CHARLIE BELL on why Ian Bone’s protest is little more than a load of hot air.

The revolution is coming.

Or so we are told to believe by the most recent addition to the Cambridge chump contingent – the maddeningly incoherent Ian Bone. Bone, a man who in his blog seems obsessed with swans (some might say he’s quackers), has decided that the game is up for Cambridge; it’s chumps vs bumps. He’s coming on down – and he’s going to teach the Eto-, no sorry, Cambridge students a bloody good lesson. The shits.

Now if any of you were thinking of joining Mr Bone for his punishment procession, I wouldn’t worry about booking in advance; last time he marched he had almost as many people as there are brain cells in Sarah Palin’s thick skull. And please note: this is class war. No toffs, etc. Just in case you were thinking of joining in.

The problem is that Bone isn’t as much of a moron as he first comes across, no matter the fact he hasn’t been able to keep a political group together for more than a few months. He, along with an unusual bedfellow Michael Gove, is appalled at how private schoolboys dominate public life. He’s wrong in his assertion that Cambridge is Eton plus, and no one other than deluded idiots and Fiona Millar believe that.

But he’s not completely left field – Cambridge, major firms, the law, medicine and so on are still very private-schooly. Bone’s antics don’t help our access agenda; but in truth, Cambridge will take the kids with highest grades. It’s the fault of progressive governments who have consistently failed youngsters by refusing to rethink education, or understand the link between parental wealth and circumstances, and school success, meaning that the highest grades disproportionately come from private schools, and some schools still say ‘we don’t send kids like ours to the major universities’.

This is a guy fed up with the Westminster bubble, full of professional politicians who haven’t the first idea about life, having been groomed through party offices since conception. He quite rightly suggests that the left are either stupid (SWP) or shite (everyone else), and, like many of the disappointed anarchists and sociopaths, thinks violence is the only way forward. Which is where he loses respect.

This is the guy who published a calendar called ‘Hospitalised Coppers’, which does what it says on the tin. Like a lot on the left, he cannot wait to put the boot in to the ‘pigs’ – that bastard group of people who keep our streets safe and protect the public. Now don’t get me wrong, the police force is not a paragon of virtue, but HM Constabulary is made up of a large number of hardworking, working class people – the exact people he claims to represent.

The reality is that Bone is a failed anarchist, and a bit of an irrelevant twat. He might come to bumps and cause a nuisance, but not much more. But he does leave a few questions hanging in the air, even if we disagree with his answers; and maybe, rather than getting pissed off with him, we should find some of our own.

  • And apart from

    rabid left bashing, you don't seem to have any.

    • http://factcheck.org Factcheck.org

      Mr. Bell is a member of the Labour Party.

      • Internet Hat Machine

        Brotip: Labour are centre right neoliberals.

        • Sci

          Internet tip: you're a faggot

          • Internet Hat Machine

            The butthurt is strong with this one…

    • grr

      fucking leftists

    • Beyonce

      'To the left, to the left, put everything you own in a box to the left'

      As it's a Lefties debate thought I'd just chuck a Communism reference in here.

  • Truth

    The reality is that Bell is a failed writer, and a bit of an irrelevant twat.

    • Fact

      You quite rightly suggest that this article is either stupid or shite.

      • Reason

        I think you're both wrong.

    • Douche

      you are one

  • Good one Charlie

    So, not content with proposing ridiculous motions to CUSU, Charlie's now giving this anarchist maniac the one thing he shouldn't get – publicity. Don't get me wrong, I agree that he's an 'irrelevant twat'. But anyone who has looked at his website for 5 seconds can see that. So all your article has done has spread the knowledge of his existence to more people and provide him with fresh ammunition for his website – the text of your article will up there fairly soon.
    If that wasn't bad enough, you then give some of his arguments a hearing!? This guy is an irrational, hateful little man who will not listen to reason. You'd think the Tab would have a stake in not publishing articles which will encourage violent anti-social nutcases to come and cause havoc in the city.

  • Queens parent

    Nice piece Charlie but it is now up to your generation to put right these wrongs that unfortunately my generation from Blair to Cameron and including Gove are failing dismally to tackle. Oh and they squandered public money and left you no jobs either.

  • Bell

    end.

    • Ancient History

      This joke is old. Buy a joke book.

  • Not bad

    Given the last article, I was expecting far worse.

  • Eew

    He's going to teach us 'a bloody good lesson. The shits'?

    Of all his crazy plans, that's the one which concerns me the most.

