Anarchism and class

87 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 13 2005 17:25

Now the point is. If I win £1million pounds on the lottery, and blow in on coke and crisps it's a waste of money, could be better spent, whatever, and of course people have to make the coke and crisps and some people lost their £1. But, that's not surplus value, that's just gambling, same as if I shit in a bucket sell it to Saatchi for £20, he exhibits it and sells it on for £1million, that's not surplus value either, it's just a change in the subjective worth (not value) of an object).

The difference is if I already have money (usually acquired at some point via primitive accumulation such as the expropriation of land, for example), and spend it on raw materials, tools and the labour to turn that raw materials into commodities _increase their value_, then the money I spend on labour, "a fair wage" entitles me at the end of the day to my C1, not just my C. The 1, is the surplus value, which also isn't the same as profit.

Now, if I own a lot of land and charge rent on it, then that's a different, older way of living from the labour of others, and one also bound up in class. It's not just about owning the means of production, that's just simply the most recent way that it's been manifested - instead of tithes and rent or whatever which still exist elsewhere anyway.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Jan 13 2005 17:33

I think your analysis is a little simplistic Catch grin

Padams
Offline
Joined: 10-01-05
Jan 13 2005 18:09

(Firstly I’d like to say how chuffed I am that people have got into this one, as a new post-er it’s very encouraging)

I’d like to go through some of the replies to echo a few points, clear up any misunderstandings and answer a few criticisms. Get comfortable this could be pretty long)

Gregorya-

'we don't necessarily need to be 'all or nothing'. A general movement towards more community activity, more localised government and a decline in a pointless emphasis on capitalism is beneficial, even if it doesn't go as far as we'd like to.'

Definitely. I’m surprised that Gregorya hasn’t come in for a lot of shit for this. I’m going to go into this in more detail in a separate thread.

Catch-

Catch makes a lot of good points. He/she is right that many people identify themselves by consumption as much as income and we need to show that capitalism works against consumers. He/she also makes a good point about class being about your relationship to production, I’ll come back to that at the end.

Wheresmyshoes-

I’m not suggesting that Anarchism should not have a class theory, but rather that it should not be the simplistic Marxist one, that there should not be so much of an emphasis on it that we become irrelevant to people who don’t see themselves as part of a class and that it should not be coupled to militant rhetoric. I agree that you can’t talk about capitalism without class; hopefully this will be answered when I pick up Catch’s point below.

I don’t think that all anarchists or militant anarchists smash things up, but violent/militant language encourages and legitimises violence which is nearly always counter-productive. You make an interesting point about militant animal rights activists. It is possible to make a strong argument in favour of using violence when animals (or people) are in immediate danger. However I would say that the use of violence is nearly always counter productive because (apart from any moral objection to the use of force) it turns people against any movement that uses it and so makes it harder to achieve the ultimate aims of the movement. Having said that, I’m anti-violence but I’m not a pacifist. There does come a point where the use of violence is justified. Somebody should start this as a separate thread (if they don’t I will).

I didn’t pick £30k for any particular reason other than that someone who earns £30k probably wouldn’t be seen, and almost certainly wouldn’t see themselves, as ‘working class’. Perhaps it would have been clearer to say ‘a high income’ or use a much higher number like 70 or 80.

I haven’t had a bad experience with classwar anarchists. I’m not referring to particular anarchists, but the public stereotype.

Redyred-

When I’ve got a ‘grand critique of class analysis within anarchism’ I’ll label it as such. Let’s not get sarcastic. Just because I right long posts, it doesn’t mean I think I know everything. I post this stuff to start debate, not show how clever I am. That wasn’t quite flaming but it was pretty warm.

As I mentioned above I’m not claiming class struggle anarchism is synonymous with violence, just that some of the language is overly militant and encourages or legitimises violence. I would certainly support your workplace organisation and community campaigns, even if we disagree on class.

Ownership of the means of production is certainly inescapable, but you say it is a ‘clear dividing line’ then say that in some cases it is ‘not so clear cut’, which kind of proves my point.

No, fair enough, I’ve read some Marx but not Capital. I should have said ‘Marxist conception of class as it’s commonly used’.

Regarding identity, the point I was making was in the last sentence of the quote that you used. I’m sure we can agree that we should appose all forms of religious fundamentalism.

Yep, the heading for point No. 3 left a lot to be desired, although I still think that the ruling class would benefit culturally and socially but clearly not economically. The ruling class, however, I’m sure would disagree.

I don’t think that class struggle deliberately alienates people, but I do think that militant rhetoric has that affect on a lot of people. I’m glad that you are interested in reaching out beyond a narrow base, but I think you need to think more about the most effective way to do it.

Your last point- yep fair enough, but in this case it’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it, ‘cos that’s what gets results.

Gregorya and John were writing about the influence of journalists. I think that journalists can have a lot of influence, but the deeper issue is control of the media by advertisers and media corporations. The financial backers need the journalists, but the journalists need the backing. Separating influence from money is certainly an interesting idea. Does some one who owns a shop employing 100 people have as much influence (ie power) as someone who owns a newspaper with a staff of 10 which is read by 5000 people? Or for that matter some who starts an Anarchist message board.

My original post wasn’t an argument against having a class theory. I wasn’t claiming that we live in a classless society. It was an argument against aggressive rhetoric and simplistic use of class as an idea.

I said I’d get back to Catch’s point; I’ll do it in the next post.

Padams
Offline
Joined: 10-01-05
Jan 13 2005 18:11

[problem with my supid computer, ignore this]

smile

Padams
Offline
Joined: 10-01-05
Jan 13 2005 18:12

Right, my view of class. It’s not a complete critique, and it certainly isn’t grand smile , but here goes…

Yes class is important, and it is, (partly) about the means of production. I think someone’s relationship to the means of production is governed by how marketable their skills are, which will translate into income. So someone who is highly skilled at making furniture but can’t find much work will earn less than someone who is pretty unskilled but works in a shop that pays reasonable wages. This is because unskilled labour is more in demand (more marketable) than carpentry. Skill and labour are commodities that respond to supply and demand just like any other. Those who have skill in stealing other people’s ideas, ruthlessly exploiting a workforce and disregarding the social and environmental consequences of their actions will earn most of all. Capitalists call these people entrepreneurs; socialists and anarchists call them the ruling class.

