corrections to primitivist misconceptions on this board

More proof, if any more was needed, that proudhon was a useless idealist asshole.

I mean seriously, of course teachers know how to teach their subject better, so what, everyone knows how to do a certain job better, i mean i don't know how to be an electrical engineer, a plumber or a doctor, and neither do you, and we never will, you can't possibly learn all those skills.

Now now cantdocartwheels, what would Proudhouns momma say if she heard that?

You are of course correct that the ability of a teacher to teach or doctor to be good at what they do should not be surprising. The issue though is they are active particpants in opression as members of the intellectual class. I think the idea of a dictatorship of the expertise is very valid. And you can not possibly apply this to plumbers as they are skilled, but more people can be a plumber than a doctor, and intellectuals are placed in positions of social authority, where the electrical engineer is not.

For what it's worth I think it'd be possible to learn to do all those things pretty well in a few decades, if you really wanted to.

Just 2 quick points which have been bothering me:

Anarch: please stop being a fool! Your middle and working class distinctions are rubbish. If someone is acting against the interests of the w/c, there's a problem. W/c people are as likely to act against these interests as m/c people - and by your logic above (that m/c people have something to gain by maintaining capitalism) then all the Western w/c have a stake in the "system", cos we're so much better off than 3rd world workers.

Wendal: It might just be a 2nd-language thing, but I think it's best to stop talking about "enlightening" people and breaking them from "false consciousness". FC is a riduculous Leninist concept, and enlightenment is a bollocks religious fundamentalist one. As an anarchist all I want is for people to have faith in their own ability to run their own lives.

Isnt False conciousness an important part of Marxs Historical materialism rather than Lenins ideas?

But you are right that it is a lack of a better word that make some of my points sounding like i think i got a total grip of the truth. Since this a webforum and not a manifesto i dont put down that much time to show a relativistic point in my writing but rather make my point. I think that breaking free from false conciousness is important for peoples ability to run their own life. Even at the plantages in America there was slaves who didnt recognize themself as slaves.

I totaly agree with your first point. It was kind of like the point i tried to make since i couldnt understand from the text that you shared that idea.

The second point is more tricky tough. I strongly belive in empathy as a natural part of the psyche of any non-psychopat. The Empathy could be mislead through false conciousness or false facts/lack of knowledge, tough. I dont think any person feels good about being privilaged when it is based on other peoples suffering. They might delude themself into beliving that there is no conection between their privilage and the suffering of other people but even in such cases they rarely become happy.

William Shakespeare wrote once: Be not a lender nor a borrower

I think that it would be vital to add to that: Be not an abuser nor abused or be not an exploiter nor explioted

They are both words to live by for anyone who want to have a happy life.

If we can get a privilaged person to understand that this person might join the struggle fullherathly. There is already loads of good propaganda aimed at the workingclass. The only problem with the printed stuff is that most of it uses an academic language for no reason at all and are therefore most likely to only reach middleclass people who are already politicaly motivated.

What's wrong with borrowing and lending? Have you got something against communal ownership?

[Edited to answer Wendal's post below]

What post is that an reply to?

sCome on GB, you cant possibly meant to suggest that the western working class is somehow invested in capitalism just because they are better off than superexploited third world workers? That is the argument of the capitalists and is utter nonsense.

Wendal, I honestly am not sure what you are talking about. All of this empathy and psyche stuff is very confusing to me...could you maybe phrase it in simpler terms? If I understand, you are saying that people may not know they are wrong in their wealth, but I think this is a dangerous idea. The boss and the intellectual know they have things better, and they are educated enough to understand that there are ideas like anarchism around. If they choose to ignore them, than they should be considered an enemy, if they give lipservice to these ideals while keeping their position, they should be considered an enemy. Its just an issue of tactics. If we dont conduct a class war with a clear knoweldege of who holds the reigns of power, we will never defeat them.

What I would like to know is why I am more often on the side of the f'in primmos than the anarchists here...it makes me cry.

Exactly you fool that's why your statements about the "middle class" (scientists, teachers, therapists etc.) are bollocks! Cos it doesn't matter how well-off workers are they're still workers!

Do you understand now what we've been trying to tell you?

Please please PLEASE tell me you do!!

GB, you are not the boss of me!

No please seriously did you comprehend that?

You always steer clear of actually responding to any criticisms of your utterly irrational position.