  • Matt Birke

    Me and Bone are looking to fuck up all the pussies (Bell included) come May bumps

  • Duck

    A look at mad dog Bone's blog can be instructive for understanding the deranged mind of the violence obsessed sociopath who ocasionally addresses a political issue. Bone, who once set out to ridicule his notion of capitalism, has ended up as a ridiculous caricature of his former self. But worse is the hate filled violence which fills the pages of his sycophantic followers. Nothing less than the deaths of all toffs, 'and their families' as one Bonist points out. You give him too much credit in citing his disapointment with professional politicians; his obsession with the swan issue reveals his detachment from reality. A mild ducking in cold waters of the Cam might restore some sanity, and would certainly provide a photo opportunity for this publicity seeking moron.

  • honesty

    Poor people are objectively more evil than rich people.

    • Internet Hat Machine

      False. Multiple studies by psychologists have demonstrated that rich people are more likely to act anti-socially and selfishly than poor people and are less empathic.

      • sceptical

        source?

      • Awkward

        not getting the joke…

  • Hugo

    I went to eton and I'm a massive deal! come to wyverns!

    • disappointed

      a poor imitation of the inimitable Cobb

      • observer

        …thanks for your input Mica

        • Feldspar

          I love rocks

  • Northern A

    The thing is that Cambridge is full of our future leaders who come from a very small elite. I can't say I've ever been to Cambridge but if it is anything like Oxford, then the upper class are very visible. These are the people who systematically oppress the working class. Nobody is disagreeing that Cambridge does have some students from Working Class backgrounds, however a lot of what I'm sure Cambridge like to refer to as working class, would to many people be defined as very middle class, the children whos parents can only afford a 2007 Audi instead of a brand new Mercedes.

    This article is very poor which is what can only be expected from a member of the Labour party and who I have no doubt will one day be in the cabinet or shadow cabinet. A lot of ad hominem and a whole lot of other rubbish. Anarchists don't hate the police because they're nutters and sociopaths, understand what you're talking about before you dismiss it, I thought that's what you students are meant to do. Try reading some Max Weber to learn why the police are class enemies.

    • RowersNotMowers

      Why the obsession with defining working class? The people who are most restricted by the idea of class are those who accept it, and by accepting class as a necessary and basically heritable characteristic can only perpetuate divisions. I doubt you've ever met anyone from Cambridge: I ate next to a guy in the buttery today who described his own politcs as anarchist, but I have no doubt that as he is doing an MA at Cambridge, he would be rejected by Class War for being a sell-out. Such groups develop elites (like Mr Bone) in their own context, and present themselves just as closed to outside input as you portray Cambridge students.
      Also, no-one at Cambridge rows to reproduce unequal class and power relations. We row because it's fun. If there is a gathering in Cambridge (yeah, right) I think they should go rowing instead. It might chill the angry people out and stop them from embarrassing themselves. And I don't mean chill out as in, submit to authority.

      Incidentally, how can anarchists even have groups?
      And Cambridge isn't like Oxford, we're miles better.

      Rant over.

      • Northern A

        Class isn't some post modern meta narrative, it is a real tangible thing, you can. The people who are most restricted by class are the ones who are at the bottom. Do you really suggest that the reason that working class youth are where they are because they feel they should be there or does class create those conditions? It's very easy for those at the top of the class system to dictate to those at the bottom and tell them it's easy, for you it was.

        What do you mean how can anarchists have groups? Go and read something about anarchism and try to understand it before commenting on it, I'm not saying this to be patronizing I just thought that our educated elites could at least take a couple of minutes to look through wikipedia and learn what anarchism is before commenting on it.

        • Dave

          Instead of saying "go read something about <something vague>", please provide some kind of quote or evidence about how he is wrong.

          As you've "never been to Cambridge" allow me, a very working class student from a Northern mining town, to explain that Cambridge is really nothing like you think it is. I arrived expecting everyone to be posh and generally insufferable because of everything I'd ever read in papers and magazines, but in reality in spite of my background (and accent) I was made to feel as welcome as everyone else. The fact is that most people who are prejudiced against Cantabs (most of my friends at home, for example) hate something that is really very rare in Cambridge. Having visited friends at other unis, I can honestly promise that there are more posh snobs at places like Bristol, because they went to excellent schools that couldn't quite bring their intellect up to the required level. In fact, because of our reputation, I find that people are almost shy about any privilege they may have had.

          I can only hope that when Ian Bone comes to Cambridge he will realise that it is nothing like he thinks it is, but I doubt that he will because I don't think he wants to know better.

          • Northern A

            I don't know where to start when he makes a point like I don't know how Anarchists have groups. I'm not going to explain to someone why anarchist being in groups is not some ridiculous thing.

            I'll concede I've never been to Cambridge but I have been to Oxford and I seriously doubt the two universities are greatly different. Oxford is very much as I imagined and the student bar that I drank in had its own table reserved for the publicly schooled. The thing is that Bristol university doesn't give us and probably won't give us a vast majority of our cabinet and other decision makers. As long as Oxbridge are producing the political elites, they have to accept people will be suspicious about it and those who disagree with all the power being placed in the hands of an elitist minority, there will be opposition.

