Bella Caledonia

Gus A · Bella Caledonia

Scotland has a new republican / libertarian socialist newspaper. Bella Caledonia launched last month at the Radical Book Fair in Edinburgh.

The website is still being worked on but you can see articles from Brian Quail, Kevin Williamson and Mike Small here:

http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/a-history-of-violence/

http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.c...11/20/scotlands-libertarian-left/

http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/democracy-20/

Plus an excellent essay by landownership campaigner Andy Wightman on the fact that the Queen does not own Balmoral Estate.

The hard copy paper is available in Edinburgh, Dundee, and Glasgow.

Dave Coull

When I heard that Kev Williamson had recently taken to describing himself as a "libertarian" I was very sceptical. My scepticism was based on Kev's recent behaviour in Independence First.

The very first IF meeting that Kev showed up at was the AGM held in March 2006. He suddenly appeared at that meeting along with a few other new members from the SSP and immediately started to try to get the campaign, as a national body, to commit the membership as a whole to supporting the "pledge" campaign, a grandiose pet project of his which would have consumed huge amounts of money, time, and energy. My impression was definitely that Kev saw IF as essentially an alternative political party, which could be "captured" in classic Trotskyist style and whose members could be instructed to follow a particular party line.

Nothing that Kev did after that caused me to rethink my initial impression of him as simply a Trot looking for a new "vehicle" for his Trotskyism. Plus which, of course, when IF took a decidedly authoritarian turn earlier this year, with the closing down of the members forum in order to seek to suppress dissent, leading to many members resigning and condemning this shockingly authoritarian behaviour, Kev Williamson was conspicuously silent, which was hardly the behaviour of a "libertarian".

I have just, today, for the first time, had the opportunity to read Kev's article in "Bella Caledonia" on "Scotland's Libertarian Left". What is remarkable about this article is just how little Kev actually knows about the history of the Libertarian Left in Scotland. He writes loads about some literary cronies of his, attributing to them a totally unrealistic amount of influence, while ignoring genuine working class libertarians like Robert Lynn, who was the driving force in organising two vitally important "Anarchist Summer Schools" in Glasgow during the 1990s. (Unfortunately, Robert died just a week before the second of these anarchist summer schools. His last words were "Aw f**k A'm gonny miss the Summer School!" When these last words were reported, at the summer school, many of us both laughed and wept.)

No mention, either, of another well known Glasgow anarchist, Iain Mackay, whose international "Anarchist FAQ" http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
has had such a huge influence on anarchist and libertarian socialist movements throughout the world.

I will write a fuller appraisal of Kev's article later. These are just my initial impressions.

Kev refers to Dr James D Young as "someone who all his adult life has been described as a Marxist thinker and writer" who is now stating "unequivocally, in this paper, that for the first time ever, at the tender age of 76, he’s happy to call himself an anarchist".

The one and only time I ever met Dr Young was at the Anarchist Summer School organised by Robert Lynn and others in Glasgow in 1993. A couple of hundred folk attended that anarchist summer school, and the discussion had to be divided up into "workshops" on different subjects, with each workshop being "introduced" briefly by a speaker or speakers then opened up for general discussion. One of these subjects was "Anarchism and Scottish Nationalism". That workshop was well attended. The subject was introduced by two speakers, myself and Dr James D. Young. I had been rather expecting that Dr Young and myself might be in disagreement, but, as it turned out, our contributions were complementary rather than contradictory. He spoke as a Marxist academic, I spoke as a working class anarchist, but we were broadly in agreement about seeing the so-called "internationalism" of much of the left as little better than British imperialism wearing a Marxist cloak. Rather to my surprise, also, was finding that probably a majority of those attending agreed with the gist of what myself and Dr Young were putting forward.

