps, Billy, you think that we should also stop ourselves from using other 'facilities' that have been created by Labour Councillors in Burnley and Pendle too...such as the public parks, libraries and swimming pools...what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Billy Smith on May 6, 2005 9:58:43 GMT
First off why do you seem to think I’m an anarchist or not a Labour Party supporter, a huge assumption on your part. Do you need to categorise and label everyone so they can fit in a little box to be easily dismissed?
Secondly I seem to have touched a nerve judging by the over reaction of the replies. Are people out to hound you? Who? I’d never even heard of you until recently it was only through something said via the Community Alliance.
Thirdly the Community Alliance is not affiliated to the Labour Party but anyone claiming to be involved in the local community would know the history and how it came about. It was through SRB6 money and the Single Community Programme. In Burnley it does work hand in glove with the Labour Council.
Fourthly it seems you want to be a part of the Community Alliance to apply for funds for other community campaigns. Why can’t these campaigns apply for themselves? A bit patronising on your part I would have thought. Bit like the political parties you complain of.
Finally are you really claiming that anarchism isn’t political? That’s a surprise to me. It may not be party political but it is certainly a political philosophy as far as I know. The Community Alliance may have turned you down but you still think you should be part of it, funded as it is from central government. You analogies with boyfriends and public parks etc. are pretty poor and just don’t stand up. I think you are either very naïve or devious, I think naïve because you obviously weren’t that clever when trying to join the CA.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on May 6, 2005 10:32:44 GMT
First off why do you seem to think I’m an anarchist or not a Labour Party supporter, a huge assumption on your part. Do you need to categorise and label everyone so they can fit in a little box to be easily dismissed? Secondly I seem to have touched a nerve judging by the over reaction of the replies. Are people out to hound you? Who? I’d never even heard of you until recently it was only through something said via the Community Alliance. Thirdly the Community Alliance is not affiliated to the Labour Party but anyone claiming to be involved in the local community would know the history and how it came about. It was through SRB6 money and the Single Community Programme. In Burnley it does work hand in glove with the Labour Council. Fourthly it seems you want to be a part of the Community Alliance to apply for funds for other community campaigns. Why can’t these campaigns apply for themselves? A bit patronising on your part I would have thought. Bit like the political parties you complain of. Finally are you really claiming that anarchism isn’t political? That’s a surprise to me. It may not be party political but it is certainly a political philosophy as far as I know. The Community Alliance may have turned you down but you still think you should be part of it, funded as it is from central government. You analogies with boyfriends and public parks etc. are pretty poor and just don’t stand up. I think you are either very naïve or devious, I think naïve because you obviously weren’t that clever when trying to join the CA. Greetings again anonymous caller, To begin with in my post I responded to you from various angles, as rather than making assumptions I have no idea who you are, or where you're coming from. I'd be most interested to know, and said as much in my post. Who are you? titter. We have nothing to hide from our point of view. urr is your name really Billy Smith. Good god, you're not Peter Pike are you. He took a leaflet for the voice at May day? You say our arguments about boyfriends and public parks don't stand up, but you don't elaborate your argument here. Can you tell me why they don't stand up? I think coming on a Community forum like this attacking people without being brave enough to say who you are and where you're coming from is rather devious and cowardly. I don't think my post was an over-reaction (you should see some of my other posts in the past for over-reactions - titter!). I'm just pretty passionate about defending this community space for people who want to use it, including anonymous callers even! We are learning as we go along, and certainly don't profess to be cleaver. People come before politics always in my book - and people or humanity or whatever you want to call it are riddled with contradictions. Thank goodness I say to that. I wish you'd tell us who you are, and where you're coming from so we can have a proper discussion and not descend into attacks and digs. I'm not falling into that trap again - titter. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on May 6, 2005 11:18:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on May 6, 2005 14:56:23 GMT
Billy, thank you for staying around to respond to our replies...I apologise to you for giving you the impression that I thought you must be anarchist or against the Labour Party yourself, that was not my intention as I do not claim to know to which party, if any, you align yourselves...any mention of 'we' or 'our' was aimed at the Burnley voice group rather than at yourself in particular.