            • Admiral Ackbar

              'I'll concede I've never been to Cambridge but I have been to Oxford and I seriously doubt the two universities are greatly different'

              Flawed on two premises:

              1) Just because Cambridge and Oxford are commonly lumped together as 'Oxbridge' does not automatically entail that they are similar. They are in two different places, each with their own traditions and practices which set the two universities apart. Do not think that you can pontificate about Cambridge just because you have been to Oxford. That would be a bit like me saying I knew all about Devon because I've been to Cornwall. It's complete rubbish.

              2) In Oxford's defense – your experience is probably extrapolated. Were you a student or a visitor? Even if you were a student, you were only getting the experience from one college. Each have their own traditions within the university which set them apart from each other. Your conclusion is fundamentally flawed.

        • Duck

          Instead of speaking of elites and being at the bottom of the system, have you ever thought of the social structure of Class War Anarchism? Imagine if Bone et al actually won their revolution. Would we have any sort of democracy, freedom of speech? Just look at the cretins on the Bone blog, all agreeing with everything the master says, and experiment to find out just how much free speech is tolerated by Bone.. Very little. And what seeps through the rigid censorship, if incompatible with the leader's standpoint, is howled down with a tirade of obscenities. Go check for yourself. Class War Anarchism is manifest in North Korea, or in Mao's China, which so fascinated Bone in his youth.

          • RowersNotMowers

            Class may not be some post-modern metanarrative, but it is socially constructed. It's not some unified, monolithic quality, it's a composite of many factors (wealth, accent, education, etc.). What I mean by "most restricted by the idea of class are those who accept it" is not that people justify their own misfortune by resisting authority on the grounds of class, because that would be ridiculous. Rather, people who insist on defining and treating others by class prevent the idea itself from being genuinely challenged. The desire among the potential protestors appears to me to be to invert social hierarchy, not invalidate it.

            • RowersNotMowers

              Class is an idea – sure, it can influence people (evidently), but ideas don't have actual agency. So, in response to your point about disenfranchised and disadvantaged youth, "class" doesn't cause their problems, it acts as a convenient way of simplifying, presenting and justifying problems. Remove this veneer and you can get at the factors that apparent class divisions and social inequalities are actually made of. Individuals can understand each other and co-operate. Concepts can't. If you don't want people with power to wield it unthinkingly, you need dialogue, not class war.
              As to the point on groups, can you organise without hierarchy? I checked wikipedia (maybe I'll get round to Kropotkin and Weber after my exams), and that seems to be the defining question of anarchism (and do correct me if I'm wrong). It seems difficult to reconcile the individualistic and socialistic arms of anarchism. How can complete self-determination and complete democracy co-exist under the same school of thought? How is violent anarchism not an expression of power and subjection of the other?

              • RowersNotMowers

                Then again, maybe it's not really my thing. When I went to Freetwon Christiana in Copehagen, I didn't really see a dynamic, collectively run society, I saw a bunch of people sat in unpaved streets smoking pot.
                And while I'm at Cambridge and so "educated" (you flatter me), I wouldn't consider myself elite in any sense other than education, because Cambridge is the elite stage of academia. It's not meant to be anything else, and isn't

              • Internet Hat Machine

                I think maybe you're confusing the neurotic idea of a "class system" as peculiar to the UK with class as an economic relationship? That's mainly what class struggle anarchists are all about.

                "If you don't want people with power to wield it unthinkingly, you need dialogue, not class war."

                The point is to abolish power and class, and unfortunately asking people nicely to give up power and privilege that they enjoy over other people isn't really an effective strategy.

                "can you organise without hierarchy? "

                Yes, it happens quite naturally. There are plenty of examples of horizontal communities as well as models (both in theory and practice) to federate such communities in order to organise on a large scale without creating a hierarchy.

                "How is violent anarchism not an expression of power and subjection of the other?"

                No, it's a reaction to power and subjugation in order to end said ills.

                "It seems difficult to reconcile the individualistic and socialistic arms of anarchism"

                In the absence of external forces (i.e. a state) it is generally in the rational self interest individuals to co-operate as communities and do so in a socialist manner (even individualist-anarchists like Tucker were self confessed socialists).