Do you understand what my point was?

If so, how do you defend your position?

Wendal wrote

I think that it would be vital to add to that: Be not an abuser nor abused or be not an exploiter nor explioted

They are both words to live by for anyone who want to have a happy life.

You cannot exist outside your social reality, it is impossible to avoid getting your hands dirty. All we can do is to try to minuminise these aspects and create a movement capable of transcending capitalism et al.

This is why false consciousness is such a poor concept. It claims that somehow, someone (or group) stands outside the world and objectively views it. We are ALL deformed, penetrated and enclosed by capitalist social relations. This process (and never can be) is not total and complete, we can still criticise, resist, transform, but never with a 'true consciousness'.

Ill try to explain it in a simpler way(which will make it more generalized tough).

Socialdarwinists pointed towards evolution and the nature to make capitalism and colonialism accepted. Kropotkin answered that by showing that cooperation and feelings of caring is just as common as competition in nature.

When Marx wrote about false conciousness he stated that people accept opression beacuse of ideas that either say that A) the opression is fair* or not an opression or B) the opression is the only possible economical system(Keyenism).

I have noticed that rich rightwing neoliberals(classic example of false conciousness that is) always seems to be so goddamed angry. They live in something that should be their version of Utopia but still they are so pissed off. I think that it shows that even if you are rich and belive that the world is just the empathy(your ability to relate to other peoples pain and suffering) is shining through the mist of their false conciousness. Rich kids who has understood and reality acepted the reality of the opression of other classes is not that happy either. I think that the only way upperclass and to some degree also midleclass will be able to get a happy life is participating in the struggle. Lots of old theories are based on an idea that the opressor and/or the privilaged is enjoying their position and dont want to give it away. I would say that the fear for revenge or false conciousness is a more valid part in why the opressor try to keep his/her power and wealth.

The slaves in America had no plans on revenge after they was "set free". It didnt stoped paranoid rednecks to create the KKK tough.

If you study the negative reactions on female liberation and struggle against patriarchistic systems you will see that what males bigest is isnt usualy to lose economical wealth and power. The bigest fear is that women will gain power and use it for revenge. Most anti-feminist articles that has been written is mostly about castration-anxiety and uses words like femi-nazi as an response to equal payment for the same work.

The upperclass must now that they have a choice between the giljotine or sharing their wealth with the people. It is important tough that they realy know that there is a choice since it would remove their fear for participating in or sponsoring the revolution. It will also make them less fanatic in fighting to keep thier wealth(=their safety) if they know that they wont be murdered if they surender.

When FNL took the power in Vietnam they didnt assasinate the king. Instead they took his power and privilages from his. The king was touched to tears since he was certain that he would be killed. The king did no atemps to do a contra-revolution later. He spended the rest of his life as a peacefull farmer instead.

When it comes to the middleclass the only thing that we have to make them understand is that they will not only need to keep their slim privligages through the exploitation of the working class but will together with the rest of the world share a bigger wealth in a future classles society.

*= Some examples of those toughts are: "capitalists got rich through hard labour", "god has given the wealth to them" or "anyone can be a milionare if they work realy hard".

---

Now to answer some of your new posts...

It is right that the capitalists now about some of the leftist ideas. To just know an idea is not enough to break free from false conciousness tough.

Most people now the basic ideas for nazism and christianity. Still the amount of nazis and born again christians is rather slim today.

If statistics and info was the only thing needed to liberate people from false conciousness then there would be noo need for anarchist/class-war music, comics, movies, symbolic direct action and so on...

Why you seem to agree with the primitivist mostly? Well... it seems like both of you share some anger towards doctors and cientists. Maybie the primos has sended subliminal messages to you through reruns of old flintstone-issues

I agree.

I use the word while nowing that most people are affected by modern constructivistic ideas and hopes that they dont understand the word out of that. I dont belive in any total truth except that it is wrong to create unnecirerial suffering for tor other people. That view of reality is enough for me to validate many actions. Many people are cought up in a constructivistic view of the world where they belive that nothing is wrong. Such a view makes people passive and makes it imposible to make any political statement or validate any political action at all. A constructivstic view of the world can be combined with marxist ideas and political action.