Yes I was naive in my approach to Community Alliance, although I did it with all the best intentions. As far as being patronising to other groups...there are people out there who just want their voices to be heard, and cannot see beyond just chatting about it in their living rooms, they want somebody to work with them to guide them and help with production of newsletters etc. If they felt they didn't need our help, then they wouldn't approach us which is fine...
I hope that answers some of your concerns.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on May 6, 2005 17:43:54 GMT
For Election (circus) results - titter, this links got all you need: news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/flash_map/html/map05.stmDespite Labour wins across Rossendale, Burnley and Pendle there were big Lib Dem increases/vote gains - the biggest it seems in Pendle. I thought the Lib dems would do better in Pendle - they were good on consistently attacking the BNP and consistent in there anti-racist message - which was welcome. That opportunist, racist idiot independent Harry Brooks picked up a few 1000 votes in Burnley unfortunately. Fascist Booc o c k t w a t nowhere in Pendle thank goodness, and fascist Len Starr in Burnley down, down down - hurray to that - spect Harry Brooks stole a few of Starr's votes. Does Kitty Kitty Ussher's win now mean that she'll be moving permanently to Burnley? Rumour has it, new baby whether it's a boy or a girl will be named Turf Moor Ussher. Very posh and becks darling. Yawn.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on May 6, 2005 22:42:10 GMT
BURNLEY WEB FORUM BLOCKED AT SWINTON LIBRARY: Found out from Barry at last night's Sol. Fed public meeting: Swinton Library, Salford, is now filtering out this Burnley Web Forum. Also the Activist Website (of Red Pepper origins) has been blocked. Barry will be making enquiries as to why? It may not be a coincidence that SALFORD Borough Council, like BURNLEY COUNCIL, represents a virtual ONE-PARTY-STATE: a Labour Party dictatorship. Last week there were vicious attacks on the Labour Party councillors and MP at a public meeting over land grabbing and disruptive planning applications in the centre of Swinton. Schemes by greedy developers and dozy politicians. It seems like Swinton is suffering like Burnley and many other places. We seem to suffer the same whatever regime is in power down there in London. Brian, thanks for bringing this to our attention...please keep us informed on whether or not Swinton is just filtering ours and other anarchist message boards, or is doing the same to all sorts of message boards...political or not...would be interesting to find out why they've blocked ours and the Red Pepper one if they haven't blocked all!
|
|
|
Post by bryan on May 10, 2005 7:06:03 GMT
VOTE BLAIR, GET BUSH. Citizen Keys and Gobby Galloway provide memorable moments.
Last Thursday, on election day, in in an article of almost a page in Spain’s leading daily El Pais; special correspondent Berna G. Harbour reported: ‘It is 2 years since Reg Keys lost his son in an ambush in the south of Iraq, and today armed with anger he engages in his own real war against Tony Blair.’
Yesterday, Andreas Whittam Smith in The Independent described how he felt on Election Night: ‘I shan’t quickly forget the scene at Sedgefield, the Prime Minister’s constituency, when the result was declared. Reg Keys...was speaking. The Prime Minister was standing behind him. Mr Keys, with wonderful eloquence, declaimed: “if the war had been justified by international law, I would have grieved and not campaigned; if weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, I would have grieved and not campaigned”. Meanwhile, on the Prime Minister’s left, one saw a woman wearing a circular white hat on which was inscribed in large letters the accusation - “BLIAR”.’
It seems that the candidature of Reg Keys drew in, according to EL PAIS, ‘an interminable stream of participants from the international and national media, including Al Yazira.’
