By desribing pictures of action, like anything else. Tell us what obstacles you face in "talking to people about anarchism".
Introducing people to Anarchism
Chance would be a fine thing. All the current ideological options are reactionary, including “anarchism”. The people who make change are not the ones “with politics”, on the contrary. A discussion only becomes political when its about how our muscles should move. What shapes we should make with our bodies. Ha ha. I've gone all Falun Gong.
Carousel wrote:
By desribing pictures of action, like anything else. Tell us what obstacles you face in "talking to people about anarchism".
I have a tendancy to not speak to people about anarchism at all, due to the the need to go into detail debunking various stereotypes.
I don’t know comrade. It’s a bit of a cop out to blame prejudice because it’s more to do with the weakness of the ideology. Whilst anarchists debunk stereotypes, the working class debunk anarchism. People are lavishly aware of anarchism’s respectable credentials, just as they’re perfectly informed of the true meaning of communism. Christ, “ah, you see, but the USSR wasn’t really communist” is a cliché for crying out loud. When you talk to people, what is it you want them to actually do in the field of action? What new experiences and sensations will be transmitted through their 5 conventional senses? Imagine two people, one of them is a BNP supporter, the other is an anarchist. Let’s assume, for whatever reason, that they never face an opportunity to reveal their political identities, and their actual behaviour, the way they influence the configuration of physical objects, is more-or-less the same. Other than in the invisible and ineffective experience of their own imaginations, they may as well be the same person. Our ideological opinions are irrelevant, the people we talk to know it, and deep down we know it ourselves.
Quote:
What's political mean? To me, politics is how you turn thought into action, action of the major muscle groups, not the mere firing of neurons and the creation of an unmusical noise.
I could agree with this but this is largely because it doesn't really say anything. Not that I should really be surprised.
The purpose of my political activity is to try and convince workers that they can act, that they have the power to change society, not in some kind of individual way but on a mass, collective scale.
How about you?
"Nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them. In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to" - Marx to Ruge, September 1843 (emphasis mine).
Quote:
The purpose of my political activity is to try and convince workers
Quote:
convince us of your standpoint.
"Convincing"? You can’t change someone’s mind, only annoy them with the irrefutably of the facts in the face of their magical beliefs. Eventually, they’ll pretend to agree just to be rid of you. Regardless, “to convince” is barely a doing-word, in so far as all that’s been altered is the invisible and ineffective configuration their imaginations.
Quote:
you love talkign about action, but never seem to actually propose anything concrete
Yeah well, it’s not exactly easy. Concrete action requires concrete desire, and not desire framed in the internal mindset of “the other” either. Besides, hypocrisy may undermine credibility, but it doesn’t detract from the truth of a statement. In my offline life, I’m all about concrete action, and I’ve got flow charts to prove it. The only difference between staging a revolution and some “innocuous” concrete action, such as recovering an abandoned vehicle, is that some people, for one reason or another, want to perform the later.
Quote:
I could agree with this but this is largely because it doesn't really say anything. Not that I should really be surprised.
Uncalled for. It says “things” alright, one of the things it says is that statements along these lines...
Quote:
The purpose of my political activity is to try and convince workers that they can act, that they have the power to change society, not in some kind of individual way but on a mass, collective scale.
Imply a magical belief that they’re not already convinced of their power to change society, when the question in their mind is why would they want to? Given their individual lives display track records of irrational behaviour and disappointment, they’re unlikely to make a better job of society than the incumbent elite, who at least together make arrangements for the importation of food and energy, which is more than can be said for the whole of the quasi-official opposition of self-appointed “revolutionaries”.
Once again, another response that bases its criticisms on a total contempt for the working class. On the one hand you seem to say political activity is pointless because it will have no effect whatsoever on the consciousness of the working class. Clearly there are some preconditions necessary for revolutionary propaganda to have an impact - in order to "show the world what it is fighting for" (in Marx's words), the world has to actually fight. In other words, the working class must already be beginning to resist capitalism's incursions however limited this resistance may be. But this often begins with someone saying "we don't have to take this shit, we can fight back".
On the other hand, you imply that the working class is "bought off" by capitalism, and even if it manages to break outside of this, it's just a feckless mass of individuals dominated by "irrational behaviour" and "disappointments".
And finally, it's interesting that you think the "quasi-official opposition of self-appointed “revolutionaries”" would have a role in organising the "importation of food and energy". It's not the role of revolutionaries to manage the economy either before the revolution (when the bourgeoisie is in charge) or after (when it will be the mass of the working class and its councils and committees that will manage the economy). The role of revolutionaries is raise the political consciousness of their class, not organise its struggles or the post-revolutionary society.
Quote:
bases its criticisms on a total contempt for the working class.
Ha ha. There's neither criticism or contempt, and even if there was, such feelings are hardly matters of import.
Quote:
you seem to say political activity is pointless because it will have no effect whatsoever on the consciousness of the working class
On the contrary. Besides it’s “consciousness” itself that’s pointless. Activity may have a point, but if it has, it’s not that. It’s to get what you want, what you want as experienced by 5 conventional senses not the supernatural imaginings of the contents of other people’s minds.
Quote:
you imply that the working class is "bought off" by capitalism
You infer it. I don’t even think capitalism exists as such.
Quote:
It's not the role of revolutionaries
Pah, what do you, or for that matter anyone, know of the “role of revolutionaries”? What is or is not the proper role of this-or-that is not a discussion founded in action, but in passing the buck like some petty bureaucrat. Try and live a little larger comrade, is my advice to you.
Quote:
raise the political consciousness of their class
That’s the role of mystics. The task of the revolutionary is to turn working class thought into working class action. And by that I mean thought-as-it-is, not as you wish it was given your predilection against “contempt” or “individualism” or whatever you think is wrong or evil.