                • RowersNotMowers

                  Dividing people into class according to wealth seems no different from divinding by a notion of class, and even looking at class as control of the means of production still simplifies the complexity of labour relations and artificially imposes a structure in which class is an immutable property of each person, from which they must derive their identity. The social connotations of economic status should be challenged and then rejected, rather than just getting rid of money altogether.
                  And in this case, it's the UK system that's relevant. Selection for Cambridge (which is not the same as paying to go to a private school) is on merit, and because " [The university] offer an unlimited number of bursaries to ensure that students can meet the cost of their Cambridge education, regardless of background", Bone can only be protesting that Cambridge represents UK-style "class" in ways other than wealth, and because we're students, not factory owners, we are also disconnected from the means of production. So is he just protesting against education?

                  • RowersNotMowers

                    You cannot eliminate differences between what people want and do. Eliminating power derived from social capital merely means power inequality will become manifest in some other way. Maybe one person in your commune has to convey messages to other communes: you pick a persuasive speaker, and suddenly you have someone who wields power. If this process of substituting power continues, you end up in a cave with differences resolved by force, in favour of the caveman with the biggest club. Rather, we should improve and make more impartial the checks on power: financial regulation, the legal system and workers unions have to be made class blind and protect the interests of all, but still this does not require revolution!

                    • RowersNotMowers

                      And while I accept that non-hierarchical organisation is fair, it cannot account for everyone's priorities once a group is too large. The only examples of federalised horizontal communities on a state scale that I can think of straight away are those of Tanzania under African Socialism, the USSR and Mao's China. All led to production which did not meet the needs of the population, or to despotism and a lot of dead people. I'm sure smaller scale co-operatives work really well, but for governance of common resources on such a large scale, you need centralised decision making, which, yes, leads to hierarchy and unequal power. But provided that power is checked, and can be directed by those it affects, that is a viable social contract – and sounds remarkably similar to democracy. We need to reform and evolve it, not destroy it.

                    • RowersNotMowers

                      I completely reject the idea that retaliation is justified. Yes, the state and police can subjugate (hence, again, the need for checks and balances). But advocating attacking people because they don't agree with your political views, which is partly the point of the proposed march, is no different from state violence. Neither is justified, and we absolutely do need to be more able to hold the state to account for aggression, like the horrendous policing of the London Met at the G20 and student marches. But if someone tried to blow up your house, I can't imagine you'd accept that it was in the cause of class war. The same goes for the furore the Daily Mail and Bone would like to create over Library Whispers. I tried to comment on Bone's page, but the comment wasn't allowed past the moderator: it is hypocritical for Bone and co. to attack someone for a parodic but potentially offensive joke about spitting on someone because of their class, while on his website commentors advocating hanging and burning people because of their class, and seem fine with it.

                    • RowersNotMowers

                      Actually, co-operation under rational self-interest (nice Objectivist/Libertarian idea: can I assume you prefer individualist anarchism to collectivist?) is THE BASIS OF STATES. So do anarchists really want to remove the capitalist state, but replace it with a system which is effectively a less-centralised state socialism?
                      If so, why bother prosecuting a war against Cambridge, a federation of 31 college communes who co-operate for the progress of society?

                    • RowersNotMowers

                      Fair point on the confusion over class though, It's good to consider both concepts.

                    • Internet Hat Machine

                      "Actually, co-operation under rational self-interest is THE BASIS OF STATES."

                      States aren't the result of free people coming together as equals to build a better society for themselves through co-operation, they're institutions based on control, oppression and backed by the threat of violence.

                      "If so, why bother prosecuting a war against Cambridge, a federation of 31 college communes who co-operate for the progress of society?"

                      Cambridge isn't exactly communistic. It perpetuates a lot of the inequality and the class system, the political system etc. i.e. it's a breeding ground for most things that anarchists are against.

                      "nice Objectivist/Libertarian idea"

                      I think you're confusing rational self interest with being a sociopath.

                      "can I assume you prefer individualist anarchism to collectivist?"

                      I'm a bit of a fan of Nestor Makhno actually.

                      "So do anarchists really want to remove the capitalist state, but replace it with a system which is effectively a less-centralised state socialism? "

                      No, that's not really accurate.

                    • Admiral Ackbar

                      But the motives of the anarchists themselves are not accurate either. Thinking that they are pursuing a war against 'the rich', they neglect the following:

                      1) People who go to private schools are not necessarily 'rich' – many get there on scholarships.

                      2) Even with this, there are more state school students than private school students in the university.

                      3) The admissions process focuses on academic merit. Certainly in my college, there is no one I know who does not deserve to be here on the basis of their academic prowess. If this were a private university, then money would unquestionably have an impact, but… it's not, so it doesn't.

                      4) This idea of a 'class war' has been forced on the university by the anarchists. On my corridor alone, I live with a more diverse sector of the population than you'll find in most other places – (including anarchist groups).

                      The whole thing is pointless. Cambridge should celebrate the fact that people of different backgrounds live and socialise together, not be drawn into some fabricated 'class war' to satisfy a few vastly inflated egos.