Equally memorable was the sight, on Election Night, was of a pugnacious Mr George Galloway declaring of his own victory: ‘ This defeat is for Iraq and the other defeats that New Labour has received this evening are for Iraq. All the people you have killed and the loss of life have come back to haunt you and the best thing the Labour Party can do is sack you tomorrow morning.’
Most people must now be wondering were we go from here. Something strange has happened: the Labour Party has won, and yet it doesn’t feel like a victory. It’s been like the battle of Borrodino, outside Moscow, where Napoleon’s French troops had clearly won in the field, yet, according to Tolstoy, it had taken the invading army too long to gain the upper hand - there were too many bodies on the battlefield - and from then onwards, though Moscow was theirs for taking, it was going to be downhill all the way. The spirit of the Russian people had changed.
The spirit of the British people is changing, particularly in the North. Bruce Anderson, also in The Independent, wrote yesterday: Traditionally, many Labour MPs have looked on their working-class constituents with a mixture of sentimentality and patronage. They have taken it for granted that their people would always vote for them; that they were the serfs of socialism. That complacent assumption can no longer be justified. It has been overtaken by economic, social and cultural changes.’
The political kaleidoscope is changing in this country. There is talk of a 3 party system, or even multi-party system. We may even be at a stage like that of 1924, when the Labour Party took over from the Liberal Party as the main party of opposition. A point of serious rupture in the body politic.
I wouldn’t bet my pension on it, but the Labour Party could yet go into serious decline as the Liberal Party did after the First World War. The fact that the Liberal Party in 1909, with Lloyd George as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had made steps to establish a Welfare State, didn’t save it after it got the country involved in the ‘War to End Wars’. The war for regime change in Iraq and the smugness of the Labour Party could still throw the party into terminal decline. This arrogance of the Labour Party was captured in a comment by a Labour councillor in Mr Blair’s constituency in reference to Reg Keys. ‘I am sorry for his son’, said Paul Trippitt, Labour Councillor, ‘but he can’t do anything up here for us. He lost his son in the War, and that’s all. He’s nowt to say about about the greater political plan.’ (This comment was reported in El Pais)
El Pais, however reports that ‘Blair never went to (Sedgefield) at any time during the electionl campaign....But the fiesta is being prepared to celebrate his victory. Reg Keys won’t be congratulating him.’
The clock seems to be ticking for Mr Blair and possibly the Labour Party.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on May 12, 2005 16:30:18 GMT
Reckon New Labour gurus will survive a while longer- they're using Blair as fall guy, takes all the attention away from how their policies are crucifying people on the ground. What was particularly worrying I thought was the rise in the Conservative vote - they pitched their campaign totally in the personal, and their dire use of immigration as a politcal weapon was sickening - but they got the votes for it. Worrying. Christ - just what will Galloway do next, mind boggles.
|
|
|
Post by bryan on May 23, 2005 23:44:25 GMT
Mr Billy Smith would probably be justified in drawing our attention to Burnley anarchist inconsistencies if they had, as anarchists, tried to claim state funding. But as I understand the claim for funds, it was not the Burnley anarchists who were making the claim; rather it was the Burnley Voice group that sought funds from the Community Alliance. Now it seems to me that the Burnley Voice group is a community group even if a portion of its members are anarchists.
Sometimes it is difficult to avoid inconsistencies in the modern world. While I don't fully understand the local history of the Community Alliance, it must be understood that though anarchism may or may not be political, it certainly belongs in the community. In Spain, which is sometimes considered to be the holy land of anarchism, the hymn of the anarchists is 'Hijos del Pueblo' or 'Sons of the Community'.
Thus the soul of the community is contrasted to the institutions of the State.
If the Community Alliance awards support to other organisations which contain members of political parties, then it seems to me that surely it is the Community Alliance which is hypocritical rather than the Burnley Voice group.
