Anarchism and class

87 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 17 2005 15:29
gregorya wrote:
Well then my mistake, I've always seen communism (and therefore libertarian communism) as authority based.

Wrong

Quote:
It involves a strong leader organising a state.

Wrong wrong wrong

Quote:
Are there any pure anarchist boards around does anyone know?

www.iWon'tTidyMyBedroom.com might be up your street.

FWIW communism is an economic system based on the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need". How is that incompatible with anarchism?

And also regarding debating styles, I'm sorry but some people - myself included - might have been more patient if you hadn't pretended to know more about a subject than you actually do. I mean attacking a position which you do not even have the slightest understanding of over 5 pages, and at the end revealing you don't even know what anarchism or communism are eek confused

How do you expect people to react?

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Jan 17 2005 15:33
gregorya wrote:
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.

I'd argue that real power is very much based on class (i.e. control of means of production). Those exercising the power don't necessarily own the means of production themselves, but their power comes from the support of those that do. I can't think of any exceptions off the top of my head - can you?

Quote:
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?

If it's libertarian, then by definition it can't be authority-based.

What's pure anarchism then? I don't think it's something I've ever come across.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 17 2005 15:38

Er, sorry if my post above comes across excessively grumpy embarrassed

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 17 2005 16:06

I don't know if that idon'ttidymybedroom link was a joke, but it doesn't work.

Quote:
FWIW communism is an economic system based on the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need". How is that incompatible with anarchism?

To me that sounds like you need some top down organising principle. AFAICS anarchy and communism are not totally contradictory, but it would be a tough balance between organisation and personal freedom.

Quote:
And also regarding debating styles, I'm sorry but some people - myself included - might have been more patient if you hadn't pretended to know more about a subject than you actually do. I mean attacking a position which you do not even have the slightest understanding of over 5 pages, and at the end revealing you don't even know what anarchism or communism are

How did I pretend to know more about a subject than I actually did? I wrote down my opinion, and said as much. I haven't once in this entire thread said anything about what I do or don't know.

And christ, stop telling me I have no understanding of your position, and tell me where I'm wrong. No-one's gonna fucking learn anything from you just writing "wrong" everywhere are they?

Where am I wrong in this: Marxists see power as rooted in class, which is defined by relationship to MOP (thats more or less all I've assumed I know). From there, I said that in my opinion, it seems as though power does not correlate perfectly to relationship to MOP; hence my examples of journalists (which has become the sticking one, although not the only I gave).

By that reasoning, I concluded that as anarchists, that is, people interested in the decentralisation of power, class is not all we need to look at, because power can be rooted in other things.

Its a simple argument, and not one person has said where I've gone wrong. Thats not to say I'm not wrong, just that this board is filled with a whole load of bitching and not much argument.

Of course, I'm being overly negative now, there have been some decent points and good argument, but when you say "How do you expect people to react?", my answer would be "with some well reasoned arguments as to my fallacies", rather than "shut up you dickhead" and/or "you're stupid; read the books I have", neither of which are remotely helpful.

And garner, thank you for some decent points;

Quote:
I'd argue that real power is very much based on class (i.e. control of means of production). Those exercising the power don't necessarily own the means of production themselves, but their power comes from the support of those that do. I can't think of any exceptions off the top of my head - can you?

Well at the very least then, power can be rooted in support from others, not just MOP. In terms of exceptions, to give a simple one, the lottery winner. They have a great deal of power in virtue of economic power, but thats not derived from relationship to MOP. That might seem trivial, but perhaps I'll get a confession that not absolutely everything is based around MOP.

Quote:
If it's libertarian, then by definition it can't be authority-based.

What's pure anarchism then? I don't think it's something I've ever come across.

True, and thats why I was calling into question its tenability.

With regards to pure anarchism (which I should say, is hardly a technical term), I just assumed most anarchists would dissasociate themselves from the Marxist/communist ideology.

Alex

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Jan 17 2005 17:24
gregorya wrote:
To me that sounds like you need some top down organising principle. AFAICS anarchy and communism are not totally contradictory, but it would be a tough balance between organisation and personal freedom.