                    • rowersnotmowers

                      You only addressed my flippant points. And the implication, if not the actuality, of what anarchists want is as above. And while ayn rand's ideas are mad, the phrase rational self-interest is exactly the same

                    • Internet Hat Machine

                      "but for governance of common resources on such a large scale, you need centralised decision making"

                      That's not necessary actually, there are plenty of non-centralised consensual ways of organising on a large scale (e.g. federalism as practised by the IWA).

                      "But provided that power is checked, and can be directed by those it affects, that is a viable social contract – and sounds remarkably similar to democracy. We need to reform and evolve it, not destroy it."

                      I think that's a very naive view of the state. Once people get in control they are going to take the piss as much as they can. Power corrupts (and also attracts sociopaths).

                    • RowersNotMowers

                      Yes, organising is possible on a large scale, but in the case of the IWA, that's more a question of exchanging and supporting group policies – it's quite possible to manage a movement collaboratively, but bringing together common resources as different as water supplies, welfare grants and military power is far more possible with unified policy.

                      And I just disagree with your assessment that control makes you evil. Sometimes people abuse power, but you cannot make a generalisation like "Once people get in control they are going to take the piss as much as they can." If power does corrupt, surely that favours more collaboration and direction, not just abandoning efforts to limit power as futile.

                    • Internet Hat Machine

                      "You cannot eliminate differences between what people want and do."

                      Indeed, and no-one is suggesting you can.

                      "Eliminating power derived from social capital merely means power inequality will become manifest in some other way."

                      Sure people will possess authority and power but for the most part it will be consensual and extremely limited ("On the matter of shoes I would refer to the authority of the shoemaker").

                      "you pick a persuasive speaker, and suddenly you have someone who wields power."

                      This isn't really a problem, in social situations for example people will from time to time attempt to exert influence, however this is unavoidable and without institutional power you don't have the problem of people being able to abuse and perpetuate their power to a significant degree.

                      "Rather, we should improve and make more impartial the checks on power"

                      I can't see that ever happening in any meaningful way, people don't tend to seize power and then allow other people to limit their power.

                    • RowersNotMowers

                      But institutions can be created as a concentration of people skilled in something. Trade unions are institutions which express the potential power of their workers and operate for their benefit – can this lead to abuse of power, just because it's a formal structure? Institutional power does not have to lead to oppression if it is managed and collaborative., I think we're both arguing for people to have more agency with power structures that affect them. The difference is that I'm arguing for reforming current structures to provide this collaboration, while you're arguing for a wider rejection of those structures as they seem irredeemably corrupt.

                  • Internet Hat Machine

                    "even looking at class as control of the means of production still simplifies the complexity of labour relations and artificially imposes a structure in which class is an immutable property of each person, from which they must derive their identity."

                    It's not really an identity, it's an economic situation. And sure post-industrial class is now pretty complex, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore class as a result, it's just as important as ever. For example ~3/4 of the UK's landmass is owned by a something like less than 1% of the population. Forget the fact that land ownership is a pretty preposterous concept in the first place that's pretty significant wouldn't you say?

                    "can only be protesting that Cambridge represents UK-style "class" in ways other than wealth, and because we're students, not factory owners, we are also disconnected from the means of production. So is he just protesting against education?"

                    What class do most Cambridge graduates end up joining? I doubt that most of them go on to the factory floor/working as a shop assistant after graduating.

                    • RowersNotMowers

                      Class isn't purely economic, as we've talked about. Regardless, even if class is seen in purely economic terms, Marxist and Anarchist approaches suggest that someone must perceive themselves first and foremost as a member of a class, and that this must inform their politics and behaviour. Obviously, class is such a pervasive idea people can do this without a doctrine, but anarchism makes class the predominant part of identity, rather than an element of it.
                      Obv owning land is a weird idea, and I can see how if you wanted to get rid of private property, it would be pretty much impossible atm. But perhaps tax can be used more progressively to limit how much of resource can end up under exclusive provate control.
                      However, the ownership of vast tracts of land by a few noble families is not a practice that will last much longer, because big estates are too expensive to run. In addition, the biggest land holders are the state and the National Trust, which either manage national resources or maintain land for public use (though I realise preserving land can exclude people from it) And the creation of right-to-roam laws suggests common use is making a return.

                • OutOfTheBlue(river)

                  Could you name those horizontal communities (save time searching) as the only ones I've heard of had their weekly 'feedback meetings' turn into bullying sessions for the less dominant members. The models this example was based on was an oversimplified maths version of ecosystems.

                  I agree that RATIONAL self interest would lead to co-operative communities, but as history shows: the natural progression of each society leads to a hierarchy based on something very undemocratic (e.g. a monarchy) and then to democracy; always maintaining unequal division of wealth. Whenever socialism has been attempted it has been mutilated into Stalinism, Maoism etc. and never worked out nicely. I could've told you in year 8 that Russia revolted for another Tsar.