GB, I steer clear of criticism because in all honesty I am not as good at arguing my position as everyone else is...and it always comes out seeming weak. However, it is my opinion that doctors are not working class, the same with teachers. All I really have to support this I guess is what I have read, a lot of which you probably think is bullshit. I guess what it comes down to is that I do see teachers doctors and scientests as either playing a controlling role for the capitalists, or getting paid way too much and living nicely for no reason. To me that seems reason enough for them to lose out in a class war. In addition I see the strengthening of the anarchist movement as the most important thing right now, and middle class people can only hurt this effort. I saw this first hand growing up. Why did my parents not have crappy cars and we lived in a nice neighberhood? It was because they are middle class and they live this way while billions are repressed. There is no excuse for it and there is no reason to make exceptions for the middle class, or for anarchists to have anything but the most deeply held contempt for this class. As I have said that does not mean they all have to die, or that people can not make the moral choice to abandon there class privellege. To leave out these would make anarchism weaker as it is partially based on the assumption that all people have the potential to help make soicety better, but in my mind they can only do this if they are not in a place of control or repression. So no, I dont get it and I am sorry. I would love to just accept the logic that everyone is workers and middle class people are OK. But I cant, it is a cop out and hamstrings the potetial of the anarchist movement. And I am not going to accept your argument out of convenience or the fact that you say (and others) say it is so.

And Wendal, I guess I get what you are saying, but I think it is kind of beside the point. The middle and ruling classes will either die in the revolution, or survive and become part of the new society. It just dosent matter before that. Only the working class can make the revolution, and it is a waste of time and personpower to try and influence these people, and there are already so few anarchists.

Ill explain.

What he is trying to say is that you should avoid to be in need of alms from other people or to give way more alms than you can aford. To always be in need of other peoples alms will make a person sad and the same goes for always be the one who will have to give alms to people in need or people who are just lazy or manipulative.

Borrow is a strange word to use to say this but Shakespeare isnt realy famous to use the most straight and simple language.

Do you read Focouallt? He has some views of doctors as people opressing the working class that might connect with you.

I seriously belive that the industrial workers will side with the doctors. They also have the nice cars and live in the nice neighbourhoud, i mean jezz... some of the richest people that i went to school with in my hometown are working in the factories. They will fuck up their bodies in the long run but all they see now is the bling bling.

I think that would be easier to have a cleaner and kindergarden temp-teacher(middle class?) in the same cell than a factory worker and a cleaner since the factory worker is way much richer and have often a more comfortable work than both of the groups mentioned above.

If the revolution isnt done by a pure group of working class then it will be a failure is that what you are saying? Then how do you look at your own part in the revolution? How big percentage of UK would you define as workingclass? What should the middleclass do during the revolution? Play playstatation? Take orders from the pure-blooded workers?

Anarchism needs a massmovement. Bolsheviks can do a miniority revolution and force their society on the rest of the people. For anarchists that would be imposible if we dont aim at a forced anarcho-primitivism through extreme destruction(which i dont want to have no part in).

In any case i see no trouble in anarchistgroups with only working class people in tough. Many workers feels uncomfortable in most leftist groups since it is like a minefield beacuse of all the etiquete and risks of saying the wrong thing that will be like moving through a minefield for some people.

That's an essentially anti-working class argument. Don't you know there are people in this world who at times have to borrow money just to survive? It's not them who's lazy or manipulative, it's the ruling class who put them in that position.

For fucks sake Anarch get a clue, the middle class and the ruling class are completely different. The ruling class own the means of production and exploit us, and their position is dependent on capitalism, the middle class don't own the means of production. Its that fucking simple.

Sorry but your rants annoy the hell out of me sometimes.

"Sorry but your rants annoy the hell out of me sometimes."

Yeah I know, sorry. But I honestly respect and appreciate you guys and gals for taking the time to listen and respond to me. It makes me feel good!

"If the revolution isnt done by a pure group of working class then it will be a failure is that what you are saying? Then how do you look at your own part in the revolution? How big percentage of UK would you define as workingclass? What should the middleclass do during the revolution? Play playstatation? Take orders from the pure-blooded workers? "

It is not about blood. That kind of argument assumes that somehow working class people and people of other classes are somehow different types of people, which is foolish. I guess for me it is more about what place you take in society. People like Kropotkin and what not were wealthy, but they gave it up to promote the anarchist cause. I dont imagine that I will ever be anywhere near as important as Bakunin and Kropotkin, but I would like to think I am making a dent in the amount of anarchist organizing that needs to be done, and doing what I can to leave behind my class. I think honesty is important and I have never, especially not in my actual interactions with people, claimed to be from a working class background. And I would think around 75-80 percent of most western nations are working class. And I guess that

I totaly agree with you, let me be more excakt.