I find Dr Young's claim that he is now an anarchist rather more convincing than Kev Williamson's similar claim. I hope I'm wrong, but his track record is not encouraging.

carol

I cannot let this one lie, and personally I couldn't care less if I get my ass kicked for it.

many members resigning???? I think around a dozen, which as secretary of IF is a small blip on my mailing list.

dissenting voices on a forum, so laughable, those dissenting voices could've spoke up at an AGM or at the meeting following (which some chose to deliberately boycott)

the behaviour you portray here with nit-picking, bringing people down, etc etc is similar to what you portrayed on a badly moderated IF forum

Believe me when I say that Independence First is a better place without you and Determination are more than welcome to you

also to add Kev is a far better person than you will ever be and best of luck to Bella Caledonia

agentmancuso

Leaving the interminably dreary personality-wars aside, can anyone shed light on the actual meaning of the self-contradictory expression libertarian socialist?

carol

out of my depth I'm afraid although found this link http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

it may be worth Gus or Kev explaining the actual meaning

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "Kev is a far better person than you".

IRRELEVANT.

This is not about who is "nicer". One of the things that it is about is, how much reliance should people put on an article about "Scotland's Libertarian Left" written by somebody who clearly knows so little about his chosen subject. Your opinion on that is irrelevant because you obviously know even less about the subject than Kev does. Another thing it is about is Kev Williamson's claim to be both a "libertarian" and an "anarchist". Your opinion on that question is irrelevant, because, having repeatedly expressed a preference for strong leadership from the top, you clearly haven't a clue what either "libertarian" or "anarchist" mean.

"many members resigning???? I think around a dozen"

Fifteen, to be precise. Fiteen, including five founder members of IF, including the guy who came up with the name "Independence First" (Chic MacGregor), including the guy who recruited more individual members to IF than anybody else (me), including the secretary of IF, including the membership secretary of IF, uncluding the webmaster of IF's website, and quite a few others of the most active members of IF.

"a small blip on my mailing list" - mailing lists can be deceptive. Like I said, fifteen including some of the most active members.

"dissenting voices on a forum" - that's right. Dissenting voices. Voices expressing, as a matter of principle, dissent from the authoritarian route being taken by Independence First.

"nit-picking, bringing people down, etc" - if you really insist on seeking to pretend that was all it was, if you really insist on seeking to drag matters of high principle down to the level of personal squabbles, then I can very easily, and totally conclusively, prove my point, by starting to send dozens of the principled dissenting posts from that IF forum to this Our Scotland list.

Gus A

Libertarian Socialist?

Its quite simple it means that we are socialists in that we are committed to equality and the collective but ones committed to freedom, decentralisation and against the state.

As Bakunin put it: “I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation.”

Really disappointed to see the first responses to a new initive being to drag up personal differences between yourself and Kevin Dave. Kevin is one of several people involved in the project and many more to join.

His article is specifically critical of Trotskyism given his experience in the SSP debacle.

We are looking for new ways to build a republican movement for independence.

Critical feedback and positive support welcome (thanks Carol) bickering about past slights less so.

carol

Dave you are beneath contempt

Gus, I'm no intellect so easy reading preferred, found the Glencoe link interesting, will definitely get a copy of the newspaper at the next IF meeting (if any available) and will do anything we can within IF to support it

regards

Carol

Holebender

10% of the total membership, especially as it included almost all of the activists, in one fell swoop is not a blip in anyone's language.

What exactly has IF done since the "blip"?

Dave Coull

Gus wrote "as Bakunin said...."

Libertarians don't do that, Gus. Quoting some long dead guru is the sort of thing that Marxists do. Anarchists are not followers of Bakunin. Or anybody else, for that matter.

Mind you, it is a fact that there has been an anarchist movement in continuous existence since Bakunin's time, in fact, since Proudhon's time. Bakunin knew Proudhon personally, Kropotkin knew Bakunin, Malatesta knew Kropotkin, Emma Goldman knew Malatesta, Albert Meltzer knew Emma (though not in the biblical sense, Emma called Albert "that young thug"), I knew Albert Meltzer, Iain Mackay knew me, etc etc etc.

"Really disappointed to see the first responses to a new initive being to drag up personal differences between yourself and Kevin Dave".