As we all know there are those who sell their labour for a wage (employed/working class) and those who buy it (employers/ruling class). There are also those who are somewhere in the middle- they employ some people, but are also employed by others (middle class). (I realise this is a massively simplified version. If it’s simplified to the point of being misleading, feel free to correct me.) As I’ve said before, I don’t think the groups are as clearly defined as some people make out, but I don’t want to repeat myself too much.

Those who subscribe to this view of class are absolutely right to point out the injustice of it. There are an important (if blurred) differences between those who buy labour and those who sell it. I don’t think that Marxist class analysis is fundamentally wrong, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. I don’t think we should view power strictly in terms of wealth or relationship to the MOP. I think we should view it in terms of influence. Clearly wealth and ownership are part of this but there are other things that contribute. Namely-

1) Access to information/communication

Having access to the internet, or even being able to read, gives you more access to information and a greater ability to communicate that those that can’t. This puts you in a position to have a more influence. It doesn’t necessarily depend on your relationship to the MOP.

2) Non-economic leadership

People who are religious or community leaders also have a greater level of influence that doesn’t necessarily depend on you relationship to he MOP. ‘Opinion formers’ such as journalists and political leaders also fall into this category.

3) The type of economic ownership

Some industry owners enjoy more influence than others. The government protects farming more that tourism. The media industry has more influence over the public than steel makers.

I’m not calling for new names for classes or new system of dividing them up. Marxist class theory is fine as it is. What I’m saying is this- as Anarchists we should be concerned with centralisation of power and how to reverse it, and there is more to that than just ownership of the MOP.

P.S Apologies for the length of these posts, I’m going to start visiting the site more often and posting smaller replies, my fingers hurt.

red n black star smile

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 13 2005 18:32
Padams wrote:
as Anarchists we should be concerned with centralisation of power and how to reverse it, and there is more to that than just ownership of the MOP.

That, I believe, is the crux of our position.

Will reply in more detail (if padams hasn't already covered everything smile) on Sunday I imagine.

(I'm not really here as should be revising wink)

Alex

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 13 2005 19:03

Revol, play nice, look where you are.

Padams,

A lot of that looks sensible. The main thing for me is that although power exists in forms other than capital relationships - the state, racism, media etc. these fundamentally come down to controlling how resources (including labour) are allocated to different sections of society. Many non-material forms of power (such as corporate media or religious leaders) serve to support material interests - they'll shift their ideological position to support economics, but never the other way 'round, in fact religious organisations and corporate media usually have massive financial interests anyway. You can't describe religious authority as non-material when the abbots used to own half the country, or UCKG runs around buying up cinemas and sending congregational donations back to Brazil in the millions.

There's an interconnectedness of these various relationships and they need to be treated as such. Part of the emphasis on marx/class that you see from some of us on this forum is more a response to many people treating all of these as separate issues divorced from any kind of economic or structural analysis than anything else. Openly Classist is as bad as most animal rights activism as far as I'm concerned at least.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Jan 13 2005 20:27

Padams, could you give some concrete examples of violence and rhetoric that generally isn't found in the wider world. I get really frustrated with this view of anarchism as obcessed with violence and destruction. Violent rethoric/images and violence are not the sole presevre of circle A 's. Violence is continuely being legitimised by the state, on scale that defies the imagination, but whilst using as neutral a language as possible. Is it the tone of language we use that define our actions? I would agree there is a tendency to use certain types of imagery (they tend to be more exicting)that are confrontational and langague that is angry (well, i'm pretty pissed off about alot of things aren't you?) which isn't always helpful. But if you look at a large range of circle A pronganda and actions i think you'll find, it's not as excessive as you seem to think. you mention the mainstream media view of circle A s as being violent, this stereotype has been around over 100 years and nothing we can do will change that. Here is a thread that covered some similiar ground. http://enrager.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3390&highlight=calm

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Jan 13 2005 21:15

Hello all;

Um, not much time cos I'm another fucking prole trying to get a degree and I've exams on.

A couple of things, Marxs 'simplistic class analysis' isn't as simplisitc as they teach you in sociology/politics/marxism class. We do live in a capitalist society, capitalist society is class society. In order to achieve anything resembling a free and classless society we need to have a class analysis.

These sort of discussions really do make me dispair - anti-intellectualism looks more and more inviting.

Please, tell me how we actually involve people in the struggle for a better society and relate to their everyday lives as working class people if we substitute what seems to be liberalism, guilt and lifestyle for class analysis?

I mean, Saii, if you are prepared to take that extra third of your income you should really give it to something worthwhile instead of prepetuating a system which you despise - eh?

If anarchism is not about class and class struggle I'm sorry, but as a working class fella it would become meaningless to me.

As to examples of violent and confrontational language I think I know what these folk are on about - the group I'm in recently got called "white supremacist with a small 's'" by a local liberal who reckons he's an anarchist. Why? Because we are!?

NO - but it is because we have 'Class Pride, Class Unity, Class War' on one of our banners and because in a recent pamphlet we pointed out that the bosses are conducting a class war against us and that we should repond likewise. Not that alex and padams said people with a "class analysis was all white supremacists with a small 's's" (cos I'm sure they aren't that mad), but the concern with pointing out the bosses engage in a class 'war', and anarchists using 'no war but the class war' as a slogan is the sort of thing they, like our local friend, object to.

As an aside: On the £30,000 thing John, maybe its cos we are poorer than everyone else (in Britain and the Republic of Ireland) here in the occupied (by capitalism) 6 counties but £30,000 as an average wage is pretty fuckin' high. I'm sure you're aware that the minority of top wage earners distort the figure by pulling it upwards while most working class people wot we know don't earn anything like that.

cheers;

circle A red n black star

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 13 2005 21:30
Quote:
those "with a huge reputation", are, at the end of the day, those who please both their bosses and advertisers, and are therefore almost certainly going to be right wing morons.

I think Greg Palast, John Pilger, Ewa Jasiewicz and a host of other campaigning and investigative left wing journalists are ample evidence that this is bullshit.

Yes students can live on 10k a year, but in all fairness, they aren't saving up to buy a house which costs on average more than ten times their salary (mine is 13k, average house price in Ipswichis around 160k), or paying for a car, rent, countil tax, income tax, NI payments, for kids etc etc. They also come out with massive debts because they can't afford to live off 10k a year. When I was working for 10k there were alot of people on a bit more than me, and they were continually telling me they struggled to keep their heads above water.

