corrections to primitivist misconceptions on this board

Oppressing helpless organs and brains...delicious brains...

seriosuly anarch ur class analysis is a mad mixture of maoism, class war and openly classist!

This is another main reason why i see a lot of trouble in using the old language about class. The words are used by people who dosent now its original meaning who use it as a curse.

The bourgeois are the class whose function is to mediate with the working class for the capitalists right? It is so to speak the school, the goverment, the police(you were right on that one) and the church. If anyone from these groups choose to not fulfill their duty but instead unite with a revolutionary working class then they are from the bourgiouse but now allied with the proleteriat.

I have already mentioned how i see the class-situation for nurses(see below).

Personaly i prefer to work for the state in a non-bourgiouse work like taking care of old or handicaped people compared to working for a company. I feel much more like a part of the trouble when i work for companys.

Another misused word is capitalist. I have in periods that sometimes could be a whole year had no money to live on and thus dumpsterdived the food that i needed. Sometimes when i have lived under these circumstances people has acussed me of being cheap beacuse i for example dont want go out clubbing or share my food with some frat on student loan beacuse i cant afford it. As an reply to that people has sometimes teased me and called me a Capitalist.

The word capitlist is often used like that to call someone a cheapskate or to say that someone is fixated with wealth. It has been done to such a degree that people has forgoten(and that goes for many leftist academics also) what the word means.

Therefore i usualy answer such use of the word with: - Fuck you! I dont own any means of production*

*= In swedish most of the time tough.

the bourgeois is the capitalist class!

to claim teachers are bourgeois on the basis that they help propagate ideas useful to the ruling class is reductionist beyond farce!

any job i take involves the recreation of bourgeois ideology, whether im a check out worker having to stop people shoplifting, or trying to sell people credit cards and finance schemes over the phone!

car manufactures could be bourgeois for perpetuating the car culture, and hence the atomistic relations of modern capitalism! a train conductor is perpetuating the bourgeois ideology that transport must be paid for and so on and so on!

anarch, put the copy of "the enemy is middle class" down. PUT IT DOWN! no go read some decent political theory not written by ex-secret agents (that is the one isn't it), and ignore anything from openly classist. the middle class is not the enemy. the ruling class is the enemy. the middle class are the buffer, the distraction between the ruling class and the working class.

yes, it is possible that some people not in the ruling class will side with them in a revolutionary situation, but that doesn't mean you target people just for having a slightly nicer house! if it's a mansion than fair enough, but i don't think many doctors who aren't specialist cosmetic surgeons can actually afford a mansion. teachers are not really much more likely to side with the ruling class than a working class person (take scabs for instance, do you think when a strike breaks out the bosses go scouting around for teachers and doctors who feel like a bit of strike breaking?).

seriously though, stop reading openly classist, there's only about three other people in the world that take them seriously, if that...

All right, Openly Classist is a little intense, but they do have a lot of good points, though I am certainly not totally aligned with their position, not that they would take me anyway. In any event, all this talk of class being a tricky thing to determine seems silly. Nurses, people who take care of the elderly, factory workers are working class, professionals are not. I agree that you cant just kill people for being middle class, and especially if they are not trying to stop a revolution, but you also cant organize with them if you want to make an effective revolution as soon as possible. What we really need is for people to understand that the working class has not gone away, if anything it has just been given new work, for the same shitty pay and conditions. When I look for work it is usually hard to find a factory job, so I do retail, or basic construction and unskilled labor, or maybe something like working for a phone survey company. These things are not always traditional 19th century working class jobs, but they are still working class. The modern proletariat needs to unite around that identity and realize that the people who go on ot become doctors and teachers and social workers are not going to make the revoltuion. It dosent mean they are horrible people, but they are trying to patch up the wounds of capitalism. Social workers are tyring to help, but end up enforcing the standards of the state on the homeless and transitioning them from their situation to being "productive" social elements, doctors save lives but get paid outrageous wages for no reason, and they have a uni degree that most of the workign class does not get, teachers are not usually rich, but they do enforce state education, but they are probally a more revolutionary elelement of the middle class than not. This does not mean that we do not need education, doctors, and scientests, but they are not working class, and only the working class can make the revolution. Hopefully middle class people will come along for the ride, if not there is little that can be done for them. What do you tell the doctor who wants to keep drawing a ridiculous wage and live in their big house? Tough luck I guess. Knowing this, most doctors will stay as they are, upper middle class anti-revolutionaries getting fat off captialism. The same goes for the rest of the intellectuals, even those on the left. Also, I cant find the Enemy is Middle Class, but I have talked to some people who thought it was OK, and others who hate it. I think it is worth a look at least.

