New Anarchist discussion forum- Anarchist Black Cat

167 posts / 0 new
Last post
Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 18 2008 01:14
gurrier wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
That kinda depends on whether you have a two class analysis or if you're a sociology student surely?

No. It depends on whether you can distinguish between what you think people's interests are and what they think their interests are.

So er does the working class exist outside of revolutionary times then? Thinking of mates who work (cos obviously students are worthless right?), and their interests are:

football
gash (yes some mates say gash)
alcohol
weed
music
films
etc

Seriously though, this line is ridiculous. Is class consciousness (urgh what a horrible phrase) a necessary requisite to be a member of the social class that works?

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 18 2008 01:22

Dude unless you go about constantly calling yourself working class and telling everyone about the revolution you aren't actually working class.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Feb 18 2008 01:52
revol68 wrote:
It's funny I was with you in some respects until this, which just seems to be an attempt to project onto others what is as true of yourself.

Didn't you go to university? Wasn't the WSM essentially formed/reformed in the 80's from University?

By "uni-radicals" I mean people who have learned radicalism from a textbook. I actually don't have a problem with that per se. My problem is when such book-learning is used to sneer at those who don't have it. I also think that it's pretty much impossible to understand the problems of the world without actually living in it. I know, as well as anybody, that the sort of totalising theoretical positions that can seem attractive on the theoretical plain are frequently revealed to be absurd when they encounter the hard concrete reality of surviving under capitalism.

Your assumption that this is some sort of projection is also way wide of the mark. Since I was 10 years old, when my father died, my formal education has relied upon charity, scholarships and me working in a whole lot of godawful shitholes. That's where my politics come from.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Feb 18 2008 02:17
revol68 wrote:
Sorry so you are sayig you didn't go to Uni?
And who here exactly has learnt there radicalism from a uni text book?
Certainly not me, I think you can remember as a 17 year old at anarchist shit, no?
I certainly didn't get any radical theory from University and indeed your whole attempt to paint those who disagree with you and the WSM's positions on say unions and nationalism as people who got their politics from university falls apart since very few in the WSM didn't go to Uni. Infact most of my skeptisism towards Unions comes from my mum and dads experiance of being screwed over by them and my position on nationalism is formed on much more concrete foundations than those of you or your armchair republican sympathising mates in Dublin.

Being the charity kid gives one a deep hatred of radical poseurs. Trying to wind me up is a very bad idea.

Anarchia's picture
Anarchia
Offline
Joined: 18-03-06
Feb 18 2008 02:29
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I'd be interested to hear in another thread the percentage of regulars on here without university degrees. Off the top of my head I can think of Devrim...and didn't Steven drop out of his?

I dropped out of High School when I was 16 (ie - 18 months before finishing), although that was for reasons other than the norm (ie - I was doing well academically at the time), and have never been to university (or any other form of formal education) since...

I've experienced issues because of that quite frequently amongst radicals/anarchists (moreso in my old hometown than my current one) who have been to uni...but anyway, I'll leave that discussion for now, unless anyone else feels like starting a thread up on it like you suggested (I don't particularly).

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Feb 18 2008 05:31
Quote:
Yes, the peasantry are petite bourgeois.

Or workers in intention. Btw, the informal economy accounts for at least 50 percent in Egypt as well, it is the sector that creates the most "jobs". The informal economy has its set of bosses and workers as well, or usually they define their antagonism towards the state (represented by the police) as informal activities often encroach on the state (by taking over streets, pavements e.g.).

I think it is very very simple to just label everyone flogging tissues on the street as petit-bourgeoisie, more often than not it's a way of keeping some of your dignitity as in reality you're begging.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 18 2008 05:46

Yeah basically that's pretty much it Khawaga good post.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 18 2008 06:26
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
There's a lot of radicalism (if poorly organised) amongst the informal economy (street vendors and market stallholders cf Atenco) too, which accounts for roughly half of employed Mexicans (I reckon anyway, not seen a statistic)

I am sure that it is no where near that much.

Oh shit yeah thanks for correcting me Devrim. On what basis are you "sure"?

Khawaga wrote:
Btw, the informal economy accounts for at least 50 percent in Egypt as well,

Because the whole claim is absurd. What I think we have here is two people from Western countries, who see another country where there are many more people involved in street trading than in their own countries, and then exaggerate wildly.