What's more, why the hell should I take less money than I can earn for the sake of your morality? I don't give a fuck what you think of my life choices, you aren't me and by the sounds of things, you aren't capable of imagining what it might be like to actually struggle with money. If you wish to take a job as a clean honest factory worker then please do, but don't drag me into your high and mighty plan to deprive the unskilled of their jobs.

Opting for less bad companies is a fallacy, they're almost all owned by multinationals and for the few that aren't, what do you think would happen if everybody in the world wanted to only work for them? Chronic oversubscription is what. You might be able to breeze into paid work with amnesty international, but all that means is you are displacing some other poor sucker into a PR job with BP.

Quote:
by working there, and submitting to their demands that you write whatever the hell they want, you're bound to end of perpetuating the stuff you're trying to fight against in the rest of your time.

Well at least you've come to the conclusion that we aren't the ones in charge smile. Fair point, but at the same time, journalism is mildly subvertible (you can use your extra knowledge to your advantage, I assume you've read this in Chomsky, the gatekeeper theory etc etc), and alot of the time, provides you with a crash course in education on a myriad of regional and national topics. To be a journalist is to be well informed. Also, as I've said before along with tohers, there are no jobs which this truism doesn't apply to. Everybody who works is supporting capital, no exceptions.

gawkrodger
Offline
Joined: 20-01-04
Jan 13 2005 22:27

i haven't read much of this thread (will do it tomorrow at work) so these points may have already been raised.

these are some quick starting points for people who think anarchism shouldn't have a strong class struggle basis.

How could capitalism exist without a class society?

Is it not possible for sexism/homophobia/racism to be eliminated without capitalism still existing?

and if you think marxian economic/class theory is simplistic you a) haven't read much wink b) need to read autonomist marxist theory a la early negri or harry cleaver 'reading capital politically'

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Jan 13 2005 22:55

Or even read Marx perhaps?

circle A red n black star

wheresmyshoes's picture
wheresmyshoes
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Jan 14 2005 17:27
revol68 wrote:
yeah why is that people who claim marx is simplistic have only read the communist manifesto!

i mean it was a fucking manifesto course its going to be simplistic!

what is taught as Marxism in sociology courses is a fucking joke.

This stupidly true, for my sociology coursework last month I had to do an essay on marxism, it was so easy I did it in two hours and got an A!!!!Even though this is a chance to brag the fact I never get A's is a big deal,sociology is fucking easy, and yes people who say marxism is simplistic blatently only know half of what they should.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jan 15 2005 09:09

http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/ctheoryb.html

If marx was simple i swear using crisis theory to understand capital would be easier.

john

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 16 2005 14:01

Where oh where do I start?

I've not responded to 100% of everything everyone's said, because some of it people are repeating each other or themselves, and in some cases not even giving an argument for something, or just being plain OT or insulting.

If I've missed out anything anyone thinks is vital, please say.

Redyred first:

Quote:
Because the capitalist wants to make a profit the wage is less then the price of the product. In other words the worker is effectively short changed for the value of their labour.

This seems to be the main point most of you are reiterating (aside from pointless abuse).

But its just plain false. The managers themselves work. But according to Marx's (and therefore your) theory of value, they aren't; they're just abusing the rest of us. However, contrary to what you all think, many owners do work (and often, I would say, far harder than us poor proletariat). If we turned over ownership to the workers then their "excess" labour time would be spent doing the more managerial tasks.

Obviously often bosses are overpaid etc., but they still do work, and create some of the value of the final product, and Marxism doesn't even begin to take that into account. This is because, as I maintain, the Marxist viewpoint is overly simplistic. You simply /cannot/ explain everything in terms of class. That is why the Marxist viewpoint is simplistic, because it thinks that one thing, ownership of MOP is sufficient to explain the entire world, and thats sheer lunacy.

You might well claim that using and applying it can be complex, and there are various subtleties etc., and you're probably right. But thinking that class is wholly defined by relationship to MOP, and that class is the one and only source of all problems in the world, as I say, is simplistic to the point of idiocy.

I realise that relationship to MOP does have some relevance, but there are many factors to take into account.

Quote:
Who would the managers strike against? The whole concept of a managers strike is illogical. Also your own point about their power over the government kind of disproves your point about state power being more important than class.

The government? Their workers? Its not illogical at all. And yes, they have power over the government. But thats exactly my point: How on earth can that power be rooted in ownership of MOP? The government are totally uninvolved in that.

Quote:
What's good, or more accurately what's necessary for human society is a production of everything that humans require, and this is possible under capitalist technology and mass production

So in fact you're not an anarchist at all then?

Catch:

Quote:
If you stopped working for a local paper and started working as a casual labourer with no rights or sick pay then you'd be "perpetuating" shit wages, poor labour rights and no sick pay instead of dodgy journalism about school fetes. Every job for a capitalist (or state) employer perpetuates capitalism or the state, and workers co-ops, self-employment or NGO work is still firmly within those boundaries.

You're right to an extent, yes you'd be perpetuating shit wages etc., but there are various extents to which things can be perpetuated. In journalism for example, what you do (which, before anyone goes mental at me again, I know is influenced by a number of factors not under your control) has a great deal of influence. By not working there, and therefore meaning that someone less capable gets your job, you're taking some (small, but still present) amount of power away from the mainstream press.

Quote:
C + M = C1

I've gone into this a bit more above, but essentially, what you (and therefore Marx) are failing to realise is that the owner adds to M as well - by organising the workers, doing general admin etc.

Padams:

I agree with 99% of what you have to say.

Quote:
Just because I right long posts, it doesn’t mean I think I know everything. I post this stuff to start debate, not show how clever I am. That wasn’t quite flaming but it was pretty warm.

Deserves emphasis though. People throwing around insults, sarcasm etc really doesn't help.

Saii:

Quote:
Quote:

those "with a huge reputation", are, at the end of the day, those who please both their bosses and advertisers, and are therefore almost certainly going to be right wing morons.

I think Greg Palast, John Pilger, Ewa Jasiewicz and a host of other campaigning and investigative left wing journalists are ample evidence that this is bullshit.

Notice "almost certainly". You can't possibly maintain that the majority of mainstream journalists are left wing?