Cue discussion about personal freedom versus social freedom (which I don't have time for right now, so I'll just tell you to read Bookchin instead).

Quote:
Well at the very least then, power can be rooted in support from others, not just MOP.

Yeah, but the support has to be from those who control the MOP. In your journalist example, power is exercised at the discretion of (and essentially on behalf of) her employers. So the power is still rooted in the MOP. Some of the journalist's power comes from her knowledge/skills/whatever, but that power's very difficult to exercise without economic support.

Quote:
In terms of exceptions, to give a simple one, the lottery winner. They have a great deal of power in virtue of economic power, but thats not derived from relationship to MOP. That might seem trivial, but perhaps I'll get a confession that not absolutely everything is based around MOP.

But what use is that economic power unless it's invested in MOP? The power to buy a whole lot of consumer goods is pretty damn trivial.

Quote:
With regards to pure anarchism (which I should say, is hardly a technical term), I just assumed most anarchists would dissasociate themselves from the Marxist/communist ideology.

Maybe so, but they won't be the ones arguing that it all comes down to class, will they? Anyway, you have to distinguish between Marxist economic analysis, which is perfectly compatible with anarchism, and Marxist political ideology, which isn't.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 17 2005 23:34

Hiya, back again with a newly minted exclusive for my paper (the boss was v pleased), might also be good to turn into a national exclusive too John depending on how it turns out, I'll get back to you on it.

Quote:
How did I pretend to know more about a subject than I actually did? I wrote down my opinion, and said as much. I haven't once in this entire thread said anything about what I do or don't know.

People aren't stupid, someone who has read widely, when confronted with someone who has not, will be able to notice omissions and misrepresentations which add up to a picture of that person's knowledge. It's possible to fake these things, but pretending to be a doctor at a hospital will very soon get you short shrift wink.

Quote:
Well at the very least then, power can be rooted in support from others, not just MOP.

Yes, and these people are disliked as much as bosses.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Jan 17 2005 23:41
gregorya wrote:
I don't know if that idon'ttidymybedroom link was a joke, but it doesn't work.

Damn, is www.iwonttidymybedroom.com down again?! When will those pure anarchists get their act together and find a decent administrator?

Augusto_Sandino
Offline
Joined: 21-02-04
Jan 18 2005 08:17
Boulcolonialboy wrote:

Lower middle classes and upper working classes - so they would be working class really then wouldn't they roll eyes .

Why are you arguing when we basically agree? I think it was implied by what i said that they are (to intents and purposes) a part of the working population, and ive said that i believe that explicitly in other threads.

Boulcolonialboy wrote:
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.

And are you going to emigrate to Poland and organise the workers there? Theyve got that sort of class structure to work with but we havent, so unless were planning on packing up and moving out, id suggest looking at whats going at home...

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Jan 18 2005 09:14
Augusto_Sandino wrote:
Boulcolonialboy wrote:

Lower middle classes and upper working classes - so they would be working class really then wouldn't they roll eyes .

Why are you arguing when we basically agree? I think it was implied by what i said that they are (to intents and purposes) a part of the working population, and ive said that i believe that explicitly in other threads.

Boulcolonialboy wrote:
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.

And are you going to emigrate to Poland and organise the workers there? Theyve got that sort of class structure to work with but we havent, so unless were planning on packing up and moving out, id suggest looking at whats going at home...

Hello Don, glad to see we basically agree it would appear that my encyclopedic knowledge of all former posts, particularly yours, let me down on that occassion. If you were trying to point out that the terms upper working class and lower middle class are basically meaningless and that these people are part of the 'proletariat' then fair enough.

So do you still reckon people are ignoring a large section of the working population or not? And no I don't think I'll be emigrating to Poland the point is you said these sorts of workers didn't exist anymore - I was pointing out that thats not true. And if you can remember any of my previous posts of course you would know that I believe that we must concentrate on the struggles taking place that we can get involved in and/or support but there are means of support and solidarity we can extend to workers in places like Poland without moving there. Basically the point is the working class is international, solidarity must be expressed locally and internationally, and the revolution must be international. But I'm sure you agree.