Khwanga writes:

Khawaga wrote:
I think it is very very simple to just label everyone flogging tissues on the street as petit-bourgeoisie, more often than not it's a way of keeping some of your dignitity as in reality you're begging.

So what you are saying is that over 25% of the Egyptian work force are really beggars. I don't buy it. I think you should produce some evidence to back it up.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 18 2008 06:31
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
and some fucking idiot on here called them petit bourgeois.

They are a part of the petite bourgeoisie.
Devrim

So when they organise, form unions (oh shit sorry, mass assemblies)...what?

Even the big bourgeoisie are organised. They have things like bosses unions you know. They are combining to protect their class interests, just as the petite bourgeoisie will do.

Khawaga wrote:
The informal economy has its set of bosses and workers as well,

Yes, of course in some cases this is true. Those workers are obviously not members of the petite bourgeoisie.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 18 2008 06:36
gurrier wrote:
One of the problems of these boards is the preponderance of smart-arse uni-radicals.

So will you answer Revol's question about whether you are one of these self same radicals, or not.

Personally, I don't have any problem with university students as individuals, and wish that I had gone myself.

It can be a problem though when they compose the majority of the organisation as it seems they did when the WSM was reformed. Actually, I think that it explains a lot.

Devrim

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Feb 18 2008 06:39

That's not an exaggeration. I've actually studied the Egyptian informal economy quite closely so I know what I am talking about. Don't you think the government finds the informal economy a huge ass problem? Don't you think that development programs are trying to get people dependent on the formal economy into the formal economy.

Quote:
So what you are saying is that over 25% of the Egyptian work force are really beggars. I don't buy it. I think you should produce some evidence to back it up.

Devrim, you're being dishonest here. I didn't say that the majority of them sell shit on the street. Most of them are workers, working for a shop, a kiosk or whatever. It's just that it;s informal and the business is informal. It's much much worse relyign on those jobs as there is no protection at all and it is often bound up with kinship and zakat.

What I reacted to was you saying that they're all petit-bourgeoisie, which thye're clearly not. These folks sell shit on the street, drive a taxi or organize parking because there are no jobs, no fucking jobs at all. And if you read Alan and my posts clearly we use the words "employed" and "worker", something which should have made you understand that we don't think everyone in Mexico and Egypt are flogging ciggies, socks and chocolates on the streets. A minority of them do, but quite a lot of them that do that are relying on fucking charity. Even a lot of people that flog goods on the streets are workers, as they just sell whatever someone else tells them to do.

I resent that you use my Western background against me in a discussion. Should I do that when you're referring to whatever happening in Europe? That you can't possibly understand something because you're Turkish? Come on Devrim, you're better than that.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Feb 18 2008 06:59
Khawaga wrote:
I resent that you use my Western background against me in a discussion.

I don't think I did. I just commented on the shock factor. When I went to India for example I experienced something similar.

Khawaga wrote:
Devrim, you're being dishonest here. I didn't say that the majority of them sell shit on the street.

You are right. I misunderstood the meaning of your term 'more often than not', sorry.

Yes, the informal economy is massive. There are people in it who are workers, and bosses. I doubt that it is 50% of the economy though, and even less as Alan seemed to imply that people flogging stuff in the street makes up 50% of the economy.

Khawaga wrote:
What I reacted to was you saying that they're all petit-bourgeoisie, which thye're clearly not. These folks sell shit on the street, drive a taxi or organize parking because there are no jobs, no fucking jobs at all.

I appreciate that. It is not a moral judgement. It is an analysis of their relationship to the means of production.

Devrim

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Feb 18 2008 09:22
gurrier wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Na i have to disagree wit that, just look at recent civil uprisings in mexico which were led by teachers for example, and in fact we could go through countless revolutions and look at the role played by skilled wokers and ''professionals''.
Perosnally i think you can make a reasonably logical arguement that if you have a decent job, a good wage access to education and consmer good etc your far more likley to simply think that capitalism and alienated labour itself is the problem rather than if you have a shit job and a crap wage you'd just think your low wages and crap working conditions are. However, i would recognise that taking that arguement to its extreme just recreates in the inverse the same crass generalisation' that you were putting forward about 'professionals'' hence one should generally try to avoid such homogenising sweeping statements altogether.