                  • Internet Hat Machine

                    "Could you name those horizontal communities"

                    Definitely my fav. of Orwell's books:
                    http://libcom.org/library/homage-to-catalonia-geo

                    The EZLN in Chiapas are pretty cool as well.

                    "but as history shows: the natural progression of each society leads to a hierarchy based on something very undemocratic"

                    That's by no means universal. It's unfortunate that the state has become the dominant paradigm but that doesn't mean it's the best option or the only possible one.

                    "Whenever socialism has been attempted it has been mutilated into Stalinism, Maoism etc. and never worked out nicely."

                    You should take that up with the Leninists.

                    "I could've told you in year 8 that Russia revolted for another Tsar."

                    Actually Bakunin (an anarcho-communist) pointed out that a Marxist revolution would end badly decades before the Russian revolution. "Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is tyranny." as he said.

                    • RowersNotMowers

                      If a state is an area of land held by a specific group of people who profess a right to it, I don't see how an anarchist state in this sense is fundamentally different from a conventional one. It's surely the democratic, representative government which is the dominant paradigm.
                      And didn't Leninism inform Soviet practices which culminated in purges, gulags and mass starvation?
                      I just doubt the ability of a purely equal society to persist for generations without structures to limit differences in power becoming tyranny. Don't anarchists want to retain a legal system in a non-hierarchical society, while criticising the legal system now as a creator of inequality and societal division?

                    • OutOfTheBlue(river)

                      Thanks for the link, I'll try to check it out over the summer.

                      I'm sure the Leninists agree that Stalin butchered their politics and used Lenin to gain support.

                      If I'm right in thinking anarchism supports revolution to achieve it's aims then I would suggest that Bakunin's quote and point send you up the Cam without an oar.

                      Also I would assume a 'state' is as good old wikipedia says: "A state is an organised political community living under a government", isn't this just any geographical area that counts itself as fundamentally separate from others? as long as you stretch the term government to mean someone/ the group in charge.

              • http://freedompress.org.uk Rob Ray

                You're wrong because individualist and collectivist anarchism are generally very different ideologies which share only a critique of the status quo. Personally I have no time for the likes of Stirner and as for the laughably titled "libertarian" movement in the US, there's an entire section in the Anarchist FAQ dedicated to the logical stupidities of that particular creed.

                But in terms of being able to organise the CNT in Spain, probably the most famous example, successfully mobilised over two million members at its height in the 1930s without the aid of modern telecommunications.

                The general form is that groupings federate, forming largely autonomous units (in the case of say, the Solidarity Federation in Britain these are known as Locals) within a collectively-agreed central plan and constitution. Locals can mandate individuals with certain tasks, such as administration, but the key difference is these roles do not entail decision-making powers outside very specific mandates set out by either consensus or vote, and they are instantly recallable. So unlike a politician, a mandated rep can't platform on one thing and do another. And unlike a businessman, their actions have to reflect the decisions of the people they work with.

          • Internet Hat Machine

            "Imagine if Bone et al actually won their revolution. Would we have any sort of democracy, freedom of speech?"

            This may answer your questions: http://libcom.org/history/history-makhnovist-move

            "is howled down with a tirade of obscenities."

            Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from criticism.

            "Class War Anarchism is manifest in North Korea, or in Mao's China, which so fascinated Bone in his youth."

            No. North Korea is a feudalistic theocratic gulag economy authoritarian state. Kinda the exact opposite of anarchism.

            • Duck

              I was talking about Bone's Class War anarchism, which does in practice resemble dictatorships in North Korea and Mao's China, where the dictatorship decides who shall speak and what shall be reported, where policies are determined solely by the dictatorship. Bonism is a theocracy, with Bone as the self appointed God. That precisely describes the Bonist travesty of anarchism. Read Bone's blog, see the character assassinations of those who express dissenting views, learn about the rigid censorship, look at the fawning comments by his docile followers. Ask yourself do any of his disciples contribute to policy decisions? And while you are bashing Cambridge remember that there is more freedom of expression, more diversity here in Cambridge, than you will find in Bonism. And I would argue that the principles of anarchy rest on freedom from would be totalitarians. Moreover, you could not even hold this conversation on Bone's blog.

              • Internet Hat Machine

                "I was talking about Bone's Class War anarchism, which does in practice resemble dictatorships in North Korea and Mao's China,"
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtKT11WmQcY

                • RowersNotMowers

                  What a tool :) But how is that relevant?

                  • Internet Hat Machine

                    It's roughly as coherent.