Also, and I don't want to sound elitist, but wouldn't more traditional proletatrians that we still do have such as power, transport and agricultural workers (admittedly these are few & far between), as examples, be of more revolutionary value than, for instance, insurance clerks and salespeople, bank tellers or call centre operatives? Maybe thats an entirely different question to be fair?

Cheers;

circle A red n black star

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 18 2005 14:58

Garner:

Quote:
Cue discussion about personal freedom versus social freedom (which I don't have time for right now, so I'll just tell you to read Bookchin instead).

Am currently reading The Ecology of Freedom funnily enough.

Quote:
Yeah, but the support has to be from those who control the MOP. In your journalist example, power is exercised at the discretion of (and essentially on behalf of) her employers. So the power is still rooted in the MOP. Some of the journalist's power comes from her knowledge/skills/whatever, but that power's very difficult to exercise without economic support.

Yes, I agree that to an extent a journalist (didn't want to drag this up again, but here we go) exercises their power only at the discretion of their boss, but the minor deviations that they can make are far more influential than the guy who dissents slightly at the car factory.

Quote:
But what use is that economic power unless it's invested in MOP? The power to buy a whole lot of consumer goods is pretty damn trivial.

Doesn't that person still has more power than a starving child in africa? If so, power isn't rooted in MOP.

To throw another example in, celebrities have a lot of influence and are proletariat.

Saii:

Quote:
People aren't stupid, someone who has read widely, when confronted with someone who has not, will be able to notice omissions and misrepresentations which add up to a picture of that person's knowledge. It's possible to fake these things, but pretending to be a doctor at a hospital will very soon get you short shrift

For about the thousandth time, I don't see how I've claimed to be a bloody doctor. I put forward some points and gave my opinion.

This board is an odd mix of people.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 18 2005 15:09
gregorya wrote:
Quote:
But what use is that economic power unless it's invested in MOP? The power to buy a whole lot of consumer goods is pretty damn trivial.

Doesn't that person still has more power than a starving child in africa? If so, power isn't rooted in MOP.

To throw another example in, celebrities have a lot of influence and are proletariat...

Er, but someone has loads of money, say in a bank, banks invest that money in companies, so someone with shitloads of money in the bank, they are a de facto capitalists, cos that money is invested in MOP.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 18 2005 15:16

In your original post, you said that Marx was rubbish, along with some other things and stated your reasons. Then you were attacked by other members of these boards for misrepresenting/omitting parts of the real story. Now as I say, my knowledge is finite on the subject, but from their tone it seemed to me that you had made some glaring errors in what you had written, and they were picking up on that as evidence of your ignorance.

At the same time, you were making statements, not asking questions, which implies that you believed you had the whole question down pat and were just looking for an argument. Stating rather than asking is the behaviour of a 'doctor', to use the rather stretched example.

Quote:
To throw another example in, celebrities have a lot of influence and are proletariat.

Yes but what kind of influence? Would you say that Jordan is able to influence how people think about the pensions crisis? Can David Beckham pose questions about the philosophical content of Tolstoy and expect any kind of respect? These people may have some power, but it is bound tightly by the owners of the media, not by them, and woe betide if they ever stray from that boundary.

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 18 2005 15:35
Quote:
Er, but someone has loads of money, say in a bank, banks invest that money in companies, so someone with shitloads of money in the bank, they are a de facto capitalists, cos that money is invested in MOP.

Fair point, although I'm not convinced it entirely deals with the problem. If there were (hypothetically) a millionairre who just kept a big safe out back with all their money they've still got more power than the person who doesn't.

Quote:
In your original post, you said that Marx was rubbish, along with some other things and stated your reasons. Then you were attacked by other members of these boards for misrepresenting/omitting parts of the real story. Now as I say, my knowledge is finite on the subject, but from their tone it seemed to me that you had made some glaring errors in what you had written, and they were picking up on that as evidence of your ignorance.

At the same time, you were making statements, not asking questions, which implies that you believed you had the whole question down pat and were just looking for an argument. Stating rather than asking is the behaviour of a 'doctor', to use the rather stretched example.

Where did I say Marx was rubbish? I think you'll find the harshest words I used were "simplistic" and "outdated", both are which are hardly rhetorical claims: especially since I used those words for reasons which I stated. In contrast, the reply I got, was that I was speaking rubbish. Hardly a good philosophical reason for rejecting what I'd said.