Quote:
Yes students can live on 10k a year, but in all fairness, they aren't saving up to buy a house which costs on average more than ten times their salary (mine is 13k, average house price in Ipswichis around 160k), or paying for a car, rent, countil tax, income tax, NI payments, for kids etc etc. They also come out with massive debts because they can't afford to live off 10k a year

This is fairly irrelevant, but briefly: I live on around £5k/year, maybe a bit less. Those "massive debts" you talk about is the fact that we are leant the money we are given, and that is our debt. It is possible to live off that number. I realise kids may well bump that number up a fair bit, but:

Quote:
What's more, why the hell should I take less money than I can earn for the sake of your morality? I don't give a fuck what you think of my life choices, you aren't me and by the sounds of things, you aren't capable of imagining what it might be like to actually struggle with money. If you wish to take a job as a clean honest factory worker then please do, but don't drag me into your high and mighty plan to deprive the unskilled of their jobs.

Now you're just being unreasonable. You said you hated your job and got shit pay, so I asked why on earth you worked there. You gave some poor reasons about not being able to live off the wage you'd get otherwise (so what the hell are the people who have those jobs doing?). I never told you to do anything. I'm trying to give some decent arguments as to why certain jobs are worse than others in terms of how they benefit the anarchist movement.

Quote:
Opting for less bad companies is a fallacy, they're almost all owned by multinationals and for the few that aren't, what do you think would happen if everybody in the world wanted to only work for them? Chronic oversubscription is what. You might be able to breeze into paid work with amnesty international, but all that means is you are displacing some other poor sucker into a PR job with BP.

No, its not a fallacy. At the very least, by not applying for jobs at multi-nationals you're depriving them of more competant workers. By doing that, you're decreasing their power (both because their general sucess will fall, and because people will look elsewhere for the same services: in the case of the media, maybe a move from the Times to the Guardian, or from the Guardian to Freedom.

Chronic oversubscription wouldn't happen either. If there are workers who'd be willing to do a job, then companies would spring up.

Quote:
journalism is mildly subvertible (you can use your extra knowledge to your advantage, I assume you've read this in Chomsky, the gatekeeper theory etc etc), and alot of the time, provides you with a crash course in education on a myriad of regional and national topics. To be a journalist is to be well informed

True, and good point. I still wonder if that extra knowledge would be put to better use in the liberal press (I know you said you write for freedom as well)?

I think thats everything that deserves a reply. Looking forward to any non-abusive and well thought out posts.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 16 2005 15:35
gregorya wrote:
Where oh where do I start?

Tell me about it!

Quote:

Redyred first:

Quote:
Because the capitalist wants to make a profit the wage is less then the price of the product. In other words the worker is effectively short changed for the value of their labour.

This seems to be the main point most of you are reiterating (aside from pointless abuse).

But its just plain false. The managers themselves work. But according to Marx's (and therefore your) theory of value, they aren't; they're just abusing the rest of us. However, contrary to what you all think, many owners do work (and often, I would say, far harder than us poor proletariat). If we turned over ownership to the workers then their "excess" labour time would be spent doing the more managerial tasks.

This is utter balls!

Of course managers and owners work too - the fact that you think class analysis doesn't take this into account shows you know nothing of the position you're attacking (in fact all your points show that, I'm afraid).

And thinking that *all* the excess time would be taken up with organisational work (uself stuff managers/bosses do) is just fucking ridiculous! So you think that creating profits, dividends to shareholders and expanding the capital takes no time at all???

Quote:
Obviously often bosses are overpaid etc., but they still do work, and create some of the value of the final product, and Marxism doesn't even begin to take that into account. This is because, as I maintain, the Marxist viewpoint is overly simplistic.

As has been shown, you think this cos you don't understand it!

Quote:
But thinking that class is wholly defined by relationship to MOP, and that class is the one and only source of all problems in the world, as I say, is simplistic to the point of idiocy.

But that's not anyone's position!!!

Class analysis is not about classifying and categorising individuals ffs, it's abuot understanding social dynamics, and how the world changes, why things happen etc.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Jan 16 2005 19:27
gregorya wrote:
Quote:
Who would the managers strike against? The whole concept of a managers strike is illogical. Also your own point about their power over the government kind of disproves your point about state power being more important than class.

The government? Their workers? Its not illogical at all. And yes, they have power over the government. But thats exactly my point: How on earth can that power be rooted in ownership of MOP? The government are totally uninvolved in that.

Well if you strike then you're going to have demands. And you can only make demands of someone who can grant them. They don't need to make demands for the workers to be paid less or have worse conditions, they just do it. A lockout (when unionised workers are prevented from working) is probably the closest you'd come but that's hardly the same thing as a strike. And yes, the bosses do lobby the government but they wouldn't do it by withdrawing their managerial effort. About the nearest thing to that would be foreign companies withdrawing their investment and scaring the government into making it's economic policies more favourable to business.

Quote:
Quote:
What's good, or more accurately what's necessary for human society is a production of everything that humans require, and this is possible under capitalist technology and mass production

So in fact you're not an anarchist at all then?

Er what..? I think most people, anarchist or not, would agree that the physical methods of capitalist production have the capability to sustain large human populations. The agricultural and industrial advances of capitalism were of immense benefit to humanity, and capitalism is certainly a huge improvement on feudalism. Doesn't mean I don't ultimately hope for capitalism to be overturned and replaced with a system of libertarian communism.

Augusto_Sandino
Offline
Joined: 21-02-04
Jan 17 2005 08:28

Its social democrats that say "Capitalism works, but for whom?" (although i dont think theyre allowed to say capitalism or work nowerdays).

But i can see where Padom or whoever is coming from. Were anarchists, there are two evils, authority and capitalism. And authority is just as much a problem for the lower middle classes and upper working classes as it is for the traditional proletariat. We dont need to condemn people for their more or less involuntary place in the capitalist system like the Marxists, all for the sake of some theoretical master-plan. And most people seem to think its becoming rich and poor with the classes nowerdays.

And if you think you can defeat capitalism without an increasingly large proportion of the working population on your side (the white collar workers) then i think your living in a dream world. There are no more miners. There are no more shipbuilders. And there arent many factory labourers either. And at some point, we need to accept that and stop playing into the hands of Liberal Capitalism.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 17 2005 10:09

'Almost certainly' is a poor thing to hide behind. You were implying that the majority of journos were right wing. They aren't. The majority of journos are liberal in everyday life. They write right-wing work because that's what their boss tells them to write. I know this because I've worked with them for a couple of years. You don't because you only read what they write.

Quote:
Those "massive debts" you talk about is the fact that we are leant the money we are given, and that is our debt.