It wasn't a sweeping homogenising statement. The verb used was "tends" - if we can't make observations about tendencies and generalised forces, we can't really say anything at all about the world. Some capitalists are probably lovely people after all.

You are also moving the goal posts by talking about skilled workers - I was talking about professions - doctors, lawyers, architects and so on and those who see themselves as being on a level with them - managers, academics, pilots, air traffic controllers and so on. Not teachers or mechanics or skilled workers. The whole point about considering yourself to be a 'professional' is that it differentiates you from the working class.

Na i reckon your just winding me up here, my uncle works in air traffic control and he's a union rep. i don't think he sees himself in the same light as doctors, lawyers and architects and i can't see anyone else doing so, let alone the rest of the staff who are on strike atm. So quit wriggling out of it and wite something about the overtikme ban wink That said i should probably be writing something else so i'm not one to talk atm.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Feb 18 2008 10:59
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Na i reckon your just winding me up here, my uncle works in air traffic control and he's a union rep. i don't think he sees himself in the same light as doctors, lawyers and architects and i can't see anyone else doing so, let alone the rest of the staff who are on strike atm. So quit wriggling out of it and wite something about the overtikme ban wink That said i should probably be writing something else so i'm not one to talk atm.

Hmm, as I say, I don't actually know all that much about Air Traffic Controllers. A google around though tells me that in the US they earned a median of $91,600 in 2002 - which is a pretty tasty wage. http://www.careeroverview.com/air-traffic-controller-careers.html

In the UK, the starting salary of £33,226-£35,293 is also pretty good and similar to NHS wages for a doctor.

As you say, wages aren't a reliable guide to a group's class-attitudes - you do find sectors which are quite radical and well paid too (skilled workers in waterford crystal in Ireland being a good example). But there is a strong general correlation between wages and attitudes to class and since I don't have much insight into the sector, I'm making assumptions based on that, which may well be wrong.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 18 2008 12:38
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
I'd be interested to hear in another thread the percentage of regulars on here without university degrees. Off the top of my head I can think of Devrim...and didn't Steven drop out of his?

Maybe admins can start a poll? I'm serious. I'd say you're right here. I've met most regular posters here at least once and yeah, pretty much every one is in uni, going to uni, or a graduate.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Feb 18 2008 12:39
gurrier wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Na i reckon your just winding me up here, my uncle works in air traffic control and he's a union rep. i don't think he sees himself in the same light as doctors, lawyers and architects and i can't see anyone else doing so, let alone the rest of the staff who are on strike atm. So quit wriggling out of it and wite something about the overtikme ban wink That said i should probably be writing something else so i'm not one to talk atm.

Hmm, as I say, I don't actually know all that much about Air Traffic Controllers. A google around though tells me that in the US they earned a median of $91,600 in 2002 - which is a pretty tasty wage. http://www.careeroverview.com/air-traffic-controller-careers.html

In the UK, the starting salary of £33,226-£35,293 is also pretty good and similar to NHS wages for a doctor.

As you say, wages aren't a reliable guide to a group's class-attitudes - you do find sectors which are quite radical and well paid too (skilled workers in waterford crystal in Ireland being a good example). But there is a strong general correlation between wages and attitudes to class and since I don't have much insight into the sector, I'm making assumptions based on that, which may well be wrong.

Yeah its fairly well paid, its also topped off by the fact that a lot of air traffic controllers in the UK being ex-army/RAF and thus havinga big whack of pension on top but as you say its not a reliable guide to class attitudes.
I'd say in the UK at least airports are all places with big long term and/or locally based workforces all in close contact and proximity that bosses and governments would like to break up: see gate gourmet and also even the rumours about privatising air traffic control (i think the latter is mostly neo-liberal economic bluster, but its a major concern to a lot of workforces) among other examples of this. I mean i don't know much about air traffic controllers either, but the point is airports are big highly visible workplaces employing mass workforces so even if you consider it a minor dispute (tho perosnally i think even minor disputes are worth covering) i think its kinda worth writing about.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 18 2008 12:42
gurrier wrote:
In the UK, the starting salary of £33,226-£35,293 is also pretty good and similar to NHS wages for a doctor.