And I don't know if I've ommited/misrepresented the story, but it shouldn't take 6 pages for someone to start giving some decent arguments against what I'd said, especially if the errors in my argument were quite so "glaring".

And again, I guess that depends on debating style, but writing a post consisting wholly of questions would read horrifically IMO. Isn't it better to add a general "this is only my fallible opinion" type clause and just write?

Quote:
Quote:

To throw another example in, celebrities have a lot of influence and are proletariat.

Yes but what kind of influence? Would you say that Jordan is able to influence how people think about the pensions crisis? Can David Beckham pose questions about the philosophical content of Tolstoy and expect any kind of respect? These people may have some power, but it is bound tightly by the owners of the media, not by them, and woe betide if they ever stray from that boundary.

What about celebrities pushing for charity appeals? I don't think you'd get quite the same response with Joe Blogs up there.

Thanks for some decent responses.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 18 2005 15:46

I find it's only ever wise to put forward your own opinion if you are extremely sure of your facts, otherwise you will get flamed to shit every time (trust me on this, I've learned some nasty lessons in the past), hence the six pages.

Quote:
If there were (hypothetically) a millionairre who just kept a big safe out back with all their money they've still got more power than the person who doesn't.

No they don't, because money only has any power if it is being used. the act of use is what gives it a value, otherwise it is just a big pile of paper. It has potential while it is in that safe, but someone would have no extra influence if they had no ability to wield it.

Quote:
"simplistic" and "outdated"

So in terms of political economics, rubbish grin.

Quote:
What about celebrities pushing for charity appeals?

Oh absolutely, but again, that only applies if the media feels like agreeing. Did you know that Germaine Greer had been campaigning to save Australian rainforests until she'd been on big brother? And as a further point, her cause was ridiculed as selfish and geeky by the papers, so she failed to gain any public support for it by doing so. The meida lets itself be manipulated on ocassion (I'd rather go naked than wear fur), but only if it's in their interests (look naked models! This'll sell loads of print!).

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Jan 18 2005 15:56

Celebrities are just a bunch of lucky individuals that the bourgeois media has elevated to cult status. There can never be more than a tiny minority of them, they can never have any major influence without going into politics or business. There isn't really any reason in including them in a social analysis as anything other than anomolies. You're really clutching at straws now gregorya.

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 18 2005 16:49
Quote:
No they don't, because money only has any power if it is being used. the act of use is what gives it a value, otherwise it is just a big pile of paper. It has potential while it is in that safe, but someone would have no extra influence if they had no ability to wield it.

Sorry, I didn't necessarily mean sitting there untouched, just not in a bank. Isn't the power to buy yourself food, water and a yacht still power? (at least in relative terms to the person that can't buy those things)

Quote:

Quote:

"simplistic" and "outdated"

So in terms of political economics, rubbish

How do you critisize someone without using negative terms?

Quote:
Oh absolutely, but again, that only applies if the media feels like agreeing. Did you know that Germaine Greer had been campaigning to save Australian rainforests until she'd been on big brother? And as a further point, her cause was ridiculed as selfish and geeky by the papers, so she failed to gain any public support for it by doing so. The meida lets itself be manipulated on ocassion (I'd rather go naked than wear fur), but only if it's in their interests (look naked models! This'll sell loads of print!).

Yes, fair point. I would say that the media need the celebs as much as vice versa, but then the same argument applies to workers and owners. Will come back onto celeb type stuff below..

Quote:

There isn't really any reason in including them [celebs] in a social analysis as anything other than anomolies

Not if they point to a wider phenomenon. In this case, the point I'm trying to make is that you can have (broadly speaking) cultural based power. Celebs are one extreme end of culturual spectrum, but Priests, teachers, activists etc. also have power unrelated to MOP.

Do you think the points about media consent applies to those others as well?

Quote:
You're really clutching at straws now gregorya.

Not really. I'm still maintaining the same point, that there are other forms of power beyond ownership of MOP.

