Interested unconvinced

boxthejack
Posts: 17 Joined: 02-07-08
Submitted by boxthejack on 2 July, 2008 - 09:54.

Greetings

I'm not an anarchist but I might be. I'm very attracted to some anarcho-primitivist thinking and living, and Christian-anarcho-pacifism.

In short, I've engaged with formal politics and am dissatisfied, but one of the things I notice is that when I speak to radicals, there's often a hell of a lot of assumed knowledge, assumed reading, assumed objects of our dissent, which can begin to feel a bit exclusive.

I'm reading 'The Subversion of Politics' about the Autonomen and Autonomia at the mo, which has helped put some things into perspective - particular why autonomous groups avoid systematic treatises and publicity that would seek to crystalise everything. Makes sense.

But even that book assumes commonality of purpose in areas that are clearly up for grabs. It suggests that me (and my Mrs by implication) have sold out to patriarchy cos we're married.

Would anyone be willing to engage me in conversation by email or in person where I can ask the stupidest questions? (Perhaps it's not very anarchist to give answers, but you might be able to help me ask better questions.) They will mostly relate to praxis: how does someone in the system, largely brought up within the system, move towards the periphery? What is the best use of property (our wee ex-council house) other than putting up the occasional asylum seeker, when property itself is suspect? How can it all be lived in a way that embraces the marginalised rather than confusing or repelling them?

Anyhoo, as I say, I know nothing and would be interested in people's thoughts. I live in Aberdeenshire and can be contacted at baldercalder@hotmail.com.

Werther De Goethe
Posts: 15 Joined: 28-02-07
2 July, 2008 - 09:59
boxthejack wrote:
Greetings

In short, I've engaged with formal politics and am dissatisfied, but one of the things I notice is that when I speak to radicals, there's often a hell of a lot of assumed knowledge, assumed reading, assumed objects of our dissent, which can begin to feel a bit exclusive.

This is a problem. Anarchists criticise Marxists for it but do it just as much.

Khawaga " - not a legendary physicist."
Posts: 1052 Joined: 07-08-06
2 July, 2008 - 10:01
Quote:
I'm very attracted to some anarcho-primitivist thinking and living, and Christian-anarcho-pacifism.

Just a friendly warning: you will most likely get heckled for primitivism and christian-pacifism. Class struggle is more the currency here.

But please just ask the questions here. Thick skin required.

Rob Ray "Used to be Saii"
Posts: 2965 Joined: 06-11-03 Location: England
2 July, 2008 - 10:09
Quote:
I'm very attracted to some anarcho-primitivist thinking and living, and Christian-anarcho-pacifism.

Most of the people on this site aren’t. There’s a big difference between class struggle anarchism, which is what this site is based on, and the two things you’re talking about, which are heavily criticised for their lifestylism - ie. being concerned with indulging individual desires and following cultural fashions rather than with actively trying to change society for the betterment of all.

If you’re interested though, some well-reasoned arguments class struggle anarchists have made on anarcho-primitivism can be found here. That’s one section of a longer piece which should be short enough to get through without too much hassle, but it’s worth a read in its entirety as well.

boxthejack
Posts: 17 Joined: 02-07-08
2 July, 2008 - 10:34

Great, thanks for your constructive replies. It seems I walked into a Protestant church and began asking how best to hail Mary.

But still, this is useful. Re: the article you linked Saii, I definitely agree that there is a kind of disempowering romanticism to primitivism. I'll have to think more on this.

Three questions to start with then - two of which I didn't have before (it's working!):

1. Are libertarian communists a class focussed part of libertarian socialism/anarchism which would take in the other movements I mentioned, and how helpful do you find these labels?

2. Our leaders tell us there is no class. So what is class? Is "working class" simply having no control over how the product of your labour is used?

3. The first question I was going to ask is the one about property, alluded to in my initial post. How do you view the purchase of property on a mortgage? I did it because it was cheaper than renting. Should we view it as a public resource (and does that just mean hospitality or something more radical), and is there any room for privacy at all?

Khawaga " - not a legendary physicist."
Posts: 1052 Joined: 07-08-06
2 July, 2008 - 10:45
Quote:
1. Are libertarian communists a class focussed part of libertarian socialism/anarchism which would take in the other movements I mentioned, and how helpful do you find these labels?

Primmos: No. Chrisian pacifists: maybe - there's been a huge trainwreck of a discussion about that here.

Quote:
2. Our leaders tell us there is no class. So what is class? Is "working class" simply having no control over how the product of your labour is used?

Class is basically a social relationship mediated by the wage. If you have to work for survival you're working class (regardless of your employment status), if you buy labour-power then you're a capitalist. The working class has the revolutionary potential to negate capitalism (and hence the working class). This is very roughly put obviously, I'm sure others will chime in.

Quote:
3. The first question I was going to ask is the one about property, alluded to in my initial post. How do you view the purchase of property on a mortgage? I did it because it was cheaper than renting. Should we view it as a public resource (and does that just mean hospitality or something more radical), and is there any room for privacy at all?

