Recent anarchist academic conference

Will read through it later. What I wanna know is, how many of these people actually do things related to class struggle? rather than write about things if you know what I mean. I am a little sceptical of academics.

Choccy

One is a former libcom poster ad ex CW, the rest, fuck knows.
I imagine your suspicions are right, most academics, and some journalists, who right about stuff like this are completely detached from any sort of activity, but' it makes great dinner party conversation lovey!'

I don't mean to belittle them. But you said was what I was trying to say! Alot are detached from any sort of activity and I feel from previous experiences with them that they don't want to get their hands dirty. Even if it means doing things totally within the law.

Sorry lads, but this proler-than-thou posturing is embarrassing as fuck. I am on the AS newslist and have corresponded with one of the people who started this project (who is a FULL MIDDLE UPPER RULLING CLASS CUNT uni professor who's had the audacity to write books about the history of anarchism, the wanker!!!1!); most of the people invovled are just students and teachers from different backgrounds who are trying to bring anarchism into their respective disciplines in the hopes of challenging the dominant liberal discourse. To try to paint them as faddy poseurs who are having laugh about TEH REAL STRUGGLE over a gala luncheon is the sort of fuckwittery I'd expect only from the lowest of class war preachers. I mean it's enough that mentals like Stewart Home are slagging them off because they've dared to criticize his shit books.
Sure most of those titles look boring as fuck (although there is a paper on the War Commentary affair that looks right up my alley), but that's no reason to bash these people because they're not out there in the thick of it like us, son. I don't get to do a lot anarchies either as a matter of fact; that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to have a fucking opinion and express it in writing.

Stating someone is divorcing theory from action needs stating and rightly so. I have no beef with academic or professors as a profession, but there were several 'anarchist' academics at a uni I had the fortune to study and work at, and their contribution to radicalising the campus was pretty much nil. As always the real class politics is based on praxis and is done best in the real world by organic intellectuals who get their hands dirty and go about the mammoth task of being active and educating themselves and others.

I don't get to do a lot anarchies either as a matter of fact; that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to have a fucking opinion and express it in writing

indeed, and just look at some of those opinions

A Christian Anarchist Critique of the Westphalian International Order

Christian anarchists interpret Jesus’ teaching and example to imply a total rejection of violence and coercion. They also understand Jesus to have made it clear that one cannot have two masters, that true commitment to God can only be absolute. By contrast, the Westphalian state – the very basis of international relations – rests on the presumed allegiance conferred to it by its citizens, and upon this allegiance legitimises both domestic and international violence and coercion. From a Christian anarchist perspective, therefore, the Westphalian state is strictly incompatible with the God of Christianity, and would-be Christians must necessarily choose either one or the other.

october_lost

Stating someone is divorcing theory from action needs stating and rightly so.

Particularly if they do so in a way that helps them earn a living/advance their careers.

october_lost

Stating someone is divorcing theory from action needs stating and rightly so. I have no beef with academic or professors as a profession, but there were several 'anarchist' academics at a uni I had the fortune to study and work at, and their contribution to radicalising the campus was pretty much nil.

And every single current anarchist organisation's contribution to radicalising the working class is pretty much nil. Why doesn't everyone just pack up and fuck off home really.

As always the real class politics is based on praxis and is done best in the real world by organic intellectuals who get their hands dirty and go about the mammoth task of being active and educating themselves and others.

OL, those are just platitudes and you know it. REAL struggle is done by REAL people doing REAL things etc. etc. ad nauseam. What the fuck is an "organic intellectual" by the way? Is earning a wage organic enough? Oh wait I forgot MIND JAILERS are judged by a different standard because they're more like wardens than real workers.
oisleep

indeed, and just look at some of those opinions

A Christian Anarchist Critique of the Westphalian International Order

Yeah like I said, most of those titles don't look very inspiring, and you've managed, all by yourself, to pick out the one with the most ridiculous premise. Great.

Nate

Particularly if they do so in a way that helps them earn a living/advance their careers.

Oh there's a fuckload of cash and accolades to be made in compared sociology or modern European history. Those assholes are literally swimming in gold I bet while youse are all ploughing the fields and smashing the state. Gimme a fucking break.

revols

also in reality most actual anarchist organisations are pretty much limited to being propaganda groups so I don't thinks it particularly fair to write off this kind of thing per se on the basis that it's detached from actual struggles.