                    "His followers obey without question, and cannot contribute to policy objectives or strategy because Bone insists on total control"

                    It's a fucking blog, it's not like he's dictator for life of SolFed or something…

                • Duck

                  I cannot see the relevance of this link. I raised a simple point which you have not addressed. Bone operates an elitist style of politics where decision making is arbitrarily dependent on his particular fancy, having little to do with either individualistic or collectivist anarchism. Like the Korean and Chinese dictators, Bone spreads disinformation and does not tolerate correction (I have collected pages of unrtruths from his blog). His followers obey without question, and cannot contribute to policy objectives or strategy because Bone insists on total control. His blog is rigidly censored and dissension is blocked. Since his student days he has shown no loyalty to friends or colleagues who slightly dissent. His university tutor predicted that he would end up as a Stalinist, which he has. You have attacked Cambridge for its elitist values but you have to admit there is greater freedom of expression here than in Bone's sphere of influence which is descending into delusion.

        • Adi

          Most of Britain working class doesn't live in the country. Much of the slave-work that so appalled early socialist thinkers is now outsourced to India.

          If you own a T.V. you're doing fairly well.

          (Just playing devils advocate…)

    • fae

      I mostly agree with you, but I do have two small points…

      Firstly, I think it's perhaps more the case that most people from 'working class' backgrounds at Cambridge spend their time at Cambridge *becoming* middle class. I was very definitely working class before I came to Cambridge, and would still describe myself as such, but with every passing day that's less and less true, and sooner or later, calling myself a member of the working class will be an insult to someone who still *is*.

      Secondly, of course the upper class are very visible – it's very easy to spot those who are different and who shout about it. My experience suggests that these people exist in significant proportions, but don't constitute anything like a majority. (Depends who you are, of course – the Union or the Conservative Club will probably contain a significantly higher proportion than the sociology department or the Cindies (generic grotty club) demographic, for example.) There's a good reason parodies like 'gap yah' of such people – usually made by students, for students – exist and do so well. There's a reason the word "rah" is heard so much more often than the word "chav" here. And so on.

    • Northern B

      Hello, I've got a massive chip on my shoulder! Despite never actually having been to Cambridge, I'm an authority on the personalities and classes of everyone there – I know in fact, far more than people that have lived and worked in Cambridge for three years.

    • Admiral Ackbar

      'Try reading some Max Weber to learn why the police are class enemies.'

      That assumes that Max Weber was right. It's just an opinion. And in my opinion, its wrong.

      The police, largely, do a magnificent job. Without them, you and I would probably be in a bit of bother (and possibly dead!). Just as they can be (in my opinion, wrongly!) perceived as oppressors, they can also be seen as our guardians against the oppressions of the lawless – which are far more frightening – as they do not abide by any defined rules.

      I.e. they can do pretty much whatever they like. That is why law was invented in the first place.

      It's not perfect, but trust me, we're far better off with the police than we are without them…

    • RowersNotMowers

      Anarchism has some valuable ideas, but if you want to achieve equality and fairness, I don't think revolution is the way to go about it.

      And the actual question here, after this massive discussion:
      WHY BOTHER COMING TO CAMBRIDGE?
      It doesn't advance anarchism at all, it's just an attempt to intimidate students.
      And chucking a brick is definitely not the way to persuade future cabinet members (apparently every Cambridge student will be one), to support progressive and egalitarian policies. It just reinforces the prejudiced view that the working class are only capable of responding to politics violently.

  • Simple common sense

    Damn it Tab, can you PLEASE stop giving Bone any more attention? That's the best way of hopefully making him go away. Surely you guys can't have it on your agenda to give him more attention?

    • Complex common sense

      Hopefully giving extremism a platform dispells myths and encourages dialogue, not to mention shows it to be a bit silly

  • David

    "And please note: this is class war. No toffs, etc. Just in case you were thinking of joining in."

    You ARE joing in, Charlie – on the other side of the class war from the protestors' side.

    That, and you can't write! Don't tell me you got the job at the Tab fairly and without WHO YOU KNEW having anything to do with it!

    • Facts

      It's not like you need an interview to write unpaid for the Tab. Also, knowing people in the town in which you live (Cambridge) has no bearing on class at all.

  • Duck

    A gentle warning to the Labour Party and the rest of the professional politicians in these volatile times. Although Bone, the most dangerous man in Britain, is not running for Mayor of Bristol, he intends to persuade two of his loyal Bonistas to stand, after he has burned Cambridge to ashes.
    http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/bristol-m

    • Everyone

      is terrified

  • fae

    In other news, one of Charlie Bell's supervision essays leaked:

    "Nietzsche was a fucking cunt. I mean he was just a right twat. His 'ideas' and 'philosophy' made vomit-covered turds (aka his stupid shit bastard face) look like your mum, who is well fit. He is such a shit that he likes class wars, gingerism, pestilence and AIDS, as is probably attested to by most of my mates. I bet he was a CUSU council member. I had his white middle-class Etonian mum last night anyway."