I guess you could brackets the above in some kind of "cultural" power. I also gave examples of what you might loosely call "economic" power, in the sense that wealth alone confers power. Furthermore, I'd imagine you can have opinion based power; I'd personally say that someone like Michael Moore has this.

Those categories are by no means any kind of definiitive or paradigmatic, just thought I'd label them to make the vague groups easier to refer to.

(disclaimer)The contents of this post, I must stress, are only my opinion, and are fallible. I write in the style I do for readability, not because I think I'm necessarily correct. (/disclaimer)

Alex

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 18 2005 18:53

Alex/gregorya

Your points about power aren't really arguing against a communist position (such as mine).

As Garner pointed out several pages back, class analysis is necessary to understand the world, not not sufficient alone. Of course there are other power dynamics existing.

You are still trying to use class to classify individuals (i.e. isn't one rich man more powerful than one poor man). It's not about individuals - it's about classes! Individual capitalists have very little power; however the class system as a whole is extremely hierarchical. D'you get me?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 18 2005 20:53
gregorya wrote:
Quote:
FWIW communism is an economic system based on the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need". How is that incompatible with anarchism?

To me that sounds like you need some top down organising principle.

Not at all. Decisions like that would be made by everyone concerned and would be enforced by everyone concerned at the agreement of everyone concerned. It's no different to you and your only 2 mates agreeing to only drink 2 beers each outta the sixpack you bought together and then when one mate takes a 3rd cos he's a little pissed, you take it off him/her and give it to s/he who's only had one. It makes perfect sense.

Quote:
AFAICS

Don't use ridiculous acronyms.

Quote:
anarchy and communism are not totally contradictory, but it would be a tough balance between organisation and personal freedom.

I'm interested as to what kinda system you advocate. It sounds kinda like individualism to me.

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 19 2005 12:06
Quote:
Your points about power aren't really arguing against a communist position (such as mine).

As Garner pointed out several pages back, class analysis is necessary to understand the world, not not sufficient alone. Of course there are other power dynamics existing.

You are still trying to use class to classify individuals (i.e. isn't one rich man more powerful than one poor man). It's not about individuals - it's about classes! Individual capitalists have very little power; however the class system as a whole is extremely hierarchical. D'you get me?

Quote:
Not at all. Decisions like that would be made by everyone concerned and would be enforced by everyone concerned at the agreement of everyone concerned. It's no different to you and your only 2 mates agreeing to only drink 2 beers each outta the sixpack you bought together and then when one mate takes a 3rd cos he's a little pissed, you take it off him/her and give it to s/he who's only had one. It makes perfect sense.
Quote:
I'm interested as to what kinda system you advocate. It sounds kinda like individualism to me.

I'll try and answer the last question, and answer the others in the process.

I'm obviously not entirely sure what system I advocate, hence why I'm here, to try and learn. If I were to compare myself to some traditional anarchist thinker, I imagine I'm probably closest to Godwin. In broad strokes, I would imagine something like the following:

Ethically speaking, we treat the world in terms of individuals having rights, including property rights (ownership), as well as rights to say, practise religion freely and to not be killed (the right to life).

Simple enough.

But I'm not convinced that this is the best way of viewing morality. Instead, I think whats best is the general good (what, exactly, is "good", is of couse up for debate, but hopefully you can get the gist. If not, maybe just treat it as a total of happiness and freedom (very broadly)). When you act, its not who you're harming, whether or not you've got rights to exercise etc., its whether or not that act contributes to the whole good. (Those of you that know something about ethics, this is called consequentialism, as opposed to deontology).

Most noticably, this means that there are no property rights, hence my disliking of focusing on ownership of MOP, even group ownership.

I think that its this focus in inidividual rights that gives rise to capitalism, because it necessarily distances people, and means that you're exercising your own rights without regards to what you're actually doing to others. If you're not direclty hurting someone, then you're not morally in the wrong.

Correspondingly, I think a change to the general good would entail various political changes. Most noticably, as I say, no ownership. Who can use an object is dependant on how much benefit there is to them using it. So, I can sleep in a house because its beneficial to the general good, not because its mine. If someone else doesn't have a house, then its beneficial for them to stay at mine. That isn't me doing them "a favour", its just morally mandatory.