And? the fact is that if you were to earn enough to live as a student without building those debts, you would have to earn far more than your living expenses for a long time beforehand to save enough capital to see you through your course, despite the hefty tax breaks and lack of other responibilities most students have.

A friend of mine got his girlfriend pregnant in the second year of his course, and there was no way his loan would cover that cost. As such he had to take whatever job he could, which happened to be for the police. It would be somewhat ridiculous of me to tell that guy doing the best he can under incredibly hard circumstances 'you can live on 5k a year and get a better job which isn't supporting the state', because blatantly he can't. You are coming at this from a perspective which takes account only your own ability to live on 5k a year, I'd suggest you need to be slightly more empathetic.

Quote:
Now you're just being unreasonable.

No I'm not, I'm trying to show you that it is not wrong to want to earn as much as you can for a bit of financial security. Only an idiot wants to live on the breadline, and only an idiot would believe that most people who actually do struggle with money wouldn't take a 'dishonest' job like journalism so they didn't have to.

I said very clearly that my job pays me better than I can get elsewhere. I didn't say I couldn't live off the wages I got at the factory, but I can't really afford to save to buy a house on it, and neither can anyone else I know, and it isn't pleasant when you have vast quantities of other bills to pay.

Quote:
At the very least, by not applying for jobs at multi-nationals you're depriving them of more competant workers.

Well that depends very much on the quality of the job I'm doing doesn't it. Trust me on this, the media would be worse if it was populated only by people with no morals. As I said, journalism is mildly subvertible, so I'd argue that where I can influence the output of a paper, I should be in a position to do so. Even under the premise that journalism is massively influential that makes sense. In theory the army and police are some of the most powerful factors keeping control of our society, but it's a well known part of history that the most successful revolutions have usually been done with the help of sympathisers in these institutions. in fact, I've used techniques I've learned from mainstream journalism to improve the content of Freedom and teach media production methods to other activists.

Quote:
If there are workers who'd be willing to do a job, then companies would spring up.

If Amnesty came to me and asked me to be a PR man tomorrow I'd take it. Capacity does not magically equal production, there needs to be a market demand for it, and a weak or absent level of competition - that's basic economics. Perhaps if the entire journalistic workforce simultaneously went on strike, and worked for Freedom for free, and the print facilities did the same thing, what you said would apply. But we live in the real world, not some fantasy land where one person's grandiose gesture changes everything. And don't give me this bullshit about 'we need to start somewhere', it just has no basis in reality, simple as.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Jan 17 2005 10:32
Augusto_Sandino wrote:
And authority is just as much a problem for the lower middle classes and upper working classes as it is for the traditional proletariat. We dont need to condemn people for their more or less involuntary place in the capitalist system like the Marxists, all for the sake of some theoretical master-plan.

Lower middle classes and upper working classes - so they would be working class really then wouldn't they roll eyes . Its not about condemning people for their 'involuntary' class position its about recognising our common interests as workers, recognising those interests are in conflict with the interests of our bosses (and to the extent that they identify with the interests of the MD, CEO, shareholders and capitalism generally), the managers they employ to, well, manage us and their other resources (the work managers do) for them.

Augusto_Sandino wrote:
And if you think you can defeat capitalism without an increasingly large proportion of the working population on your side (the white collar workers) then i think your living in a dream world. There are no more miners. There are no more shipbuilders. And there arent many factory labourers either. And at some point, we need to accept that and stop playing into the hands of Liberal Capitalism.

Don, I'm not aware of anyone having suggested ignoring any section of the working population, and if you believe most people who have responded to padams and gregorya believe this then I'm afraid its you who is living in a dream world (a slightly different one than that inhabited by gregorya but still a dream world). If there are no more miners, or shipbuilders or even many factory labourers where the fucks the coal, ships and countless amounts of production line products coming from - you see Don they are still there - some of them have just been moved to other parts of our wee planet.

Playing along with categories like lower middle and upper working class does more to play into the hands of liberal capitalism than any 'dreams' you may be accusing people of having.

As for gregorya - ffs, is there really any point talking to some people?

circle A red n black star

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 17 2005 10:39
Quote:
is there really any point talking to some people?

Almost always, particularly if they're just young and a bit arrogant, cos there's always a chance some of it will sink in.

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 17 2005 11:24

Redyred:

Quote:
Quote:

Quote:

What's good, or more accurately what's necessary for human society is a production of everything that humans require, and this is possible under capitalist technology and mass production

So in fact you're not an anarchist at all then?

Er what..? I think most people, anarchist or not, would agree that the physical methods of capitalist production have the capability to sustain large human populations. The agricultural and industrial advances of capitalism were of immense benefit to humanity, and capitalism is certainly a huge improvement on feudalism. Doesn't mean I don't ultimately hope for capitalism to be overturned and replaced with a system of libertarian communism.

Sorry, but I think I misinterpreted (your perhaps slightly ambiguous) sentence. I thought you were implying that capiltism is good (in absolute terms, not just relative), and that capitalism can provide for every need that people have.

Of course (as I think you say in the above para), you meant just that capitalism can provide the necessary conditions for life, which is of course entirely different.

And yes, I agree that capitalism isn't wholly bad, it has brought some immense benefit.

Augusto:

I agree.

Well, except from the last para. The point still stands though, bringing down capitalism (as we know it now) could benefit everyone, not just the workers. In theory, we should be able to get the bourgousie (or whatever you'd like to call them) on our side too.

Saii:

Firstly, I'd like to say thank you for not swearing at me this time, and for being one of the few people here who've stuck on point and replied coherantly (those journalism skills do come in handy then wink). Of course, whether thats because others think its pointless talking to me is up for debate.

Quote:
'Almost certainly' is a poor thing to hide behind. You were implying that the majority of journos were right wing. They aren't. The majority of journos are liberal in everyday life. They write right-wing work because that's what their boss tells them to write. I know this because I've worked with them for a couple of years. You don't because you only read what they write.

It was written in that sentence for a reason. And yes, I was implying that the majority of (well known, and thats important too) journos are right wing. And fair enough, although its hard to judge. Chomsky gives good reasons why in principle well known journos will be right wing, and you obviously know what your colleages and so on are like. Perhaps the British press attracts more liberals than the American one? I've always wondered how far the BBC is a force for the good in that it doesn't have to push a corporate line. Any thoughts?

Quote:
And? the fact is that if you were to earn enough to live as a student without building those debts, you would have to earn far more than your living expenses for a long time beforehand to save enough capital to see you through your course, despite the hefty tax breaks and lack of other responibilities most students have.