You got to live somewhere, and it makes economic sense to try to go for the cheapest option. Don't fret about that. Privacy should of course be guaranteed for people who want it, though the sign of the times seem to go towards more openess/surveillance.

boxthejack
Posts: 17 Joined: 02-07-08
2 July, 2008 - 11:32

Thanks Khawaga. The Christian-anarchist thread is very entertaining!

On question 2, I am please to be on the right side of the class struggle, even if I'm not yet particularly struggling.

Quote:
If you buy labour-power then you're a capitalist. The working class has the revolutionary potential to negate capitalism

This interests me. What are the qualifications of a statment like this? A mother employs her son in the shop - capitalist? A farmer employs some neet youngsters from the village - capitalist? You catch my drift.

Is there not an issue about the ownership of what you're producing?

Rob Ray "Used to be Saii"
Posts: 2965 Joined: 06-11-03 Location: England
2 July, 2008 - 11:54

Well yeah, in fact the mother is practicing nepotism – unfairly filling her son’s wage needs before anyone else’s, regardless of need or skill. Small employers are still employers, and are making money off the back of someone else’s work because they ‘own’ the means of making that money. The fact that they’re small time is not really the issue here, they’re taking the proceeds of others’ labour while retaining their initial capital. The point is that the means of production should not be owned by individuals living parasitically off the backs of others.

In terms of owning property, there’s nothing spectacularly noble about wasting cash on renting when you can own your home – what you do with that home is the main issue. If you start renting it out at exorbitant prices to working people, you’re being a parasite and taking money you didn’t earn. If you’re just living in it there’s really nothing wrong with that. Sure in an anarchist society some forms of ownership would probably change, and that’s something which would have to be debated and haggled over come the time, but at the moment we’re not in an anarchist society, and not likely to be any time soon.

catch "unpractical[sic] and blinkered"
Posts: 9938 Joined: 07-02-06 Location: London
2 July, 2008 - 12:04
boxthejack wrote:
A mother employs her son in the shop - capitalist? A farmer employs some neet youngsters from the village - capitalist? You catch my drift.

Very small capitalists - this is what petit-bourgeios is used for. There's a lot of moving between wage labour and small proprietorship like this (in some places peasants might be employing seasonal labour at one point then doing part-time waged labour over the winter or whatever). What's important to remember is class isn't really about wealth, it's about your relationship to capital - this analysis needs to be looked at on a social level rather than as a means of classifying individuals. Doesn't mean they'll necessarily be on the wrong side of any barricades that get thrown up, same as being a worker doesn't stop people from scabbing.

boxthejack
Posts: 17 Joined: 02-07-08
2 July, 2008 - 13:27

Great answers, thanks.

Quote:
in fact the mother is practicing nepotism – unfairly filling her son’s wage needs before anyone else’s, regardless of need or skill. Small employers are still employers, and are making money off the back of someone else’s work because they ‘own’ the means of making that money.

So SAII, would you agree that my goal is ownership over what I produce - or rather, that my goal is everyone's ownership of what they produce? It seems to me that ownership of the means of production is both power and liberty.

Would you therefore say that any genuinely anarchist business must be cooperatively owned, wherein all return is shared proportional to the work one inputs, rather than the financial risks one takes? Should risks likewise be split, and would people not be put off by this and rather 'sell' their labour instead?

Quote:
Doesn't mean they'll necessarily be on the wrong side of any barricades that get thrown up.

Indeed, part of my concern is that very often "the barricades" will exclude some at the margins who should be included. I guess it depends who gets to throw them up!

cantdocartwheels "in the aeroplane over the sea"
Posts: 1798 Joined: 15-03-04 Location: London then off to Brighton
4 July, 2008 - 10:12
Quote:
3. The first question I was going to ask is the one about property, alluded to in my initial post. How do you view the purchase of property on a mortgage? I did it because it was cheaper than renting. Should we view it as a public resource (and does that just mean hospitality or something more radical), and is there any room for privacy at all?

Na thats veering more into weird ideas about how somehow under communism you;d have to share your socks with people. Management of property would I suppose realistcially be carried out by democraticaly run housing associations in the area and hypothetically they would operate a list which you'd put yourself on in much the same fashion as council housing. So you;d wai a bit then get a house, Obviously if the list grew too long they'd build more homes and so on. Houses and flats would be allocated according to need and so on, ad you'd probably have pooled out holiday homes aswell. I can't see it bringing up many major complications.
I mean its not like come the revolution your gonna get kicked out of your house ecause you used to rent it off an estate agent via a mortgage rather than renting it off a private landlord. At the end of the day you will still be the tenant.

boxthejack
Posts: 17 Joined: 02-07-08
4 July, 2008 - 10:26

Thanks cantdocartwheels.

Another question on class - do you think the idea of 'middle class' is just a ruse to make working class people feel content (self identified middle class people who maybe have high incomes but are nevertheless wage slaves) or aspirational, and thereby to put water in their revolutionary engines?