Fuckin ay, and this is exactly why getting on your high horse about some geeks writing on anarchism in the Christian vision of St. Bellendus (or actually writing something interesting like about a chapter in the little known history of British anarchism) is a bit ridiculous. It shows nothing but insecurity and borderline sectarianism.

mateofthebloke

october_lost

Stating someone is divorcing theory from action needs stating and rightly so. I have no beef with academic or professors as a profession, but there were several 'anarchist' academics at a uni I had the fortune to study and work at, and their contribution to radicalising the campus was pretty much nil.

And every single current anarchist organisation's contribution to radicalising the working class is pretty much nil. Why doesn't everyone just pack up and fuck off home really.

You have shifted the goal posts massively. Being involved in workplaces while can be daunting, in reality is very simple; ie looking out for your colleagues, being a union rep, collectively standing up for each other, pushing campaigns that are based on class interests etc etc. I find it the height of hypocrisy to bang on about radical ideas and then in the world in which you confront institutions and power you don't take any lead or even stand alongside people who do.

And last I checked no fed or local anarcho group hardly said it was at the cutting edge of class struggle. They do however in the marginal and well within their respective size help co-ordinate something to improve the lot for members and the immediate problems they face be it in their community or workplace.

october_lost

As always the real class politics is based on praxis and is done best in the real world by organic intellectuals who get their hands dirty and go about the mammoth task of being active and educating themselves and others.

mateofthebloke

OL, those are just platitudes and you know it. REAL struggle is done by REAL people doing REAL things etc. etc. ad nauseam. What the fuck is an "organic intellectual" by the way? Is earning a wage organic enough? Oh wait I forgot MIND JAILERS are judged by a different standard because they're more like wardens than real workers.

Its clear I am differentiating from people who divorce political ideas from any sort of practice, which is intuitively what our politics shouldn't be about, we are materialists after all. Finding a niche within academia where your covered by freedom of intellectual expression to stream out ideas most of us would get pulled up for is the epitome of being safe and conforms to the bourgeois image of radicalism. An organic intellectual is a conscious militant who actually educates him/herself about the struggles going on around them and is able to articulate and defend class positions against the current hegemony. It is about counterposing yourself to bourgeois intellectuals who take their cue from a division of labour and lord it over their betters. If were struggling for communist ideas that means we have to appreciate the role of education and the battle for ideas that goes on within material struggles.

And I think you will find I most certainly don't subscribe to a position that teachers are part of the middle class.

Choccy

One is a former libcom poster ad ex CW

His piece actually looks interesting and I guess is going to be an expansion on his piece he put in Black Flag a few issues back.

revol68

also in reality most actual anarchist organisations are pretty much limited to being propaganda groups so I don't thinks it particularly fair to write off this kind of thing per se on the basis that it's detached from actual struggles.

I mean in all honesty all we do at most is hand out our own particular take on a protest or whatever.

No one is writing it off. Just stating some facts. And I know im gonna get slated for this but most uni professors I have known are middle class toss pots who live in their own little world of academia. Alot of the ones who take an interest in anarchism, do just that take an interest and its their little hobby to show how radical they are to their fellow professors.

mateofthebloke

october_lost

Stating someone is divorcing theory from action needs stating and rightly so. I have no beef with academic or professors as a profession, but there were several 'anarchist' academics at a uni I had the fortune to study and work at, and their contribution to radicalising the campus was pretty much nil.

And every single current anarchist organisation's contribution to radicalising the working class is pretty much nil. Why doesn't everyone just pack up and fuck off home really.

As always the real class politics is based on praxis and is done best in the real world by organic intellectuals who get their hands dirty and go about the mammoth task of being active and educating themselves and others.

OL, those are just platitudes and you know it. REAL struggle is done by REAL people doing REAL things etc. etc. ad nauseam. What the fuck is an "organic intellectual" by the way? Is earning a wage organic enough? Oh wait I forgot MIND JAILERS are judged by a different standard because they're more like wardens than real workers.
oisleep

indeed, and just look at some of those opinions

A Christian Anarchist Critique of the Westphalian International Order

Yeah like I said, most of those titles don't look very inspiring, and you've managed, all by yourself, to pick out the one with the most ridiculous premise. Great.

Nate

Particularly if they do so in a way that helps them earn a living/advance their careers.