It is a statement of fact that Kev's very first action when he joined IF was to try to get IF as a national organisation comitted to a pet electioneering project of his, which would have involved the commitment of huge amounts of money, time, and energy from the members. Trying to "take over" and get everybody to carry out a hasty decision taken at an AGM seemed to me like a Trot thing to do. Also, as a member of IF, it seemed to me that Kev tended to be on the side of the authoritarians and the censors rather than of the libertarians. His silence over the closing down of the members forum spoke volumes. These are not just "personal differences", they are differences of principle.

"Kevin is one of several people involved in the project and many more to join. His article is specifically critical of Trotskyism"

Which would be a bit more convincing if he had showed any regret for his own authoritarianism.

"Critical feedback and positive support welcome" - in other words, if you are too critical, then you will probably be censored. That sounds VERY familiar to me. I have given you some constructive critical feedback. Kev's article, by hugely exaggerating the importance of some of his literary cronies, and ignoring the far more important contributions from working class anarchists like Robert Lynn, as well as ignoring the Anarchist FAQ produced by an international collective initiated by Glasgow anarchist Iain Mackay, gives a totally distorted picture of the libertarian left in Scotland.

carol

Neil I find it ironic that you can attempt a knock at IF when Determination hasn't exactly proven their worth. A shambolic protest and a farce of an article in the NoTW says it all.

Gus A

Dave you wrote: "Critical feedback and positive support welcome" - in other words, if you are too critical, then you will probably be censored. That sounds VERY familiar to me."

Your paranoid. YOu can be as critical as you want. You can rant and say its all **** if you want. Some people are creating a new publication with politics very similar to yours. You go berserk because one of the articles
"ignores the Anarchist FAQ produced by an international collective initiated by Glasgow anarchist Iain Mackay".

Er, all I was saying was why would you denounce something because of one article you disagree with? Sorry I didn't realise anarchists weren't allowed to quote other anarchists. It will never happen again sir!

agentmancuso

Gus A

"how, since socialism consists in handing all power to the state, can it ever be compatible with libertarianism?"

Well because, as I tried to explain, there are different traditions of socialism, one is libertarian, decentralist and anti-statist, the other is is about state onwnership. Both describe themselves as socialist. To be simplisitic you could trace the split from the 1st International between Bakunin and Marx.

Holebender

Carol, I wasn't knocking IF I was just asking a question. With scarcely a blip on your membership role you should be able to sustain the same level of activity there was before the minor perturbation of barely a dozen people leaving, so what has IF done?

Determination decided from the beginning to be a different sort of animal from Independence First, so don't expect any mass-movement-type public displays from us; our activity is much more low key.

Dave Coull

Gus wrote "Some people are creating a new publication with politics very similar to yours. You go berserk because one of the articles 'ignores the Anarchist FAQ produced by an international collective initiated by Glasgow anarchist Iain Mackay'."

That wasn't my only criticism of Kev's article. I criticised his article because of it putting far too much emphasis on his literary cronies and not even mentioning working class Scottish anarchists whose contribution has been far more significant, Robert Lynn for instance. The reason Kev didn't mention things like that is, quite simply, because he actually knows very little about the history of the libertarian left in Scotland.

"I didn't realise anarchists weren't allowed to quote other anarchists" - whether they are "allowed" to or not is irrelevant. The point is, some anarchists may know every word Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman, Goldman, etc etc etc, ever wrote, but wouldn't even consider quoting them as if they were some sort of AUTHORITY..................

"why would you denounce something because of one article you disagree with?" - okay, you are going to have to point out to me exactly where and when I "denounced" Bella Caledonia. You are going to have to quote me on this. Word for word. The reason for requiring you to quote, in this case, is because I say I did no such thing. Since you say I did, you are going to have to come up with your evidence to back up what you say.

Here is what I really did say about "Bella Caledonia" :

"What happened was that SLG posted about Bella Caledonia. When people post about things, they have to expect to receive responses. It hardly ever happens that all of the responses on a topic are to the liking of the original poster. Sometimes, the discussion can go off at a bit of a tangent which they hadn't anticipated. People need to be aware of that possibility, also."