I wish I had some money sad

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Feb 18 2008 13:39

See that's the problem I've already too many loans I can't afford, and a mortgage I don't want sad

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 18 2008 18:07
Devrim wrote:
Yes, the informal economy is massive. There are people in it who are workers, and bosses. I doubt that it is 50% of the economy though, and even less as Alan seemed to imply that people flogging stuff in the street makes up 50% of the economy.

No I merely highlighted those sectors as being the radical ones of the informal economy in Mexico (cf: Atenco). I think disregarding workers cos of specifics such as self-employment is problematic though. Most (?) agency workers in the UK nowadays are technically self-employed. Certainly the last job interview I went to over there (some kinda data entry shit) - which wasn't through an agency - I was told I'd "technically" be self-employed "but it's alright and easier really for tax reasons". Also I note that in Chiapas there's a flurry of taxista unions, who don't take kindly to state/politico interference. In fact, I should probably do some research into that cos from the little I saw, it looked interesting.

jambo1's picture
jambo1
Offline
Joined: 2-06-07
Feb 18 2008 18:31

no degree for me, had to get working soon as i left school!!! smile

H
Offline
Joined: 5-02-07
May 17 2008 00:33

a

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
May 17 2008 03:16

a what?

Chuck0
Offline
Joined: 18-06-04
Jun 11 2008 00:02

"Amazing, the criticisms of the abuse that chuck0 and his mates posted have been deleted. They didn't contain any insults, unlike the stuff that chuck0 posted. What an effing steaming sack of hypocricy that dude is."

Sorry, this just isn't true. We may have deleted some comments in that thread, but we remove comments that fall afoul of our moderation policy. We do moderate comments on our boards, like any other website. In the past 4-5 years, the amount of moderation we have to do has dropped to a very minimum level. After we required people to be registered users on Infoshop News in order to post, our moderation dropped to almost zero.

I think we've banned only one user this year and that was somebody last week who has a history of making irrational violent threats against a moderator.

Chuck

Chuck0
Offline
Joined: 18-06-04
Jun 11 2008 00:04
gurrier wrote:
My biggest problem with infoshop is the woeful double standards in moderation. While I think libcom has a terrible, woeful moderation policy which encourages the worst types of trolling, at least the policy (i.e "Anything GOEZ!!! L4m3rZ SUKZ!!) is applied reasonably fairly across the board. Your average mainstream - or even right wing - board has much more balanced moderation than infoshop. I really don't get how Chuck 0 can reconcile such hypocrisy with his politics.

And Libcom based their initial moderation policy on ours at Infoshop News.

Your comments are priceless! Is this really what gets your dander up? Ever heard of the capitalists? Or the big bad government?

Chuck

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Jun 12 2008 13:37
Chuck0 wrote:
I think we've banned only one user this year and that was somebody last week who has a history of making irrational violent threats against a moderator

the rational ones are ok yeah?

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Jun 12 2008 23:09
Chuck0 wrote:
"Amazing, the criticisms of the abuse that chuck0 and his mates posted have been deleted. They didn't contain any insults, unlike the stuff that chuck0 posted. What an effing steaming sack of hypocricy that dude is."

Sorry, this just isn't true. We may have deleted some comments in that thread, but we remove comments that fall afoul of our moderation policy. We do moderate comments on our boards, like any other website. In the past 4-5 years, the amount of moderation we have to do has dropped to a very minimum level. After we required people to be registered users on Infoshop News in order to post, our moderation dropped to almost zero.

I think we've banned only one user this year and that was somebody last week who has a history of making irrational violent threats against a moderator.

Chuck

Sorry chuck, you're lying. I posted a mild and temperate - if strongly opinionated - post in response to a slew of patently abusive and expletive-ridden bile. You deleted mine, as you have every single time I've posted on your hypocritical site.

The suggestion that this is what gets my dander is pathetic in the extreme. I've spent all of 20 minutes every looking at your little pravda, I spent all of 5 minutes of my life commenting on it. You, no the other hand spend your whole life building up this fantasy pravda version of reality for yourself where only friendly loonies are allowed and where any bit of sense that might undermine you is banned.