Oh there's a fuckload of cash and accolades to be made in compared sociology or modern European history. Those assholes are literally swimming in gold I bet while youse are all ploughing the fields and smashing the state. Gimme a fucking break.

revols

also in reality most actual anarchist organisations are pretty much limited to being propaganda groups so I don't thinks it particularly fair to write off this kind of thing per se on the basis that it's detached from actual struggles.

Fuckin ay, and this is exactly why getting on your high horse about some geeks writing on anarchism in the Christian vision of St. Bellendus (or actually writing something interesting like about a chapter in the little known history of British anarchism) is a bit ridiculous. It shows nothing but insecurity and borderline sectarianism.

the lady doth protest too much

(although organic intellectual is a ridiculous term)

oisleep

the lady doth protest too much

Yeah, I think that mateofthebloke is getting a bit overly defensive here.

I mean, you can't deny that there is a tendency of academics to write very radical and do very little (mostly coz their position allows them a medium to make their radicalism public - and earn a living - which, say, an office worker doesn't).

It's not that no academics ever participate in struggle (I knew a few at my uni who did) or that everyone who holds radical ideas has to be involved in radical projects at all times. But it does raise a few eyebrows when there's a tiny lefty scene where everyone knows each other and then there's a conference by people supposedly from this scene attended almost entirely by people that no one from the scene has heard of.

october_lost

Choccy

One is a former libcom poster ad ex CW

His piece actually looks interesting and I guess is going to be an expansion on his piece he put in Black Flag a few issues back.

Not sure why Paul bothers with this kind of stuff to be honest. Although given he left CW as he saw it not being compatible with him doing a PHD/being an academic I guess it does confirm (even amongst those who are part of this network) the perceived 'break' that has been talked about on this thread

oisleep

october_lost

Choccy

One is a former libcom poster ad ex CW

His piece actually looks interesting and I guess is going to be an expansion on his piece he put in Black Flag a few issues back.

Not sure why Paul bothers with this kind of stuff to be honest. Although given he left CW as he saw it not being compatible with him doing a PHD/being an academic I guess it does confirm (even amongst those who are part of this network) the perceived 'break' that has been talked about on this thread

Are you fucking serious? So because PM left an irrelevant anarcho-populist sect because he actually wanted to do something that conflicted with their so-called "libertarian" outlook, that is proof of a break between academics and militants? I hope this is one of your "jokes"
october_lost

You have shifted the goal posts massively. Being involved in workplaces while can be daunting, in reality is very simple; ie looking out for your colleagues, being a union rep, collectively standing up for each other, pushing campaigns that are based on class interests etc etc. I find it the height of hypocrisy to bang on about radical ideas and then in the world in which you confront institutions and power you don't take any lead or even stand alongside people who do.

I find it the height of hypocrisy to use strawmen instead of actual examples. Who the hell is "banging on" about radical ideas (is writing a paper really banging on? not modest enough or what? I don't get it) and then not even standing alongside their workmates? Name some names or stop tearing at windmills.

And last I checked no fed or local anarcho group hardly said it was at the cutting edge of class struggle.

And Anarchist Studies has claimed that it was the cutting edge of class struggle?

They do however in the marginal and well within their respective size help co-ordinate something to improve the lot for members and the immediate problems they face be it in their community or workplace.

OL, don't take this the wrong way; I like you, you seem like a committed person, but your posts often read like official communiques rather than actual opinions that you hold. I mean what does the above mean? Are anarchists a decisive force in current struggles or not? I'd say clearly not, but that doesn't mean anarchism should be abandoned. Equally, radical academics may not be able to start revolutions, but that doesn't mean that what they're doing is always counterproductive or useless. Only someone who is inherently suspicious of them book learnin' types could argue that, and I hope that is no one on libcom.

Its clear I am differentiating from people who divorce political ideas from any sort of practice, which is intuitively what our politics shouldn't be about, we are materialists after all.

It's ironic because when anarchism was actually a living practice, ideas abounded and no one was ashamed to "divorce" them (i.e. think them out to their fullest form) from reality. An anarchist culture was possible, and it was a product of practical anarchism (I am thinking mainly of Spain although other examples exist I'm sure).
When anarchism is nothing but an obscure tiny political club, ideas all of a sudden become unacceptable; and why? Because ideas is all you have, all we have actually. Because we know that anarchism is not a practice and we are ashamed of that, so let's just blame it on the intellectuals who keep writing books without putting stuff into practice. But is this a good approach? I really don't think so. No one is "ruining" anarchism. Not academics, not even crimethincers. If you are a materialist, you should look at the material conditions of the society we currently live in if you want to understand why anarchism is an irrelevance. Don't blame ideas, because that's idealistic.