"For all I know, 'Bella Caledonia' may be a very worthwhile project which deserves support, or, at least, a well-meaning project which deserves not to be pre-judged."

However, I had been given the impression that Kev was very much a central figure in this project, and, since that was the impression I had been given, Kev's past lukewarm attitude towards freedom of speech, and his surprising inability, as a member of Independence First, to voice any denunication of the closing down of the IF Members Forum in order to suppress dissent, were worrying, so far as Bella Caledonia was concerned. Therefore, I wrote,

"Kev's 'libertarian' (or otherwise) record is relevant to what we can expect from 'Bella Caledonia'.......the issue, so far as the topic of 'Bella Caledonia' is concerned, is how much reliance the wider public should put on the 'libertarian' nature of a member of IF who did not strongly and publicly condemn such blatant censorship".

That seems perfectly valid comment, to me. So far as Bella Caledonia is concerned, I will read it. Whether I will say nice things about it or not depends on whether I think the nice things would be true or not.

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Carol wrote (in response to Neil) "I find it ironic that you can attempt a knock at IF when Determination hasn't exactly proven their worth".

One thing you are ignoring, Carol, is that we have made around a hundred contributions to the "National Conversation". I haven't seen any sign of IF taking part. Here is my own latest one, number 1652 in Alex Salmond's blog on the Scottish Government website.

Graeme Linigstone wrote "I can't help wondering if Scottish Labour will stick by their stance on a referendum if (and when, as it seems at the moment) David Cameron pips Brown to the post at the next election - whenever its called! A Conservative UK Government will not be popular in Scotland and could just be the catalyst for the people of Scotland to pluck up the courage to push to be allowed to decide on the constitutional future of our country. Perhaps in a strange twist Scottish Nationalists will vote tactically vote Conservative in the next election as a way to delivering the ultimate prize - for Scotland to be a nation again!"

My mother and father raised me in a family that wasn't just Labour, but Socialist. Although I long ago gave up on Blair, Brown, and co, I'm not sure I could ever bring myself to vote Tory!

I don't think those of us who want independence should be waiting for the next UK general election, which could be years away still. I think we should be pressing for a referendum NOW. Or, at least, as soon as this can practically be organised, which means in a matter of a few months. Donald Dewar and co managed to organise a referendum on a Scottish Parliament quite quickly, so that proves it can be done. Delaying a referendum sends out a message of not being confident of the result. I am confident that if we had a referendum this week it would result in a decisive vote for independence.

However, there is another circumstance where the Labour Party might change its tune. The SNP has a one vote majority over the Labour Party, and is very much in the minority of the parliament as a whole. The SNP doesn't have total control of the parliamentary agenda. Other parties can propose bills. The Labour Party might be a mess for now, but what if they start to get their act together? What if Wendy says never mind Gordon or brother Doug, I want to be running things in Scotland? What if the Labour Party manage to come up with a scheme for a referendum of their own, to be held within a few months, just like Donald Dewar did? What if they get the support of the Lib Dems and others for this? What if they decide the wording of the question to be asked? What if they come up with what Donald Dewar called "Independence Within The UK"? (Yes, I know it's a contradiction, but I wouldn't put it past them.) What if they manage to word their bill so that it looks very positive, yet it means that people will be voting "yes" to lots-more-powers-for-the-Scottish-Parliament, but in doing so rejecting independence? And what if their bill for doing this gets passed by the Scottish Parliament? The SNP executive would then be in a position where they either have to implement the Labour Party's referendum, or resign. Okay, this might seem unlikely just now. But maybe the SNP coming up with a bill for an early referendum would be less risky than leaving it until 2010.......

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

Carol wrote "Neil I find it ironic that you can attempt a knock at IF when Determination hasn't exactly proven their worth".

As Holebender already pointed out, Determination didn't set out to be Independence First, but a different kind of group. However, you have claimed that fifteen activists resigning was "just a blip". If that's true, then presumably IF's level of activity is at least as high as it was before, if not higher. Presumably you are busy organising mass demonstrations, etc, just like before. If not, then it wasn't just a "blip".