Quote:
On the contrary. Besides it’s “consciousness” itself that’s pointless. Activity may have a point, but if it has, it’s not that. It’s to get what you want, what you want as experienced by 5 conventional senses not the supernatural imaginings of the contents of other people’s minds.
Nonsense. You're describing nothing but an animal consciousness. The Eiffel Tower was a "supernatural imagining" of someone's mind, so were iPods, cars, Lord of the Rings and Beethoven's 5th. Activity and consciousness are inseperably interlinked in all human activity.
Quote:
The task the revolutionary is to turn working class thought into working class action.
Good heavens, a concrete statement! Now maybe we're getting somewhere. What is this "working class thought" and how can revolutionaries transform it into action?
Quote:
You're describing nothing but an animal consciousness. The Eiffel Tower was a "supernatural imagining" of someone's mind.
Well maybe, however no-one needed their “political consciousness” raised to develop it. Indeed the notion that “revolutionaries” are in position to raise consciousness is incorrect, the working class as whole is already in advance of their musings.
Quote:
What is this "working class thought"
Bingo. Here’s a clue it's not abolishing private property, ending exploitation or liberating the oppressed, that’s for sure. It’s more to do with fantasising about either money, celebrity, sex or food.
Quote:
Well maybe, however no-one needed their “political consciousness” raised to develop it. Indeed the notion that “revolutionaries” are in position to raise consciousness is incorrect, the working class as whole is already in advance of their musings.
Strawman argument. I didn't say the Eiffel Tower or any of my other examples sprang from a specifically political consciousness. But they share similar characteristics in that, like communism, they existed as the "musings" or "supernatural imaginings" of individuals and/or groups before they were made into a reality.
Quote:
Bingo. Here’s a clue it's not abolishing private property, ending exploitation or liberating the oppressed, that’s for sure. It’s more to do with fantasising about either money, celebrity, sex or food.
So in Lazy Riser land the real vanguard of the proletariat would be obese investment bankers, entering Pop Idol for the fame and the chicks.
Quote:
But they share similar characteristics in that, like communism, they existed as the "musings" or "supernatural imaginings" of individuals and/or groups before they were made into a reality.
Ho ho. Well I agree communism is a supernatural imagining, however I think even you would dispute it's ever made into a reality. What does it taste like? The Eiffel Tower?
Quote:
real vanguard of the proletariat would be obese investment bankers, entering Pop Idol for the fame and the chicks.
No need to be flippant. Entering Pop Idol for the fame and the chicks is easily as revolutionary as invoking a serious discussion about what Marx really meant by this-or-that.
Quote:
Ho ho. Well I agree communism is a supernatural imagining, however I think even you would dispute it's ever made into a reality. What does it taste like? The Eiffel Tower?
Non-sequitur. My position on whether communism has "made it into a reality" in the past is irrelevant to my point about the insuperable connection between consciousness and action and the possibility of creating communism in the future.
But I keep forgetting you don't believe capitalism exists, so it's hardly surprising you don't think communism can either. I'd pay good money to see you visit Maggie T in her old people's home musing how there's no such thing as society.
Quote:
No need to be flippant. Entering Pop Idol for the fame and the chicks is easily as revolutionary as invoking a serious discussion about what Marx really meant by this-or-that.
Well, of course, if your premise is that Marx completely failed to express the consciousness of the proletariat. You could overcome this dismal failure by writing the Pop Idol Manifesto.
Quote:
Non-sequitur
No amount of consciousness raising will never make communism smell, taste, feel, sound or look like a proper object, though I’m inclined to agree that criticisms of communism are just as irrelevant.
Quote:
your premise is that Marx completely failed to express the consciousness of the proletariat.
More of a somewhat irrelevant observation than a premise.
Quote:
there's no such thing as society.
It’s an imaginary institution, Castoriadis.
Quote:
No amount of consciousness raising will never make communism smell, taste, feel, sound or look like a proper object, though I’m inclined to agree that criticisms of communism are just as irrelevant.
But communism is a particular organism of society, a series of economic and social relationships between individuals. Generally relationships don't tend to take the form of objects.
Quote:
It’s an imaginary institution, Castoriadis
In what sense is it imaginary? Of course, if your criteria for "real" only includes physical objects then you'd be correct. Of course this means that consciousness doesn't exist either, (with the possible exception of your own).
Quote:
But communism is a particular organism of society, a series of economic and social relationships between individuals.
I don't doubt it. That "but"'s intriguingly superfluous. Sounds like an excuse for it not being real. It doesn’t cut it for your average punter, and not because they’ve been corrupted by exchange-society, but because they’re more politically advanced than those who consider themselves to be “political”.
I hope I don't turn this into something to philosophical but I'm interested to know in what way 'Society' or 'Capitalism' etc. do not exist, from your point of view Carousel. I'm just curious to know if you mean they can not be perceived 'animalistically' to borrow the phrase or more than that, that their appearances and essences (in Satrean terms) are either inconceivable or impossible to 'understand' (though I use the term hesitantly so please excuse the poor semantics)
Why do people need 'introducing' to anarchism, its not your shy mate who needs to use you to ask out someone they fancy. People can be introduced to anarchism, like pretty much anything else, by your actions and in discussions. You could make an 'anarchist point' about, say, the death penalty or the Monarchy in any disucssion that may come up from a newsstory or personal experience. Maybe i've picked some people up wrong but the idea that workers need to be told they can be conscious of a particular brand of politics rings somewhat hollow and gives me visions of huge statues, little red books and 'education' classes.
how do you guys talk to people about anarchism?