An organic intellectual is a conscious militant who actually educates him/herself about the struggles going on around them and is able to articulate and defend class positions against the current hegemony. It is about counterposing yourself to bourgeois intellectuals who take their cue from a division of labour and lord it over their betters. If were struggling for communist ideas that means we have to appreciate the role of education and the battle for ideas that goes on within material struggles

Well if I manage to get the gist of what you're saying, an organic intellectual is not a bourgeois intellectual (in the sense of not supporting the status quo), and takes part in struggles going on around them. Fine. But how do you know the people involved in Anarchist Studies are inorganic? Why simply assume that most intellectuals will be phonies who are only after self-enrichment (as if anyone except superstars like Zizek actually got rich from teaching and writing).

Ed

I mean, you can't deny that there is a tendency of academics to write very radical and do very little (mostly coz their position allows them a medium to make their radicalism public - and earn a living - which, say, an office worker doesn't).

Gimme an example Ed. Who is doing this? Are you thinking of Zizek and Badiou? They're not writing anything radical to begin with, so I don't see how they've betrayed anyone's anarchist movement. And if you look at the titles on the AS webpage that Choccy linked to, most papers do not claim to be the height of radicalism; no one is saying "Read my comparative study of Uruguayan anarchist literature and all your problems as a worker will be solved!". So why get so defensive about it? At worst, these sort of things are just irrelevant, and they certainly won't bring their authors any fame and riches at the expense of the supposed anarchist movement. If anyone earns a living it is mostly from teaching, not from publicly proclaiming radicalism (again Zizek et al are exceptions).
Tbh, I can't actually think of any example of an intellectual "writing very radical but doing very little." All the genuinely radical things I've read were written by people who were involved at least to some extent in the workers' movement (Marx and all those dead geezers are only the most obvious examples).

Is someone like Lucien van der Welt and that other guy that he co-authored Black Flame with an example of an organic intellectual? Is writing a history of anarchism an act of good radical historiography or is it divorcing ideas from reality? How do you decide?
weeler

Chomsky would be useless on the barricades, or even as a barricade.

:D

Is someone like Lucien van der Welt and that other guy that he co-authored Black Flame with an example of an organic intellectual? Is writing a history of anarchism an act of good radical historiography or is it divorcing ideas from reality? How do you decide?

Have not read the book, but Lucien van der Walt co-authored it with Michael Schmidt. I think Lucien is a lecturer and Michael is a journalist. They are both of members of ZACF, so they are not detached as per the debate from political activity. Generally though I think theoretical and historical work like this and the best example I can think of this for instance is Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, which although he was not a communist, his output and the work of others in this vein is of value to us.

Are you fucking serious? So because PM left an irrelevant anarcho-populist sect because he actually wanted to do something that conflicted with their so-called "libertarian" outlook, that is proof of a break between academics and militants? I hope this is one of your "jokes"

If you read what I said (rather than throthing at the mouth like a lunatic) you would see that I referred to the 'perceived break'

Gimme an example Ed. Who is doing this? Are you thinking of Zizek and Badiou? They're not writing anything radical to begin with, so I don't see how they've betrayed anyone's anarchist movement.

Meh, I think I'm thinking of lecturers from my university again (Marxists rather than anarchists, though I don't think that's what matters really, just stating for clarification). A lot of their writing would be quite radical Marxist/neo-Gramscian/whatever but when there were campaigns at the university they were very quiet (apart from putting our leaflets on their office doors). That's not to say they all were inactive (or that I was super-active) but it is a funny tendency to notice. It's something that's been echoed to me by a Brighton SF member who works at the uni as well as others who've experienced the same pattern at other universities..

Whatever like, it's not a big deal, it's just pointing something out. You're the one looking like you're gonna get a hernia over this shit.. ;)

no one is saying "Read my comparative study of Uruguayan anarchist literature and all your problems as a worker will be solved!".

No one is saying that that is what they're saying! It's just interesting that their chosen research interest is the struggle of libertarian workers against capital; but that it seems to be where it ends, a research interest.

So why get so defensive about it?

No reason really to quote this, to be honest. Just thought it was funny that you're saying that I'm being defensive.. :D

Is someone like Lucien van der Welt and that other guy that he co-authored Black Flame with an example of an organic intellectual?