Thats why i point out that a person should try to avoid. If a person is in no position to live without alms then the person should of coarse accept any help that any individual want to give her. A rich person should of coarse not bet stopped from giving alms to people in need.

The idea is based around situations of equal economy and posibility.

A more excakt example of a borower(in this concept) and a lender is two friends with equal fee who goes to the pub together. The lender is always paying for the borrowers beer and the borrower does nothing in return.

That makes the borrower feel bad and so those the lender who after a while starts to feel used.

Did i make myself clear enough now? Is it anything in that concept that you see a trouble with? Great replys by the way.

So where do you draw the line for "participating in the revolution. I would absolutly say that Bakunin did it since he was something of a pre-black block acitivst, Kropotkin was a goddamed prince so comparing him to midle class feels a bit extreme. The same for Bakunin.

Proudhon had some realy shitty ideas that was a result of his farmer/working-class uppbringing. His view on women for example and also a kind of like an extreme atitude against people who are not able to participate in the production(beacuse of handicap for example) that also came from groving up in a harsh poor farmer-envioroment.

80% is a whole lot bigger number of working class than i would claim.

"So where do you draw the line for "participating in the revolution. I would absolutly say that Bakunin did it since he was something of a pre-black block acitivst, Kropotkin was a goddamed prince so comparing him to midle class feels a bit extreme. The same for Bakunin."

They gave up their class privellege and did what they could for anarchism, so I guess that is where I draw the line.

"80% is a whole lot bigger number of working class than i would claim."

But we disagree on who is working class. I would say anyone who is not a doctor, lawyer, professional, or owner is working class, that is a lot of people I think.

What's a professional then?

List them all.

Ok. Then ill agree with you more or less. I couldnt understand that at all from your original posting so thats why i got an impression that you had some idea about pure-blooded workers.

I had no idea that you were talking about anything like that. It made the dicussion even trickier beacuse i tought that you meant that for example a teacher(mediocre wage but still acording to me not working class) should be kept outside the classwar.

Your idea would mean a majority(although many would be confused by the description of working class) and a revolution would be possible. Without revolutionaries that leaves the army and the police to fight together with the people it would be tricky tough but if i understand you right then you have no problem with cooperating with deserters from the state-army right?

When it comes to urban guerilla-warfare and stuff like that it would be most usefull to have doctors who still works in hospital so that it would be possible to help seriously wounded revolutionaries without the police or the military geting noticed. Some doctors works the same way with ilegal imigrants today. They might not have given up their privilage and status but they are taking huge risks and are realy helpfull in the struggle.

And an owner of what? My nan owns her house because they spent years buying it off a bank in a morgage, my grandad was a postman, is she ruling class?

No not a house obviously, I mean a factory or what not! I suppose professionals in my mind would include teachers, social workers, dentists, all types of doctors, therapists of all stripes, scientests and stuff. Now, these people could certainly join a revolution, and live in a revolutionary society, but just not lead or be an active part in the creation of the revolution. At least the way I see it. But we all know I am an ididot

8)

housing officers like me then? are they professionals?

anarch, u really have to stop thinking of class in this simplistic way

Okay and I know you've been asked about 50 times, but do you have any reasoning for this? Any historical evidence as a basis for it? Any evidence now that people in those jobs are more reactionary than average?

Or are you just full of crap?

And what about these professional jobs:

plumber, electrician, electrical engineer, dentist, radiographer, mechanic, marine engineer, writer, musician, insurance broker, IT technician, software developer, train driver, architect, civil engineer?

And what about industrial workers who earn more than teachers, scientists + therapists? Like printers, or dockers (in the US)?

Or are you basically saying that anyone who does any kind of useful work is "middle class" and thus cannot "or be an active part in the creation of the revolution"?

And I repeat my question: if you say workers are workers, and the privileges western workers have over ones in the 3rd world are meaningless, why is the tiny difference in privileges between different groups of workers in the west not meaningless?

Cos proportionally a western teacher + call centre worker have much more in common than a western call centre worker and african peasant, say.