Some of that money /does/ pay for my course. Obviously, I know its subsidised and so on, but then again, you don't pay at all for the privilege of working for a company. We do have tax breaks, but then again, in order to have £5k spendable income you only need to earn, what, £8k / year? As I say, in terms of other responsibilities I know families cost money. I just get fed up with the line that everyone gives "But I have to work there", when everyone knows full well that you don't need to earn £30k / year to live.

I should also admit I presumed as a journo you'd be earning more than that.

Quote:
No I'm not, I'm trying to show you that it is not wrong to want to earn as much as you can for a bit of financial security. Only an idiot wants to live on the breadline, and only an idiot would believe that most people who actually do struggle with money wouldn't take a 'dishonest' job like journalism so they didn't have to.

I said very clearly that my job pays me better than I can get elsewhere. I didn't say I couldn't live off the wages I got at the factory, but I can't really afford to save to buy a house on it, and neither can anyone else I know, and it isn't pleasant when you have vast quantities of other bills to pay.

If you use quote marks please make sure its a quote; I never said that. With regards to financial security, as I say, I admit I thought you'd be earning much more. You've got to bear in mind the people I normally have these arguments with are students who can't decide between fucking over the third world for £100k/year or working, as you say, for Amnesty at £30k/year.

Part of my reason for supporting political change is because I think people have become way too obsessed with money; people see money as the goal, rather than what you actually want/need. People naturally assume £100k is better than £30k in terms of the quality of life it'll give them, without any regard to what they'd actually use the money for.

To rephrase: I don't understand (as I say, ignoring family costs) why no-one is happy with their wage. If I'm happy on £5k/year, what does that extra £25k actually get you? As I say though, I realise there are some extra things to take into account, but the point remains, £25k/year isn't necessarily an improvement on £20k/year.

Quote:
Well that depends very much on the quality of the job I'm doing doesn't it. Trust me on this, the media would be worse if it was populated only by people with no morals. As I said, journalism is mildly subvertible, so I'd argue that where I can influence the output of a paper, I should be in a position to do so. Even under the premise that journalism is massively influential that makes sense. In theory the army and police are some of the most powerful factors keeping control of our society, but it's a well known part of history that the most successful revolutions have usually been done with the help of sympathisers in these institutions. in fact, I've used techniques I've learned from mainstream journalism to improve the content of Freedom and teach media production methods to other activists.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree. If the media were populated by people who were both less competant and less moral, I'd personally imagine that the entire institution would collapse far faster. Who would buy a paper they know full well is ridiculously biased and poorly informed?

I suppose it depends to some extent where you stand on the revolution vs. evolution thing. Changing current institutions will only occur if we join them and instigate change, revolution might only occur if we simply break the system.

Are those skills you've learnt not learnable elsewhere? (genuine question)

Quote:
If Amnesty came to me and asked me to be a PR man tomorrow I'd take it. Capacity does not magically equal production, there needs to be a market demand for it, and a weak or absent level of competition - that's basic economics. Perhaps if the entire journalistic workforce simultaneously went on strike, and worked for Freedom for free, and the print facilities did the same thing, what you said would apply. But we live in the real world, not some fantasy land where one person's grandiose gesture changes everything. And don't give me this bullshit about 'we need to start somewhere', it just has no basis in reality, simple as.

Fair do's. And market demand can be community needs. If 10 people opt out of working for sainsbury's and instead start their own farm (I know I'm greatly simplifying, but I believe the point stands), then they can simulataneously provide their own jobs and fulfil their own needs.

But if there are enough liberal journalists, whats to stop you all (as you do) writing for freedom in your spare time, making it good enough that you can charge a bit more and generally make it a real competitor? I still firmly believe that if the best liberal workers leave and do things themselves they can run things better than the big corporate enterprises.

Quote:

Almost always, particularly if they're just young and a bit arrogant, cos there's always a chance some of it will sink in.

I'm only here to learn like the rest of you.

Tbh, I'm amazed at how violently people have reacted to the claim that a) class and relationship to MOP isn't the only thing to look at with regards to society, and b) that opting for more ethical jobs is a good thing.

Maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 17 2005 12:11
Quote:
Of course, whether thats because others think its pointless talking to me is up for debate.

Bear in mind that alot of the people who can answer your questions have spent a long time learning how it works and get accosted at alot of the social events they go to with similar questions to yours. It's easy to get jaded and short under those circumstances, especially when people start off with a confrontational attitude.

Quote:
Chomsky gives good reasons why in principle well known journos will be right wing,

From what I remember Chomsky was much more talking about acceptance of the status quo rather than specifically left or right wingism. the famous interview he spoke about this in was with a BBC journalist, where he pointed out that the man's seniority was because he agreed with the fundamentals of our current system. It is quite easy to do so from a left liberal perspective.

Quote:
Perhaps the British press attracts more liberals than the American one

Without a doubt. having said that, the liberal left in the US has some of the most talented reporters on the planet on its side - they just don't get published. Farenheit 911 (not a great example, but a famous one) was originally barred by almost every major production company in the US because its content showed Bush in a poor light. If he hadn't already made so much cash out of Bowling for Columbine it would never have made it out of the small scale independent sector.

Afaic the Beeb is something that should be defended, because while it doesn't buck the status quo, it is without a doubt one of the few institutions where anti-corporate work gets a hearing. They were (for example) the place greg palast went to when his expose of Bush's war record was blackballed by every major media group in the US.

Journalists get paid horribly badly alot of the time. The average wage for a cub reporter is 8-12k outside London. It's a prestige job which is oversubscribed.

I agree that people earning 30k a year can lose perspective, but having said that, it's not something which is entirely unexpected. There are huge pressures on high earners to 'keep up with the joneses', particularly if they have kids. There is also the point that your earnings are yours, why shouldn't you be entitled to spend them, which I'm loathe to disagree with, because if you can pick up closer to your actual worth in the workplace, or even perhaps a bit more like premiership players do, it's a bit pointless to then expect you to give it all away again. Rather you should be respected for managing it and encouraged to see those who haven't as your peers.

Quote:
If the media were populated by people who were both less competant and less moral, I'd personally imagine that the entire institution would collapse far faster.

Perhaps, but this is an extension of the 'lets make things so bad that the whole system collapses and we can benefit' school of thought, and one I disagree with. Personally I want to mitigate the worst of it for as long as possible, not actively participate in the destruction of peoples' lives for my own ends. There's also the terrifying thought that they might continue to be successful eek.