I'd never heard of the phrase "organic intellectual" before today so I don't know. I'd probably just describe him as someone part of the neo-platformist tendency who wrote a really shit book but that's a different gripe.

I guess I feel it's a bit odd for people who themselves are removed from struggle to write so much about it. Or maybe that's the wrong way round: it's odd that people who write so much about struggle are in fact removed from it.

Ed,
I think it's unfair to call Black Flame a really shit book. I think it's actually well written and brings up a number of good points.

Also, I think it's just the way I write that creates the impression I'm really mad over this. I'm not mad at all. I am perfectly calm as I am writing this; I just like to say fuck a lot and have an erratic writing style.

I guess I feel it's a bit odd for people who themselves are removed from struggle to write so much about it.

This is interesting, and I wish you would go further into it and not just dismiss it as "no big deal". I find it very telling that a lot of anarchists today feel uncomfortable with the notion of "detached" professors writing about "their" struggle. Like I said, my theory is that this is a case of ressentiment, and it should be dealt with, not ignored, because as long as militants continue to put the blame for the failure of anarchism on the "middle class poseurs" things will not advance very far.

I find it somewhat weird that people assume that writing about teh anarchy can somehow give you a stable job in academia. If you're thinking about getting a job in academia, it's probably better to research anything else but anarchism. In North America at least, getting a tenured position is extremely difficult. Most likely a recent graduate with a PhD can get a job as a sessional, teaching loads of courses but earning fuck all.

revol68

LOL you just called someone neo gramscian and then said you'd never heard of the term 'organic intellectual' before.

Wikipedia page on neo-Gramscianism
After reading the wikipedia page on neo-Gramscianism I see why that's funny. The reason I was looking at the wikipedia page, however, was because it says:

wikipedia

Outside of North America, the so-called "Amsterdam School" around Kees Van Der Pijl and Henk Overbeek (at Free University of Amsterdam) [...] as well as at the Centre for Global Political Economy at the University of Sussex in the UK...

I studied at the University of Sussex (did one of my dissertations on GPE) and Kees Van Der Pijl was a lecturer there (not very politically active btw). As you can see, I wasn't paying much attention beyond hearing them say: "Hi guys, we're neo-Gramscians..." :lol:

mateofthebloke

I find it very telling that a lot of anarchists today feel uncomfortable with the notion of "detached" professors writing about "their" struggle. Like I said, my theory is that this is a case of ressentiment, and it should be dealt with, not ignored, because as long as militants continue to put the blame for the failure of anarchism on the "middle class poseurs" things will not advance very far.

Well, firstly, it's not about them writing about 'my struggles' as an anarchist. And secondly, I don't blame 'middle class poseurs' for the failure of anarchism. I don't think it's due to ressentiment either as I'm not counter-posing academic characteristics with what I feel The Ultimate Super-Prole should be like*. It's two main things for me:

1) I find it odd that people should take such a keen interest in theorising about capital, workers, struggle etc without wanting to be involved in it. It's like model train building or that Games Workshop shit; except instead of fucking painting little imps or whatever the fuck, its actually people's lives (no less for the people doing the theorising).

2) A phrase we used to bandy about in the Anarchist Youth Network was that "action without theory is pointless, theory without action is useless". A good saying which we completely ignored though we did used to say it a lot. I just think their theorising is empty critique unless its connected to some practice and I think it's in practice that you can really test and develop your ideas.

It's not even that I don't think that academics can't be part of class struggle, they definitely can. But to me, they do it as workers (like the rest of us) fighting capital, by refusing their role (just like Super-Proles like builders or hammer-bangers do it). They don't do it by doing their job really well and writing interesting theoretical pieces for academic journals or teaching a good module on Marx for some post-graduate course.

* I always understood ressentiment to be about forming your principles/characteristics in opposition to what your enemies' are (i.e. they live in nice houses, so we should live in shit ones; they are educated, so we should be thick as pigshit) but considering my neo-Gramscian gaff I'm willing to stand corrected).

That he left CW over doign a phd baffles me, though I guess it shouldn't given their conception of class. But also strikes me as odd given their association with Chris Knight.

and ben franks

if he hadn't specificly said this was the reason I would have just put it down as him thinking after 16 years enough was enough

Ed

* I always understood ressentiment to be about forming your principles/characteristics in opposition to what your enemies' are (i.e. they live in nice houses, so we should live in shit ones; they are educated, so we should be thick as pigshit) but considering my neo-Gramscian gaff I'm willing to stand corrected).