    • Luvvie

      Replace "mum" with "dad" and you'd be (slightly, insignificantly) more accurate.

    • QueensGoat

      Why the fuck is a medic writing about Nietzsche?

  • Dr Porkbeast

    Re the swan.

    I know standards have dropped in our elite universities since they stopped letting in the oiks but I believe you have a half decent library there. Look up Situationists you thickos….

  • Bell-End

    Charlie you're fighting on the wrong side. Your picture clearly exhibits that you are a Demon Swan. With a shit scarf and haircut.

  • Caius Anarchist

    Anyone who declares themself an anarchist while maintaining an opposition to private schools is hillarious

    • http://freedompress.org.uk Rob Ray

      Anyone who claims to understand what anarchism entails before claiming it should be in favour of private schools might want to consider actually reading a bit about the subject before running their keyboard.

      Bone is an anarchist-communist, meaning he is, shall we say, less than impressed with the notion that quality of schooling (and thus prospects) should be based on someone's parents' ability to raise vast amounts of capital. The maxim to remember is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

      What you have perhaps missed is that neither private nor state schooling is considered an adequate solution within most anarchist theory. If you fancy not making a fool of yourself next time you can start with Ferrer, who was one of the original thinkers on the subject and founded some of the first (actually, as opposed to the pretend version the Tories bollock on about) free schools.

  • Ron

    I'll admit I'd rather we didn't give this guy so much publicity, but I really don't think we need to be quite so paranoid about what a few column inches might do. He's a moron, and we've just got to hope the majority of people reading his work can see this. If they can't, maybe he has a point and we really are out of touch. Every kid learns about Hitler at school; the vast majority appreciate the moral of the story; I think we can all agree that it would be a huge mistake to censor history lessons in a bid to avoid stroking fascist egos.
    There's an unnerving sense on this board that his hate-mongering might in some way excite the masses. That IS snobbery. Have a little faith that even the plebs can see through his shit.

  • butler

    Bone is an irrelevant old man. The king of anarchists is an anachronism.
    He went to university at a time when most working class people hardly knew what a university was let alone attend one (ask your great granddad).
    His dad was a butler; top of the domestic help hierarchy, and he has carried the shame of daddy's grovelling throughout his eight decades on this planet.
    He used to speak like a bumpkin but adopted a ridiculous fake cockney accent. back in the 80s. Everything about him is fake.
    I know someone who knew him once, and they tell me that he was a very creepy individual. He has a very authoritarian way of policing and censoring his comments section too. Coward.

    • Duck

      I recall his transition from bumpkin to cockney and, oh dear, I hope he lost that dreadful wailing sound which he thought was a cockney means of expressing disagreement. For a while he abandoned anarchism and took up Welsh Nationalism whereupon he pretended to be Welsh, adopting the name Ieun ap Asgwrn which, I believe, translates as Ian son of Bone. Later he reverted back to the all purpose cockney whose rallying cry is faarkin wanker. He was creepy, and tries to scare children as seen in his Eton demo.

  • Mrs Asbo

    Sold my eggs for £750

    Brand new home….

    Jobs a good 'un.

  • Duck

    The latest from the Bonist camp is that the master will not be leading both animal rights protestors and his class warriors, The former are having their own demonstration. Bone has decided, quite arbitrarily for an anarchist, to hold a separate demonstration for his army along the river. He says it will be peaceful which means that the sacking of Cambridge may be postponed.Watch out for Bone, he will be the strange looking man holding his cardboard banner with the word 'wanker' written on it. However, there are rumours that St Bone will preach to the wild life on the river banks and thereafter walk on the water. Needless to say, if this does not take place, his disciples will be instructed to swear that it did.

    • RowersNotMowers

      Ian Bone is an anarchist leader.

      That is all.

  • butler

    Bone has picked his candidate for Mayor of Hackney. The picture of the BNP reject in full fascist type uniform says everything you need to know about Bone and his devoted followers (all 8 of them).
    http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/patrick-m

  • Brian Damage

    "He’s wrong in his assertion that Cambridge is Eton plus"

    Yeah, no public-school kiddies at cam, well said. No toff clubs, funny rituals, real tennis, initiations, drunken groups sodding around in city parks, blazer-clad rahs, etc.

    Oh no, hang on, wait…

    • are_you_at_durham?

      didn't really engage with the point, did you?

  • Daventry bland

    Is Mr Bone part of the group that calls itself Cambridge Anarchists?

  • Pingback: Parajumpers adirondack

  • Pingback: 酷网