What class is an unemployed doctor?

lumpen bourgeois! the worst of the worst!

a class suitable only for intrigue, bribery, scabbing, and stealing of working class organs giving them fancy latin names before selling them onto the bourgeois!

Now see Revol, you did come around. I knew with the proper quotations from the little black blook and enought knee kicking you too would joing the real proletariat in its revolutionary aims. And you thought you couldnt do it! Welcome onboard!

:red:

Class analysis can be a tough topic.

Try this...

A worker is anyone who must sell his/her labor-power in order to survive.

A capitalist is anyone who owns sufficient income-producing wealth that they do not have to sell their labor-power to survive...they survive by purchasing the labor-power of workers and live from the difference between the cost of labor-power and the value of the commodities produced by that labor-power.

Someone who is middle-class applies their own labor-power to the production of a commodity which they sell in the market place themselves...reaping the full value of their own labor-power.

You can see that's pretty basic...and it gets rather complicated when you start examining the complexities of a modern society. You have to start deciding when a service is really a commodity and when it's not, etc. You have to look at people who live from rents, people who are homeless, people on pensions or disability benefits, etc.

It seems to me that the working class -- in a rough sense -- is the overwhelming majority of modern capitalist societies...there is a material class basis for proletarian revolution.

The consciousness isn't there yet...and may not develop for decades or even a century or more. From a scientific standpoint, we just don't know at this point why revolutionary class consciousness emerges at one point and not at another.

But unless we have completely misunderstood the dynamics of class society, we know that at some point it will appear.

The Redstar2000 Papers

Che-Lives Forums

I guess the real question redstar is what to do about the middle class. Ignore them, fight them, organize with them? I think most of us accept those broad but useful groupings of class that you offer. But what is all this about science? I hardly think you can analyze when there will be class conciousness, you just go to work towards it. Sometimes revolutionary situations can occur very quickly. In any case lets hope it wont be centuries, and try and get it started sooner.

So are miners or steel workers working in nationalised industry middle class?

With so many definitions as it seems to be floating around simultaniously its hard to tell. : P

Does a nationalised industry means that the state owns that specific industry or all industry in the state? In any case i think that she would be working class if there was many people who had works that what a much worse and with less pay and if she was a part of that group then she would be working class instead.

The definition that some people seem to use for working class is so big so that i cant see that there is no space left for a midle class. Midle class as far as that word is used in Sweden is people with wellpaid to avarage earnings and jobs that compared to the workingclass jobs hurts the body and the soul less. By the definition that the majority would be middle-class is used here most people in Sweden would be middle class a litle less people would be working class(cleaners, poor tempworkers and so on..) 10% would be over-class which of mostly would be counted as capitalists since they own huge means of production.

I think that the name they use in The Empire(in Swedish it was called Myllret) would be usefull to describe a wide working class instead of the original word working class to not make any confusions.

To say that an educated male industryworker would belong to the same class as a colored female cleaner would take away the posibilities for our societies less privilaged to show their situation.

True and i think that is the thing that makes the dicsussion so confused. The bourgiouse is spreading the bourgiouse ideas right? To be affected by those ideas and live after them to a big degree is to be bourgiouse not to be a Bourgiouse.

To begin with, I don't think it's up to us to "do something about them". We know historically that some of them will almost certainly side with the working class -- the Paris Commune of 1871 was actually led by artisans -- people who were "technically" middle class.

In modern societies, we have a very large number of "sub-classes" and that number seems to be increasing. I think it's impossible to predict which sub-classes (sections of the working class and sections of the middle class) will be "most revolutionary" at any given point.

From a revolutionary standpoint, I think we should talk to anybody who will listen to us -- without regard to their nominal place in class society.

Of course, there have been and exist today middle class ideologies...and I see no reason to refrain from attacking them. Nearly all of the modern versions of reformism are constructed on the presumption that the "middle class" is not only "dominant" but will someday be "universal".

That's a lie.

Well, it's the opposite of the primitivist approach; however difficult it may be, we should try to understand social reality with as much accuracy as we can.

Knowledge is better than ignorance or superstition.

Yes, this is the "pop sociology" definition of "class" that's commonly publicized in all of the advanced capitalist countries. (Actually, even the word "class" has "negative implications" -- they prefer "socio-economic status".)

The error is that of conflating income and purchases with class.