Well Christian ressentiment works like this: the boss has everything you want and can't have so you justify it by believing that God wants you to be poor because poverty is purifying and all that shit. I think anarchist ressentiment is not literally like the Crhstian version but it's definitely the same kind of thinking involved (and btw, I didn't say you were guilty of this; that was aimed at those anarchists who see intellectuals as some sort of recuperative threat).
We don't have an actual movement to speak of and no one really cares, but those intellectual cunts with their panel talks and lecture tours are getting all the attention, so we shouldn't be intellectuals. We should be real proles who shun all theoretical babble for anti-impressionistic hard socialist science.

Well, firstly, it's not about them writing about 'my struggles' as an anarchist. And secondly, I don't blame 'middle class poseurs' for the failure of anarchism. I don't think it's due to ressentiment either as I'm not counter-posing academic characteristics with what I feel The Ultimate Super-Prole should be like*. It's two main things for me:

I know you don't think that. The fact that I was describing what I see as an anti-intellectual undercurrent while replying to your post, doesn't mean I'm accusing you of anything.

I find it odd that people should take such a keen interest in theorising about capital, workers, struggle etc without wanting to be involved in it. It's like model train building or that Games Workshop shit; except instead of fucking painting little imps or whatever the fuck, its actually people's lives (no less for the people doing the theorising).

Some theoreticians may be completely content with ivory tower isolation, but I don't think this is a general rule in academia.
Also, not all literature dealing with anarchism is "theorising about capital". I think that sort of stuff tends to be broadly leftist. Most books that deal with anarchism are usually historiographical, not theoretical. There have been some anarchist theorists but they are few and far between, and sometimes they have more dodgy ideas than good ones (Bookchin).

It's not even that I don't think that academics can't be part of class struggle, they definitely can. But to me, they do it as workers (like the rest of us) fighting capital, by refusing their role (just like Super-Proles like builders or hammer-bangers do it). They don't do it by doing their job really well and writing interesting theoretical pieces for academic journals or teaching a good module on Marx for some post-graduate course.

Yeah, obviously, but I have yet to see an example of an academic proclaiming that writing books is the ultimate means of struggling against capital. Even the most self-centered and megalomaniacal aren't so divorced from reality to say that. To me this "all academics substitute real struggle for purely intellectual work" looks and feels like a strawman. I know academics who are reactionary fucks, and they don't pretend to be anything but. But then there are also people who, even when falling in a broad leftist category, rather than explicit anarchism, in terms of their politics, actually practice what they preach (in the classroom, by introducing students to genuine critical thinking, or in struggle situations as they arise).
Ultimately you are still an anarchist even on days when you're not on strike or supporting workers on strike though, right? I think the same is true for people who write books and teach.

revol68

Choccy

Maybe it's an easier way of breaking the tie than admitting they were a bit rubbish.

The old "It's not you, it's me" line.

familiar one is it :)

mateofthebloke

Nate

Particularly if they do so in a way that helps them earn a living/advance their careers.

Oh there's a fuckload of cash and accolades to be made in compared sociology or modern European history. Those assholes are literally swimming in gold I bet while youse are all ploughing the fields and smashing the state. Gimme a fucking break.

I'm in university myself, I'm not attacking academics for being academics. What I meant to say is that I'm deeply suspicious of folk whose scholarship is supposed to be radical political activity. I like reading radical books and all and I'm glad people write them but if it's someone's job to write radical books, I do have a sort of knee jerk suspicion. I think that in some academic disciplines or corners of disciplines there's a sort of career currency to having a veneer of radicalism. I dropped out of a department that was full of this, maybe I have a mistaken impression about how much it's present elsewhere, but I think that stuff encourages radical posturing in a way that is self-serving and annoying and it bugs me like crazy.

october_lost

You have shifted the goal posts massively. Being involved in workplaces while can be daunting, in reality is very simple; ie looking out for your colleagues, being a union rep, collectively standing up for each other, pushing campaigns that are based on class interests etc etc. I find it the height of hypocrisy to bang on about radical ideas and then in the world in which you confront institutions and power you don't take any lead or even stand alongside people who do.

mateofthebloke

I find it the height of hypocrisy to use strawmen instead of actual examples. Who the hell is "banging on" about radical ideas (is writing a paper really banging on? not modest enough or what? I don't get it) and then not even standing alongside their workmates? Name some names or stop tearing at windmills.