My advice, for what it's worth, would be to encourage the Burnley Voice to pursue their claim.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on May 24, 2005 12:57:21 GMT
Hey Bryan!! That is superb, thank you very much for your understanding and support of what the group The Burnley Voice is hoping to achieve..perhaps I should try to explain this to Community Alliance again, as I wasn't very sure of our standing at the time I last spoke to them...
|
|
|
Post by billy smith on May 25, 2005 9:46:10 GMT
Hello again. I have actually registered with this site but don’t seem to able to log in as I was not sent any password as far as I know.
Anyway it seems that you are saying that Burnley Voice and Burnley Anarchists are two separate groups. I presume that that means that BV has a bigger membership and has different objective. So what are they? It is obviously not a geographical based group in one particular ward but what is it? To help other community groups? What qualifies BV to do this? There are plenty of organisations that do this in Burnley already, what special attributes does BV have.
I have had a look around this site and it seems to me that there are two main (registered) posters both of who seem to constitute the most of the membership of BV and BA. The other major poster “bryan” does not even seem to be from Burnley. What is the special interest here? I often hear of complaints that outsiders come into to Burnley telling locals what to do. Is it all right if one of your friend does this?
Some posters seem to have disappeared I just wonder why. Of the other posters I have a feeling that this is one or two people simply posting under pseudonyms as sometimes the posting style is very similar.
I have been coming back onto the site to have a look over the past few weeks but frankly my overall impression is that it is a small cliquey site with plenty of in-jokes and in no way does what it purports to do.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Francis on May 27, 2005 9:29:24 GMT
Billy!
What a peevish chap you are.! If you want to know the aims of the Burnley Voice Group look at the LANCASHIRE LOCAL HISTORY thread. Burnley Voice Community Magazine entry. It tells all!I do not know why we didn't get in to the Community thing , it is probably similar to why we can't hire rooms at the Mechanics for meetings and can't sell papers on the market square,our ideas do not fit in to current Labour track. It is a one party state Billy and you'r just as responsible for this state of affairs as anyone else. Fred.
|
|
|
Post by billy smith on May 27, 2005 9:47:26 GMT
Naive or stupid?
|
|
|
Post by Francis on May 27, 2005 10:43:32 GMT
Naive BillY! The stupid ones are those who vote Labour and live in a town that is decaying and has been neglected for some fifty years by the Labour Governments ,M.Ps and the Local Labour Councils. The people who defend them Billy are not right bright either!
Francis.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on May 27, 2005 11:00:16 GMT
Hello again. I have actually registered with this site but don’t seem to able to log in as I was not sent any password as far as I know. Anyway it seems that you are saying that Burnley Voice and Burnley Anarchists are two separate groups. I presume that that means that BV has a bigger membership and has different objective. So what are they? It is obviously not a geographical based group in one particular ward but what is it? To help other community groups? What qualifies BV to do this? There are plenty of organisations that do this in Burnley already, what special attributes does BV have. I have had a look around this site and it seems to me that there are two main (registered) posters both of who seem to constitute the most of the membership of BV and BA. The other major poster “bryan” does not even seem to be from Burnley. What is the special interest here? I often hear of complaints that outsiders come into to Burnley telling locals what to do. Is it all right if one of your friend does this? Some posters seem to have disappeared I just wonder why. Of the other posters I have a feeling that this is one or two people simply posting under pseudonyms as sometimes the posting style is very similar. I have been coming back onto the site to have a look over the past few weeks but frankly my overall impression is that it is a small cliquey site with plenty of in-jokes and in no way does what it purports to do. Billy Hey Billy, Good to hear from you again. I'm sorry you're having problems logging in. I've put a few comments on this in the Proboards upgrade thread/general section. Best bet here is to start all over again on this new upgrade and register. I'm listening to your comments, especially on cliques as I too have rather an allergic reaction to cliques and a compulsion to break them when I see them. If this