Essentially, on top of that, you've got to bare in mind the limits of human rationality. We simply can't cope with working out whats best for a group, of say, 6 billion people. Maybe in very vague terms, but thats not a good basis for day to day decision making. Therefore, you need very small scale (direct) democracies to make decisions regarding what would more or less be their own communal good, plus their neighbours.

Furthermore, I'm a big fan of the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Hence small scale communities, where you don't put too much power in any individual, or group. hands.

There are of course various problems with this position; to name three, consequentialism means that you're morally required to do a lot, because if that time spent playing computer games could be spent making someone happy, you're required to do so. Secondly, large scale decision making (i.e pollution control) would be difficult under such small scale communities. Finally, some simply don't like consequentialist morality.

There are of course replies to these objections and so on. My hope is (in a Godwinian way) that there are clear cut logical arguments for consequentialism over individual rights, and once that can be shown, a lot that depends on rights collapses, including capitalism.

So, perhaps now you can see why I see ownership of MOP being a symptom of a wider problem, not a cause of problems.

Don't know how many of you will agree with any of this, but maybe you can see where I'm coming from even if you don't agree.

/me awaits abusive flames

Alex

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 20 2005 00:29

consequentialism sounds dangerously like utilitarianism, and if so I have a lot of problems with it.

"because if that time spent playing computer games could be spent making someone happy" the time spent playing computer games could be perfectly legitimate time spent making yourself happy.

gregorya
Offline
Joined: 9-01-05
Jan 20 2005 00:54

Utilitarianism is indeed the most famous form of consequentialism (for those that don't know, utlitarianism defines "good" as human happiness).

Quote:
"because if that time spent playing computer games could be spent making someone happy" the time spent playing computer games could be perfectly legitimate time spent making yourself happy.

Yes, but I imagine you get my point; if you can create more happiness, total, elsewhere, then you're obligated to generate someone elses happiness rather than your own. That money spent on a new stereo could very easily be spent on saving lives etc.

Alex

Augusto_Sandino
Offline
Joined: 21-02-04
Jan 20 2005 06:33
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
Hello Don, glad to see we basically agree it would appear that my encyclopedic knowledge of all former posts, particularly yours, let me down on that occassion. If you were trying to point out that the terms upper working class and lower middle class are basically meaningless and that these people are part of the 'proletariat' then fair enough.

Well, theres no point arguing if were on the same side. And i dont exactly have a very wide knowledge of anyones posts either.

Boulcolonialboy wrote:
So do you still reckon people are ignoring a large section of the working population or not? And no I don't think I'll be emigrating to Poland the point is you said these sorts of workers didn't exist anymore - I was pointing out that thats not true. And if you can remember any of my previous posts of course you would know that I believe that we must concentrate on the struggles taking place that we can get involved in and/or support but there are means of support and solidarity we can extend to workers in places like Poland without moving there. Basically the point is the working class is international, solidarity must be expressed locally and internationally, and the revolution must be international. But I'm sure you agree.

But for anarchists in the UK, i just dont think thats practical. We can co-operate with Polish anarchists, thats nessecary in fact, like you said. But we need to have something at home first!

Boulcolonialboy wrote:
Also, and I don't want to sound elitist, but wouldn't more traditional proletatrians that we still do have such as power, transport and agricultural workers (admittedly these are few & far between), as examples, be of more revolutionary value than, for instance, insurance clerks and salespeople, bank tellers or call centre operatives? Maybe thats an entirely different question to be fair?

I admit, its those sorts of workers who are generally more receptive to radical politics, and it might be an idea to start with them. But its also important that we recognise theyre not enough by themselves anymore, we can just organise the labourers like the anarchists of the 30s and go out and build barricades. At some point, at least sections of the "white collar working class" would need to be involved, and condemning them as middle class and fundamentally "counter revolutionary" like a crazed Stalinist isnt going to help... (i suppose that was more directed at those condemning the "middle classes" rather than Boul!)

And im not Don (at least i dont think so), whoever he is...

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Jan 20 2005 14:32

Yeah Augusto I agree with all of that. Sorry about the Don thing I thought I saw it at the end of one of yer posts but I checked and no it looks like i didn't.

circle A red n black star