Quote:
Are those skills you've learnt not learnable elsewhere?

Categorically not. Activist news is the world's worst place to learn the trade. It's full of overblown polemicists and bad puns, with almost no concept of toning down bias. People still regularly use the word propaganda as though it was a good thing. Most anarchists are still in the 19th century when it comes to writing readable news for the public, in terms of writing style, length, attitude and concept. If you want to learn the ropes, you need to do so off the mainstream or at least off someone who has worked in the mainstream.

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 17 2005 12:47
Quote:
Bear in mind that alot of the people who can answer your questions have spent a long time learning how it works and get accosted at alot of the social events they go to with similar questions to yours. It's easy to get jaded and short under those circumstances, especially when people start off with a confrontational attitude.

Don't get me wrong, there are some decent replies, but also a lot thats either just plain stupid, or, as you say, people who have got to the stage where they can't even be arsed to argue properly.

And was that last comment aimed at me? I'd be genuinely interested to know how I come across as being confrontational. I try to make sure I add phrases like "in my opinion", "as far as I know" precislely to avoid such an impression.

I realise I offended you, but then thats because I happened to say that "journalists let their strings be pulled by advertisers", and you took (not your fault, my ambiguous sentence) "let" far more literally than it was intended. That was hardly a hugely confrontational attitude. Lots of other people, AFAICS started the swearing and abuse basically because I called Marxist conception of class "simplistic", which is hardly confrontational.

Quote:
From what I remember Chomsky was much more talking about acceptance of the status quo rather than specifically left or right wingism. the famous interview he spoke about this in was with a BBC journalist, where he pointed out that the man's seniority was because he agreed with the fundamentals of our current system. It is quite easy to do so from a left liberal perspective.

Just from a brief look he doesn't use the words left and right, but he does talk about media maintaining the power interests of their investors: To me, maintaining power in the centralised place its already in is the far right.

Quote:
There are huge pressures on high earners to 'keep up with the joneses', particularly if they have kids

Thats precisely what annoys me. Its the individualism from the capitalist society pervading the rest of our lives; people don't need to compete at everything.

Quote:
There is also the point that your earnings are yours, why shouldn't you be entitled to spend them

I disagree with things like this, but for deep ethical reasons which I won't go into here. I do wonder how much of the problems of modern life stem from our "individual rights" view of morality. I'm still deciding whether to concentrate my (philosophical, and hopefully soon academic) time on ethics or direclty on the politics.

Quote:
Perhaps, but this is an extension of the 'lets make things so bad that the whole system collapses and we can benefit' school of thought, and one I disagree with. Personally I want to mitigate the worst of it for as long as possible, not actively participate in the destruction of peoples' lives for my own ends. There's also the terrifying thought that they might continue to be successful

I can see your point; although I'd more see it as constructive, since the idea would be to provide an alternative. The last point is a good one though.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 17 2005 13:06

'In my opinion' doesn't stop things from being confrontational, if anything, it makes it more so because it's yours and not simply cadged off someone else's research.

Quote:
I called Marxist conception of class "simplistic", which is hardly confrontational.

You have been questioning the basis of one of the most influential theories of all time, which, like it or not, is an attitude which is directly attacking much of the basis of leftist thought. You also seem to have read little of the actual texts involved, which has inflamed a certain amount of anger because effectively, you are criticising from a position of ignorance.

You don't know what Marx may have covered outside the breadth of your reading, yet you are attacking him for not covering certain issues in enough depth. Most well-read anarchists are very much aware of the shortcomings of Marx, and they aren't what you are describing. I'm not particularly well-read on him either (I've only read the german ideology and the manifesto), which is why I haven't involved myself in the debate, but even from what little I do know I can understand why people are getting a bit antsy.

Quote:
I realise I offended you

Don't worry, I don't hold grudges smile.

Quote:
To me, maintaining power in the centralised place its already in is the far right.

Not at all. Most Social Democrats and old Labour left want to keep the state and centralise more power in its hands, not less.

Quote:
people don't need to compete at everything.

Preaching to the converted there mate wink.

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 17 2005 13:31
Quote:
'In my opinion' doesn't stop things from being confrontational, if anything, it makes it more so because it's yours and not simply cadged off someone else's research.

If you're right I think thats tragic. Aside from anything else, I would've thought anarchists would be all for people thinking for themselves rather than just endlessly quoting random "intellectuals". Still, what can you do? You might be interested to know that to some extent thats how we're encouraged to write whilst doing a degree.

Quote:
You have been questioning the basis of one of the most influential theories of all time, which, like it or not, is an attitude which is directly attacking much of the basis of leftist thought. You also seem to have read little of the actual texts involved, which has inflamed a certain amount of anger because effectively, you are criticising from a position of ignorance.

You're all questioning the basis of one of the most influential theories of all time: Capitalism. In my opinion (eek) thats a good thing.

Furthermore, it may well be the basis of leftist thought, but that doesn't render it unquestionable. I'd rather not replace one system of power for another thank you very much. And, incidentally, I've yet to comment at all and what Marx I have and haven't read: And intentionally so, I hate people who think that having read X instantly makes their opinion better than anyone elses (as I believe Padams said earlier in the thread, perhaps rather than referring to Marx directly I should refer to Marxism as it is commonly conceived. But then, I don't think I'm critisizing Marx directly, I'm critisizing the generic viewpoint that nothing matters but class). If I'm that clearly wrong then I'm confused as to why no-one has given a flat out decent argument against me (not to say that some good points have been made, just everyone says I'm obviously wrong and yet they're incapable of demonstrating why.)

Quote:
You don't know what Marx may have covered outside the breadth of your reading, yet you are attacking him for not covering certain issues in enough depth. Most well-read anarchists are very much aware of the shortcomings of Marx, and they aren't what you are describing. I'm not particularly well-read on him either (I've only read the german ideology and the manifesto), which is why I haven't involved myself in the debate, but even from what little I do know I can understand why people are getting a bit antsy.

I don't, but then no-one else here knows what I've read out of the breadth of their reading. I'm not attacking him for not covering issues in enough depth, I'm attacking the claim that class can explain everything. Thats why its simplistic: its like trying to explain the origins of WWI referring only to the death ofFranz Ferdinand.