forum is coming across as cliquey then this is not intentional, and I very much welcome you're continuing input and comments on here - sweet bejesus Michele and I start skippin round Nelson when we hear from someone new on this board. We're not a clique, just a small group of people coming together to suggest alternative ways of doing things to what's out there already - just chatting about our views and certainly not trying to tell others how to think. Mind you I'd stand by my recommendation that all women should have a go with vibrators - it'll change ya life honest!! Titter. We are small, but we have quite a few friends and family members, and people in other networks who are interested in bottom up organising and people in the community doing things for themselves and having a say themselves - who look at this forum regularly even though they don't post. I hope that more and more people will get up a little confidence and bob on here to have their say - so that Michele and I can be dancing around Nelson more often!! I worry about your negativity/and perhaps you're agenda here? - we are small but quite determined now. We're working on our first hard copy magazine the Burnley (& Nelson) Voice, taking articles from this forum and from groups like Burnley and East Lancs District Friends of the Earth and hopefully some residents associations in the area. These alternatives take time to build, and perhaps we'll make a few mistakes along the way, and we'll have to ride a few storms (like recent scraps on this forum). Most of the people that post regularly on here, including myself and Michele, live in Burnley or Nelson. We definitely welcome people from outside the area who share our views (like Fred says see the East Lancs History section for Burnley Voice mission) who come on and post what they're involved in. We may learn something from them. We're looking for help now in our alternative quest - help with the newsletter, raising money through jumble sales and so forth, and for any new ideas. You are very welcome to join us at our weekly meetings if you fancy helping. There's not really much time for negativity now, as we've got lots of things to do and are looking for constructive help and support - not constant picking apart this and that. If you don't feel this forum works for you then that's fine. We want to have some fun now as we work on the newsletter and think about planning some more events. Hope you'll decide to help us on our way. Really, we may be small, and we might be a bit slap dash and humorous - but hey great things can come from such things. Without force, and with humour and a desire for people in the community to have more power, that is where The Burnley Voice comes from. Death to all cliques hey. Look forward to your next post!! ;D Best Mitch xx
|
|
|
Post by billy smith on May 27, 2005 12:45:07 GMT
Naive BillY! The stupid ones are those who vote Labour and live in a town that is decaying and has been neglected for some fifty years by the Labour Governments ,M.Ps and the Local Labour Councils. The people who defend them Billy are not right bright either! Francis. Interesting view of the ordinary people of Burnley. Just too stupid to know any better. No hope for us then unless we move out?
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on May 27, 2005 13:38:02 GMT
Naive BillY! The stupid ones are those who vote Labour and live in a town that is decaying and has been neglected for some fifty years by the Labour Governments ,M.Ps and the Local Labour Councils. The people who defend them Billy are not right bright either! Francis. Interesting view of the ordinary people of Burnley. Just too stupid to know any better. No hope for us then unless we move out? I knew it, it is Peter Pike. Yowza, Michele we're getting celebrities on! Get ready to dance.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on May 27, 2005 14:12:22 GMT
Billy!
You wriggle about like an eel. For allowing the town to degenerate in to squalor and decay we actually pay the morons on the town council £12.000 per year expenses, the 'Council Leader gets £20.000'. This whilst many voters struggle to pay their Corporation Tax. Come on now Billy! How would you describe that? If such a thing is tolerated here would moving to another town change ones way of thought. It's in the mindset Billy.
Francis.
|
|
|
Post by bryan on May 27, 2005 20:24:18 GMT
I think Mr Billy Smith is really being rather flatering towards Burnley Voice and perhaps by implication the anarchists generally, both inside and outside the BV body. Afterall he has gone to the trouble of purusing and scrutinising the forum/site to an extent which deserves our admiration.
I've been looking-in on the site for months, but there are nooks & crannies which I have yet to investigate. In fact the forum seems a veritable maze of nooks & crannies.