I was on about the assortment of marxists and anarchists who made up the humanities department at UCLAN in my time there. I don't feel the need to name names particularly as I was only articulating my own experiences.

october_lost

They do however in the marginal and well within their respective size help co-ordinate something to improve the lot for members and the immediate problems they face be it in their community or workplace.

mateofthebloke

OL, don't take this the wrong way; I like you, you seem like a committed person, but your posts often read like official communiques rather than actual opinions that you hold. I mean what does the above mean? Are anarchists a decisive force in current struggles or not? I'd say clearly not, but that doesn't mean anarchism should be abandoned. Equally, radical academics may not be able to start revolutions, but that doesn't mean that what they're doing is always counterproductive or useless. Only someone who is inherently suspicious of them book learnin' types could argue that, and I hope that is no one on libcom.

I didn't come out with an anti-intellectual rant. And likewise I was simply stating that the tiny organisations that exist help tie-up various kinds of activity, add focus and give reflection. Its difficult to turn round and say "anarchists are crap" (my words) which isn't far from the truth, but we are victim of numbers, experience and confidence to say nothing of clarity.

october_lost

Its clear I am differentiating from people who divorce political ideas from any sort of practice, which is intuitively what our politics shouldn't be about, we are materialists after all.

mateofthebloke

It's ironic because when anarchism was actually a living practice, ideas abounded and no one was ashamed to "divorce" them (i.e. think them out to their fullest form) from reality. An anarchist culture was possible, and it was a product of practical anarchism (I am thinking mainly of Spain although other examples exist I'm sure).
When anarchism is nothing but an obscure tiny political club, ideas all of a sudden become unacceptable; and why? Because ideas is all you have, all we have actually. Because we know that anarchism is not a practice and we are ashamed of that, so let's just blame it on the intellectuals who keep writing books without putting stuff into practice. But is this a good approach? I really don't think so. No one is "ruining" anarchism. Not academics, not even crimethincers. If you are a materialist, you should look at the material conditions of the society we currently live in if you want to understand why anarchism is an irrelevance. Don't blame ideas, because that's idealistic.

The ideas, utopia, visions of the future were launched from material struggles and informed those struggles. Academia still as that ability but its slightly mooted given changes in society where imparticularly HE as been molded to be yet another vocational exercise.

october_lost

]An organic intellectual is a conscious militant who actually educates him/herself about the struggles going on around them and is able to articulate and defend class positions against the current hegemony. It is about counterposing yourself to bourgeois intellectuals who take their cue from a division of labour and lord it over their betters. If were struggling for communist ideas that means we have to appreciate the role of education and the battle for ideas that goes on within material struggles

mateofthebloke

Well if I manage to get the gist of what you're saying, an organic intellectual is not a bourgeois intellectual (in the sense of not supporting the status quo), and takes part in struggles going on around them. Fine. But how do you know the people involved in Anarchist Studies are inorganic? Why simply assume that most intellectuals will be phonies who are only after self-enrichment (as if anyone except superstars like Zizek actually got rich from teaching and writing).

I never made claims against Anarchist Studies, and I can't make understand your high handed take on this thread.

mateofthebloke

Like I said, my theory is that this is a case of ressentiment, and it should be dealt with, not ignored, because as long as militants continue to put the blame for the failure of anarchism on the "middle class poseurs" things will not advance very far.

There is an obvious comeback to this, along the lines of "No one is "ruining" anarchism. Not ressentimental prolier-than-thou militants, not even crimethincers. If you are a materialist, you should look at the material conditions of the society we currently live in if you want to understand why anarchism is an irrelevance. Don't blame militants who have bad ideas, because that's idealistic."

Farce

mateofthebloke

Like I said, my theory is that this is a case of ressentiment, and it should be dealt with, not ignored, because as long as militants continue to put the blame for the failure of anarchism on the "middle class poseurs" things will not advance very far.

There is an obvious comeback to this, along the lines of "No one is "ruining" anarchism. Not ressentimental prolier-than-thou militants, not even crimethincers. If you are a materialist, you should look at the material conditions of the society we currently live in if you want to understand why anarchism is an irrelevance. Don't blame militants who have bad ideas, because that's idealistic."

No, no one is ruining anarchism, not even the "ressentimental prolier-than-thou militia" and consequently I'm not blaming them for anything, except their own misguided assignation of blame.