Holebender

You're not even faintly amusing, agentmancuso.

notbritish

Dave:

Bending reality and rewriting facts to fit your polemics may be your interpretation of libertarian socialism but it has little to do with honest progressive politics.

Political honesty means engaging with events as they actually happened, challenging the essence of ideas rather than a subjective interpretation of an idea, and making an effort to understand the person you are trying to engage in a political dialogue.

My experience working with you in IF was one where you acted like a one man Life Of Brian splitter, an authoritarian control freak who spit the dummy if he didnt get his own way, and someone who projects all their own worst attributes onto those you disagree with (which was practically everyone you ever spoke to). Take away the anarchist theory, which doesnt seem to have been internalised, and you are virtually indistinguishable from every know-all Trotskyist ranter and control freak I've ever met.

You invented "the Dave Coull method of political dialogue" which consists of insulting or lieing about people you disagree with intended to draw them into pointless interminable personalised online arguments, where your own contributions increase in length, tedium, verbosity and abusiveness in what immediately degenerates into a childish game of Last Wordism.

I could go through every last piece of rubbish you've posted on this thread but I'd need to set aside about 12 hours a day, for the next ten weeks, to even keep up with your longwinded rants and abuse.

And for what purpose? To enter a dialogue with someone so blinded by their own sense of self-importance that they let the News of the World into their home in order to make a complete tit of themself.

This post of mine is almost as long as the posts that you've already made on this thread so I'll just leave it at that. Although from experience I know you wont be able to leave it at that. You'll need to indulge in your long-winded orgy of self-justification.

The floor's all yours mate. Have fun.

Kevin W.

agentmancuso

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Gus A

Agent Mancuso wrote: "Socialists want to give power to the state; how can they claim to be against the state in any meaningful sense?"

Your not really listening are you?

Not all socialists want to give power to the State. Sheesh. There is an alternative tradition. Just because your not aware of it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. As for our freedoms being interlinked, if you cant see the truth in that then that's sad.

Reluctant Hero

Try and steer away from what IF did or did not do and the personal insults.

The post is about Libertarian Socialism and if it descends into anything else, it will be locked.

agentmancuso

Dave Coull

There was principled internal dissent against authoritarianism within Independence First. I can prove that, because I still have a lot of the posts which appeared on the members forum about this. I can prove that they were about principles, not personalities. The members forum was closed down, and a decision was taken to ban all e-mail communication between members, because of this principled internal dissent. ALL of the more libertarian members of Independence First publicly denounced this authoritarian action. Kev Williamson did not. Therefore it came as a great surprise to me to learn that, without so much as an expression of regret for his past connivance with authoritarianism, he is now claiming to be a "libertarian". It's not that I don't believe in the possibility of road-to-Damascus type conversions, it's just that usually they tend to be acompanied by some sort of expressions of regret.

Kev Williamson now suggests I intend to draw folk "into pointless interminable personalised online arguments" - no, I don't like "personalised" arguments. I much prefer arguments about principles. And no, I don't like "interminable" arguments. I much prefer when argument actually does reach a conclusion.

Kev says "My experience working with you in IF was one where you acted like a one man Life Of Brian splitter" - not only is that mere personal abuse, it isn't even original abuse. What caused the "split" in Independence First was the decision to close down the Members Forum and ban e-mail communication between members. And it wasn't a "one man" split. It was a fifteen members split.

"an authoritarian control freak" - again, note that this is just an insult, without any actual evidence to back it up. Kev Williamson will be unable to produce one single example of an "authoritarian" action by me when I was a member of IF.