In America, it's commonly believed that if one lives in a suburb, owns a (mortgaged) home, owns a (financed) car..."then" one is "middle class". Or if one has a job that pays US$50,000 or more, "then" one is "middle class".

What this view deliberately hides is the class reality: it can all disappear like a summer mist. The "good job" can be "outsourced". The home and the car can be repossessed. And those things can happen independently of anything that this so-called "middle class" person does or doesn't do.

They are fortunate wage-slaves in the casino economy...but they are wage-slaves nonetheless.

Many of them are quite reactionary in their present views -- people who live very insecure lives often are. They "take pride" in what they have "achieved" -- giving credit to their "hard work" and sincerely believing that "anyone could do it if they really tried". But at the same time they know -- if only in the "backs" of their minds -- that their "status" is extremely precarious. In the new era of "globalization" (what used to be called, more honestly, imperialism), their uncertainty and their private fears grow.

Some of them are attracted to fascism...or at least to many fascist ideas.

Both the Leninists and many reformists treat this phenomenon as something of an "iron law of history" -- that once a particular worker succumbs to "middle class" illusions...that's the end of the story.

I disagree with that view. In my opinion, at such time as capitalism as a system gets itself into serious difficulties, a great many of these "privileged" workers will see most of their "privileges" evaporate...and will be very much in the mood to listen to revolutionary as well as reactionary alternatives.

If there is a large and popular revolutionary movement available to them, many will join it.

It will "make sense" to them.

Sad but true. We can become more conscious and criticize harshly the over-arching bourgeois paradigm and do everything we can to act in a revolutionary fashion.

And we do get better at it; revolutionary politics in the present era are much more revolutionary than they were in 1917 or 1789.

But class society is very old and the social inertia is enormous. I think there will be a lot of struggle against "all the old shit" after the revolution...learning the "habits of freedom" and rejecting the "habits of obedience" will not be as easy as some folks anticipate.

Too bad.

The Redstar2000 Papers

Che-Lives Forums

I still maintain that wages are not the really important issue. If a factory worker gets 50, ooo a year somehow, are we going to tell them they are middle class? Of course not. Also, I agree that middle class people are not very secure in their wealth. I remember when growing up times when utilities were shut off or there was no food because of bills and loans and shit. This does not mean my parents are working class, but I do think that even for the middle class capitalism is harsh, especially for those who got there from working class backgrounds. This though is independednt of the coercive role they play in class society. They may join a revolution, but they can not make one. And if they do it will fail because it will be middle class led. Look at the left today, way too much of it is college students and teachers and social workers. I even know of a so called anarchist who owns a bookstore. This is bullshit and counter revolutionary. The revolution should only be made of those who are not middle class, and those who grew up working class should really take the lead while ex-middle class people focus on dropping their class privellege and learning from the working class. This is not all that needs to happen obviously, but it is important.

anarch what do ur parents actually do? i mean they couldn't be that middle class (well they could be petit bourgeois is suppouse) if they had utilities cut off.

oh and im so working class i remember me mum stealing money from the eletricity box to buy a pint of milk*

* oh aye smart arse don't even think of using that as movie idea, Ken Loach already owns the rights!

A factory worker will never get £50,000 a year purely from working at a factory. Unless by "factory worker" you meant "useless MP".

train drivers can make up to £30,000 and workers working abroad could probably reach £50,000 for example working in saudi arabia or on oil rigs.

Sheeet. I can't drive cars, do you think they'll let me drive trains?

Yeah 50000 is a shit load. I guess i more meant that in general if you are working class and can make an OK salary, that does not make you middle class at all. I think some people in the US like contractors or car workers can make some money, but I dont really know. And my parents are very middle class, one an occupational therapist and one a physcial therapist. I am not saying we starved to death but they both have a lot of student loans and had four kids, which was their own choice, but sometimes there was not enough money to cover bills gas and food and for a while one or the other would suffer. That does not mean that they are any better for the working class though, or deserving of sympathy.

To be honest though, i dont know why this is lasting so long. The root injustice is that most people do all the work, but get paid the least, while a few do no work and get paid the most. To me the Middle Class dont do anything intrinsically wrong in the system, theyre paid disproportionately to their labour too. The problem is that capitalism buys them off with slightly better wages so they never become radical, and more often defend the capitalist hierarchy. Capitalism does that to alot of society now, to sustain its own growth. Some marxist said that, that capitalism takes a cut in profit in order to keep the workers quiet with minimal living condition improvements. If the middle class's mentality was different then they wouldnt be the enemy at all to me.