Then again he obviously supposes the proposed applicants ~ the Burnley Voice group and its members (some who have confessed their anarchist beliefs) ~ will open their hearts to a public interogation about the details of their application, even before the application is formerly drafted. He must think anarchists are the most honest and straight-forward people in the world.
Mr Smith has said of the BV group and seemingly the anarchists: 'I think (you are) naive because you obviously weren't that clever when trying to join the Community Alliance'.
Of course, the political mind which Mr Smith seems to understand would 'be clever' if nothing else. Mr smith must explain what he means by 'clever' in this context. Does he mean that the applicants to the CA in this case lacked the low cunning of the typical political mind? That they were too straight forward? Too honest about their political inclinations?
Well if that is what he means; that the BV group and the anarchists lack this the lowest form of intelligence, then I suggest he should be encouraged to give us more of this.
|
|
|
Post by bryan on May 28, 2005 10:02:42 GMT
Mr Billy Smith asks: 'The other major poster is "bryan" he does not even sem to be from Burnley. What is the special interest here? I often here complaints that outsiders come to Burnley telling the locals what to do. Is it all right if one of your friends does this?
I assure you Mr Smith that my 'special interest' is even, in its way, more contemptable than you suppose. My interest is anthropological Mr Smith! It is true that I am a regional journalist (that most disreputable of professions; which rates lower than that of the 'politician' in public esteem) who writes for a journal NORTHERN VOICES that sells in some Burnley newsagents. But my real passion is anthropology.
In my journalism and analysis, I'm afraid, I follow the dictum of Ludwig Wittgenstein: 'Don't seek out exotic locations to study; rather dig in you're own back-garden ~ you won't have to dig very deep to find something interesting'. In the sense that BURNLEY is the back-garden of Greater Manchester, it would appear to me that it is a worthy topic for analysis. It is in its own way I suspect what we might call 'anthropologically strange', do you not think so Mr Smith?
I can see how some people may find all this a trifle disrespectful and even nosey. But it could be seen as the reverse of this in so far as BURNLEY is a worthy topic for study, and I hope is being treated with respect here.
The first person I heard complain about 'outsiders coming to BURNLEY was almost 2 years ago, when Marcus Johnson, Burnley West/Padiham Labour member of Lancashire County Council Cabinet denounced 'people with cockney accents coming to BURNLEY to demonstrate against the BNP'.
Perhaps I overstepped the mark of scientific objectivity, when I suggested the Burnley Voice group should not be discouraged from submitting their application to the Community Alliance. It just seemed to me that people should not be discriminated against simply because they are anarchists. That wouldn't seem a terrible intervention, anymore than to suggest that the parties involved ensure they get all the decisions in writing.
The main thing is that there is a crisis in BURNLEY and that this is worthy of analysis by anyone, whether they live in BURNLEY or not. Now it seems clear that in the past the cures proposed by national and local government (both in BURNLEY & nationally), have often turned out to be worse than the original disease. What we have seen first under Thatcher, and accelerated under the Major and Blair administerations is the destruction of communities along with the destruction of homes. We are now paying for this in disfunctional communities, vandalism, racism and crime.
We can hardly hold BURNLEY anarchists as responsible for this it seems to me, or even the BNP. Somewhere, somehow in the institutions which Mr Smith seeks to defend they got it wrong, badly wrong.
You don't have to listen to the BURNLEY anarchists to hear this criticism. Marcus Johnson (Lancashire County Council Labour member) has written: 'The devastation and desolation of BURNLEY explains why....BNP councillors were elected. To come to an understanding of what is happening in BURNLEY, you have to...spend time in the town's increasingly fragmented communities.'
We keep being told that the political establishment is turning over a new leaf - from old Labour to new Labour and so on. THINGS CAN ONLY GET BETTER! we are constantly being told. But the new solutions from these 'clever political people' Mr Smith backs, often turn out to create bigger problems. If this is what it means to be 'clever' in BURNLEY ~ give me the 'stupid and naive' anyday.
|
|
|
Post by bryan on May 29, 2005 10:25:33 GMT
In one of his earlier contributions Mr Billy Smith says: 'Finally are you really claiming that anarchism isn’t political? That’s a surprise to me. It may not be party political but it is certainly a political philosophy as far as I know.'