"You invented 'the Dave Coull method of political dialogue' which consists of insulting or lieing about people you disagree with" - the "insulting" bit I will ignore, as it really isn't worth commenting on. But "lying" is a very different matter. When you accuse a person of "lying", you are not just saying that you don't believe what they are saying, you are saying that even they don't believe what they are saying. You are saying that they are deliberately saying things which they know perfectly well are not true. Now, of course, the sort of folk who hide behind pseudonyms on the internet can get away with making all sorts of unsubstantiated remarks. But not only was this post under Kevin Williamson's pseudonym, it was even signed, Kev W. So come on, Kevin, you have made this extremely serious accusation, where is your evidence? You will be unable to produce a single example of me "lying".

carol

carol

Aventinian

Holebender

Do you and that agent fellow really have to be constantly pompous asses? It's really getting very, very old.

notbritish

Gus A · reply to agent mancuso

Hi Agent M, sorry we got cross wires. You said:

"I am aware of it, it's just that nobody has ever explained what it means in practice. The more familiar Marxist version runs like this: the state takes over all property, redistributes it nicely, then magically disappears. The second part of this might be idiotically naive, but the first bit is simple enough. If we take the state out of the equation altogether, we are left with the assumption that property will magically cease to exist, er, how exactly?"

Maybe difficult to precis in a quick discussion group but basically...the idea is that 'property is theft' from Proudhon (not Marx). Property can be shared as appropriate. The ideas of mutuality, collective ownership thorugh community, workplace or neighburhoods is adopted under libertarian communism or socialism.

The idea of 'usufruct' is often used here. If I need to cut wood do I need to own a wood saw, or would I be better to share a saw and use it when I need it? I therefore 'own' the saw when I need to. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct

Under this analysis the former USSR was seen as State Capitalist. Load s more on these ideas here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

then...
Quote:
As for our freedoms being interlinked, if you cant see the truth in that then that's sad.

"I didn't ask for a rundown of my emotional condition, I asked for an explanation of what looks prima facie like sentimental tripe."

fair enough....

"So how does someone else's lack or possession of freedom affect my lack or possession of freedom in any material way?"

The best way to illustrate this is the famous Martin Niemoller poem:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Dave Coull

Kev has provided some new information, but, even with this new information, it seems to me that there is at least an arguable case for seeing what I wrote as still being strictly true. I wrote about the closing down of the IF members forum "ALL of the more libertarian members of Independence First publicly denounced this authoritarian action. Kev Williamson did not". The crucial point is that word "publicly". Fifteen members of IF made their denunciation of that authoritarian act public, through statements published here on this Our Scotland forum and on other forums open to the general public. Kev chose to treat it as purely an "internal" matter, which seems to me to reveal an essentially party-political way of thinking. Okay, so he did speak at a closed meeting whose proceedings were only reported to IF members. How very libertarian.

I wrote "When you accuse a person of 'lying', you are not just saying that you don't believe what they are saying, you are saying that even they don't believe what they are saying. You are saying that they are deliberately saying things which they know perfectly well are not true".

Here is an example of the difference between being wrong and lying: a thousand years ago, most people believed the world was flat. If somebody back then said "The world is flat", then the statement would have been wrong , but it would not have been a lie , because they were stating what they sincerely believed to be true. On the other hand, if the sailors on Magellan's very first round-the-world trip had got off their boats and said "The world is flat", then that would have been a lie, because they knew for certain that it wasn't.

In response to being falsely accused of "lying", I wrote "come on, Kevin, you have made this extremely serious accusation, where is your evidence? You will be unable to produce a single example of me 'lying'."

Kev Williamson replies "Here's one", but what he then goes on to give is an example of poor communications, not "lying".

"At the first IF meeting after the Members Forum was closed I spoke against the closure of the Forum. It will be in the IF minutes. You wont know about this...."

Since Kevin himself admits that I wouldn't know about what happened at an IF meeting after myself and fourteen other members had resigned, what I wrote could not be a "lie".

As I predicted, Kev has been unable to come up with a single example of a "lie" from me.

carol

Holebender

I'm one of those 14 and I've stated it publicly before now.

carol

thanks Neil, 13 more to go

Reluctant Hero

Suggest if you want to continue discussing Libertarian Socialism, then start a new thread because this thread has gone way off on one and is therefore locked.

Bella Caledonia

reply to agent mancuso