And regardless of what most well read anarchists think, it seems the majority of the people in this thread aren't aware of shortcomings of Marx. I'm attacking him for trying to explain everything in virtue of class, which is simplistic. People in this thread clearly believe that he's right on that:

Quote:
a social dynamic... ...arises out of the existence of class society.
Quote:
To understand how the world has changed, you need to look at it in terms of class
Quote:
ownership and control of the means of production puts a clear dividing line through society, which while maybe not in every case distinct is big enough that it's inescapable and transcends any other social divide
Quote:
Political and economic power stems from class.

I won't go on. Thats a clear attempt of thinking that class explains the whole of society. Thats what I'm arguing against, and from what you're saying it sounds like you agree with me.

Quote:
Don't worry, I don't hold grudges Smile.

smile

Quote:
Quote:

To me, maintaining power in the centralised place its already in is the far right.

Not at all. Most Social Democrats and old Labour left want to keep the state and centralise more power in its hands, not less.

Fair enough, I think its debatable, but then again its only terminology.

Many point out the inadequacies of viewing the political spectrum solely in terms of left vs right. Regardless, the left in that sense seem to me to be totally non-anarchist. Thats communism which is entirely different (and maybe explains the marxist theme to this place: I assumed Marx wouldn't feature in any anarchists reading list).

Alex

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 17 2005 13:53

I meant that if something is your opinon, it means it isn't an abstract debate you've posted in the hopes of intellectual growth, but one in which you have posted your personal view. You must understand that under those circumstances, people are going to be more robust in their responses because you have entered the field of opinion yourself, rather than hanging back and reading others.

Quote:
it may well be the basis of leftist thought, but that doesn't render it unquestionable.

Of course not. The point is that your analysis seems to have assumed things which aren't based in a great deal of knowledge.

Quote:
If I'm that clearly wrong then I'm confused as to why no-one has given a flat out decent argument against me

Because the way you have phrased your post has been inflamatory, and the people on this board are not noted for their excessive patience. This is a failing of enrager, but I've explained why it occurs.

Quote:
Regardless, the left in that sense seem to me to be totally non-anarchist.

Yes, partly. However communism isn't entirely different from anarchism, it is a different side of the same dice, with the same aim in mind. Alot of the people on these boards call themselves libertarian communist, which is effectively a hybrid of Marxist analysis and anarchist anti-hierarchical theory. Even for non-marxist anarchs, reading him is essential if you want to have a good argument against the authoritarian left.

gtg docs appointment

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 17 2005 14:35
Quote:
I meant that if something is your opinon, it means it isn't an abstract debate you've posted in the hopes of intellectual growth, but one in which you have posted your personal view. You must understand that under those circumstances, people are going to be more robust in their responses because you have entered the field of opinion yourself, rather than hanging back and reading others.

I've always thought (and I would now guess wrong assumed others did too) that a debate involves each person putting /their own/ point of view forward with some arguments to back it up, to which to other replies with /their own/ opinion etc., until progress is made.

Perhaps I'm either too much assuming the rest of the world is the same as writing an essay, or alternatively carrying tacit right wing assumptions in my throat. Hmm.

Quote:
Quote:

If I'm that clearly wrong then I'm confused as to why no-one has given a flat out decent argument against me

Because the way you have phrased your post has been inflamatory, and the people on this board are not noted for their excessive patience. This is a failing of enrager, but I've explained why it occurs.

Hmm, I think I may leave.

I always thought inflammatory was swearing, abuse, labelling people, and to some extent, repeating oneself, writing overly rhetorically and refusing to address someone's points.

Apparently I'm mistaken and its disagreeing with others and writing one's own opinion.

Now maybe I'm being inflammatory, but to be fair, if the resposne I get to a few posts putting a point forward is descends almost immediately into such enlightening comments as "How does it do that? That's rubbish! ", Bollocks", "oh please fuck up u stupid liberal!", "This is utter balls!" and just plain contradicting my points with no argument (monty python sketch flashback), then I think you can understand why I'm annoyed.

Quote:
Yes, partly. However communism isn't entirely different from anarchism, it is a different side of the same dice, with the same aim in mind. Alot of the people on these boards call themselves libertarian communist, which is effectively a hybrid of Marxist analysis and anarchist anti-hierarchical theory. Even for non-marxist anarchs, reading him is essential if you want to have a good argument against the authoritarian left.

True. Still, I personally expected an anarchy board to be filled with anarchists, not communists. I think politopia.com has a good quiz to see how different political positions stand in relation to each other.

Alex

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Jan 17 2005 15:06
gregorya wrote:
And regardless of what most well read anarchists think, it seems the majority of the people in this thread aren't aware of shortcomings of Marx. I'm attacking him for trying to explain everything in virtue of class, which is simplistic. People in this thread clearly believe that he's right on that:
Quote:
a social dynamic... ...arises out of the existence of class society.
Quote:
To understand how the world has changed, you need to look at it in terms of class
Quote:
ownership and control of the means of production puts a clear dividing line through society, which while maybe not in every case distinct is big enough that it's inescapable and transcends any other social divide
Quote:
Political and economic power stems from class.

I won't go on. Thats a clear attempt of thinking that class explains the whole of society. Thats what I'm arguing against, and from what you're saying it sounds like you agree with me.

Those quotes all suggest that people think a class analysis is necessary for understanding how society works, not that it's sufficient. There's a difference. I for one certainly wouldn't claim that class is a complete explanation of how society works, but I would argue that it's an essential part of any such explanation.

Quote:
Still, I personally expected an anarchy board to be filled with anarchists, not communists.

It's not an anarchy board, it's an anti-authoritarian board. Hence the libertarian communists (which is arguably a strand of anarchism anyway).

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 17 2005 15:19
Quote:
Those quotes all suggest that people think a class analysis is necessary for understanding how society works, not that it's sufficient. There's a difference. I for one certainly wouldn't claim that class is a complete explanation of how society works, but I would argue that it's an essential part of any such explanation.

If thats what people are saying then its not quite so bad. Still, I'd argue that class can vary independantly of power, nd furthermore that class is only worth looking at in terms of instrumental power, and therefore we should look at power directly. Looking at things in terms of class is like a rule of thumb it seems to me; it spower we're really interested in.

Quote:
It's not an anarchy board, it's an anti-authoritarian board. Hence the libertarian communists (which is arguably a strand of anarchism anyway).

Well then my mistake, I've always seen communism (and therefore libertarian communism) as authority based. It involves a strong leader organising a state. Are there any pure anarchist boards around does anyone know?