I think one of the things I've encountered mentioning the A-word to some of my more affluent friends panic - the feeling that they're on the wrong side of the barricades, as catch put it. But in fact, none of them are employers, all hate their jobs and have no power over what they ultimately produce, and none believe the answer is at the top of the career ladder any more.

If they could be reassured that they are in fact workers and victims of a brutal system which is dehumanising them - hence their misery - then there would be revolutionary potential (even if some of them are Tories)?

ginger "gets to set all the parameters for discussion"
Posts: 205 Joined: 19-07-04 Location: Glasgow
21 July, 2008 - 18:58
Saii wrote:
If you’re interested though, some well-reasoned arguments class struggle anarchists have made on anarcho-primitivism can be found here. That’s one section of a longer piece which should be short enough to get through without too much hassle, but it’s worth a read in its entirety as well.

I couldn't even get past the first sentence. Is there any plans to rewrite that in a more user friendly English? If not, what are the reasons for that?

I don't think its suitable to point interested newcomers to an article thats that hardly written because I think it reinforces the idea that anarchists are highbrow intellectuals discussing lofty theory in ivory towers. Its also very intimidating because it makes those of us who for whatever reason find text like that inaccessible to feel our ideas, experiences are worth less. Language can be used as a weapon to suppress those who disagree with complicated words and grammar.

tsi
Posts: 71 Joined: 04-04-08
21 July, 2008 - 19:39
boxthejack wrote:

Another question on class - do you think the idea of 'middle class' is just a ruse to make working class people feel content (self identified middle class people who maybe have high incomes but are nevertheless wage slaves) or aspirational, and thereby to put water in their revolutionary engines?

Yes.

boxthejack wrote:
I think one of the things I've encountered mentioning the A-word to some of my more affluent friends panic - the feeling that they're on the wrong side of the barricades, as catch put it. But in fact, none of them are employers, all hate their jobs and have no power over what they ultimately produce, and none believe the answer is at the top of the career ladder any more.

If they could be reassured that they are in fact workers and victims of a brutal system which is dehumanising them - hence their misery - then there would be revolutionary potential (even if some of them are Tories)?

Yes again. There was a lot of stuff written on this during the 60's and 70's, when western workers were a great deal wealthier. However, some of this dialogue has over time evolved through a process of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and re-interpretation into what many Class-Struggle Anarchists today refer to pejoratively as "Lifestyle Anarchism".

Ironically, the proliferation of said "Lifestyle Anarchism", is probably exactly what would turn off more affluent workers today, as it tends to manifest itself in the form of dumpster-diving-as-a-fashion-statement and other things of a similarly adolescent nature.

Someone who is a bit more well-read on the subject than I am could probably suggest some stuff to read.

anarchyjordan "banned"
Posts: 287 Joined: 21-07-07
21 July, 2008 - 19:42

i agree with ginger. fuck discussing theory in the ivory towers. of libcom.
"Such 'hatred' of computers seems more like the belch of the privileged"
ha ha ha, well i guess since you have to have a little bit of privilege to own one and then they aren't all that fantastic, or since you could be broke and use public library computers you might resent them for not being in your house

Rob Ray "Used to be Saii"
Posts: 2965 Joined: 06-11-03 Location: England
21 July, 2008 - 19:49

In fairness the first sentence is more difficult than most of it, but the reason for the text being like that is because bookchin was a wordy writer, and the reason I linked to it was because I thought it was good. I probably would have written it differently if I'd written it myself but as as I didn't really have time to boil down a full theory text into a few pars that day I went with the link...

ginger "gets to set all the parameters for discussion"
Posts: 205 Joined: 19-07-04 Location: Glasgow
22 July, 2008 - 13:06

ok. it said at the top that it was "by libcom" but actually i see now that if i go to the index it states its written by bookchin.

i still think its a worthwhile question to answer in simpler english, but i'm not volunteering either! espec as i can't actually digest the text that it may be based on...

weeler "The wind that shakes Nathan Barley"
Posts: 6563 Joined: 25-09-05 Location: Dublin
22 July, 2008 - 13:09

Is primitivism realistic? An anarchist reply to John Zerzan and others
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1890

tsi
Posts: 71 Joined: 04-04-08
22 July, 2008 - 16:22
Weeler wrote:
Is primitivism realistic? An anarchist reply to John Zerzan and others
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1890

Fantastic reading!

Quote:
Primitivism offers no hope and no program for a revolutionary change of society. It includes some of the most reactionary and anti-human writings this side of fascism – I’ve even read primitivists writing off the death of the mass of the worlds population on the grounds that “quite a few of those 5.9 billion are just empty shells”(22).

This really says it all for me. The core of Primitivism seems to me to be entirely misanthropic. Self-loathing and a barely concealed hatred of humanity in general cannot and will not inform any genuine politics of liberation.

Thankfully, as Flood points out, these people have no plan, no means, and no real desire even to make Primitivism actually happen.

ginger "gets to set all the parameters for discussion"
Posts: 205 Joined: 19-07-04 Location: Glasgow
22 July, 2008 - 20:00

Ahh, that article was much better written, if still overly long. smile