Since we need a majority to make a stable revolution wouldnt it be in our intrest then to aim propaganda at the working class and when they have breaken free from false conciousness let them participate in the revolution instead of alienate them like some people seem to think would be to the greatest benefit of the revolution.

You are right in the sense that we are all people, and I do think that there is theoretically a place in therevolution for everyone who is working class, or is no longer working a middle class job and is not a landlord or whatever. Other than that recruiting the help of any middle class people is counterevolutionary. They will either come as equals as the revolution is taking place, or be left with nothing.

I say all hands to the wheel. I think we should be recruiting anyone short of bourgoise, policemen, and politicians. With the state of "the revolution" right now, doing anything is less counter-revolutionary than doing nothing. And besides, as anarchists, everyone has something to gain. The Middle Class also stands to benifit from the end of the state, just as much (well, not quite) as the Working Class stands to benifit from the end of class.

If we can truly win ower the bourgoise, policemen and politicians then we would a whole lot closer to a proper chance for a sucesfull revolution.

It would mean that we have to move in areas we not feel comfortable and talk to people that we wont feel that pleased to be close but it would have a whole lot more effect than preaching to the choir. Be carefull with how much of the anarchist rhetoric that you share with them before they have started to become enlightend tough, since it could be used against us otherwise.

"If we can truly win ower the bourgoise, policemen and politicians then we would a whole lot closer to a proper chance for a sucesfull revolution."

But these are the people we are trying to defeat. If we could just talk them out of capitalism than there would be no point in organizing for a revolution. It is a nice thought, but I think most anarchists realize that these people can only be enemies. Moreover, I think that it is a betrayal of values to organizie or place any hope with them. They have a lot to answer for and I think they deserve what is coming to them. It puts serious moral strain on the movement to attempt to win over the people who could quite possibly face execution or death in combat during the revolution.

Shut up jack! It is my idea to produce the most exciting and worthwhile post revolutionary cinema, but you are cramping my style! In any case, I call the first movie, and everyone here on Enrager will be in it. Arent you excited

"tearing your body ashunder, because you shot the only doctor in the village, and there's a mass influx of wounded comrades. "

Oh yeah...well, the same to you buddy! And MY film will include you being buried alive in a pit of starving ferrets for attempting to thwart the noble proletarian goals of the revolution by placing doctors and teachers in "advisory" roles where they would have soon become new masters. And it will hurt a lot! A whole lot!! Plus my movie will have Hobbits, Robots, Jedi, and humongous explosions. It will be done very well with all the money and resources that woudl have gone to the fattenign of the exploiters of our minds. And it will have zombies...and stuff you can not even imagine. It is that cool. Plus I wrote my script first you ninny, so what about that?

Is it realistic to think that we would be able to win against the states violence-monopoly?

It would be hard in America where the people have a right to be armed and even harder in Europe. You can be sure that there will capitalist-financied counter-revolutionaries in the case of a cusess like in Chile also so even then we would need to be able to protect ourself for some time. Most sucessfull coup d'état has either been backed up by the military and the police or at least had a large amount of cops who are not ready to kill their own brothers and sisters. Many people become cops beacuse they want to do the right thing or beacuse they want violence and action. In any of the cases anarchistic activism can offer it to them if they would be able to break free from false conciousness.

When it comes to Teachers and other parts of what Proudhon calls the dictatorship of the expertise they have also got a big chance to mislead people and put a stop to a sponthaneuos massmovement if they work for the state or the capitalists instead. As Proudhon has pointed out they have the same power over people as the priests used to have beacuse they are experts on their specific area and thus knows better than the individual what is good for him.

We need to be able to make an exception for those of our enemies who choose to side with the proleteriat and are willing to work towards anarchy.

If a cop or a boss or whatever wants to defect from that position and advance the anarchist cause, I dont see a huge problem with it. If they stay in their position, they are an enemy. There is no point in going out of our way to organize these people as most of them have nothing to gain from class war and moreover are not working class so they do not matter unless they defect. In either case, it is more important to organize on a working class basis and leave out the cops and bankers. Scientests and doctors on the other hand have skills that could be useful, and perhaps a revolutionary movement might make use of sympathetic intellectuals either before or during the revolution. But I would think there would be a clear line between accepting the aid of a docotor, and accepting that same docotor as a full participant in the anarchist movement, until after the revolution where these distinctions would be meaningless. And of course, if a doctor is doing what he can to help you there is no need to regard him or her as an enemy, as long as they are willing to leave their class status in a post revolutionary period. But I am probably just babbling incoherent class nonsene again, I tend to do that.