Well as ever Mr Smith raises an interesting point that needs answering. So far as it can be answered by the anarchists. He is clearly right that generally the anarchists do not represent themselves as a political party. Though some who claim to be anarchist have on occasions stood at least in local elections, and historically in Spain some anarchists were elected. In Spain, during the Civil War in 1936, President Companies of Catalonia invited the anarchists to join the Generalitat (the Catalan regional government). President Companies said to the anarchist leaders: 'I know you and have defended many of you as an advocate in the Courts. The fate of Barcelona, our city, is in your hands - in the hands of the National Confederation of Labour (CNT), I am willing to resign and join you ranks and fight alongside you or alternatively the CNT can join the regional government'. After some hesitation and consultations within the CNT, the CNT joined the Generalitat in the hope of saving Spain from dictatorship.
I mention this to show that anarchists, even massively developed movements like that of the CNT with 2 million members in 1936, through force of circumstance can be inconsistent. It is not just the Burnley anarchists.
Yet, for all their inconsistencies, it is accepted that it was the CNT and the anarchists that put down the military rising in the streets outside the Barcelona barracks on July 19th, 1936. As was pointed out by the Italian novelist, Ignazio Silone, the highly educated and cleverer members of the socialist and communist parties in Germany succumbed much more readily to Hitler. Billy Smith's party didn't fair too well there.
It would seem to me that some kind of politics is involved here. Sir Herbert Read, the art critic, described it as: 'THE POLITICS OF THE UNPOLITICAL'. Certainly the BURNLEY ANARCHISTS are not, so far as I know, a political party seeking office with an affiliated membership like the LABOUR PARTY. Rather I suspect it is a socially base grouping which seeks to change society from within the community and not from above; like the Labour Party.
That members of BURNLEY anarchists, with others, should want to promote a publication such as BURNLEY VOICE does not seem inconsistent. They may, as Mr Smith suggests, be a bit of a clique, but if they want to provide an opening, a space, for people in the Burnley neighbourhoods to put their alternative views to that of the establishment ~ what is wrong with that?
I suppose the question is: should this be supported by the Community Alliance?
I think Mr Smith has said the Community Alliance works 'hand in glove' with the Labour Party bosses and therefore true anarchists should not seek its support. You must help me here is the Community Alliance just a puppet of the Labour establishment? A kind of front organisation? What's sometimes called an arms-length body? Is it just a creature of the Labour Party?
Mr Smith, are you sure that you not a secret anarchist afterall?
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on May 29, 2005 22:45:53 GMT
Phew! That took a lot of catching up with!!!
Billy, I am sorry that you see me as either stupid or naive...I suppose naive would be the correct description. I have discussed The Burnley Voice as a 'community group' with a member of staff from Community Alliance, who has said that the organisation will discuss our possible membership with them according to what we present as our constitution...whether or not the activities that we become involved in are political or not...against the Labour Party especially! Obviously the main body of The Burnley Voice are anarchist in their approach, however as we meet with other people in their communities, and see what their concerns are, we hope to grow as a group which consists of people of all political persuasions, and become a real community group...offering
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on May 29, 2005 22:49:00 GMT
A VOICE to those people who don't feel brave enough to vocalise their concerns themselves at this point. We do not wish to control these groups of people, but to help guide them in order to empower them to put pressure where it is necessary to get changes made in their communities where they feel it is required...whether this is by pressuring the Political Party that is in charge of the council or otherwise. I will be speaking with the others in the Burnley Voice group this week, to see if membership of Community Alliance is still acceptable to us, and if so we will be drawing up a constitution to present to them accordingly.
|
|