DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

crimethink to the nth degree

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 16:53
butchersapron wrote:
...and let's just skip over the messianic leninist conceit involved in you imagining you're bringing the new gospel to the ignorant masses...fucking ubermensch is it?

not bringing the new gospel - just expressing my opinion - surely you're the one with the grand truth that you want to convert the masses (or the working class section of it) to?

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Mar 24 2004 16:55
john wrote:
butchersapron wrote:
...and let's just skip over the messianic leninist conceit involved in you imagining you're bringing the new gospel to the ignorant masses...fucking ubermensch is it?

not bringing the new gospel - just expressing my opinion - surely you're the one with the grand truth that you want to convert the masses (or the working class section of it) to?

No, not at all - more ignorance of what having a class analysis entails. Much easier than doing the hard work of understanding what you're *attempting* to criticise eh? As your pathetic summation of what you imagine it means posted above demonstrates.

Come on call me a pseudo-trot...

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 16:59

at least tell me what was wrong with my 'pathetic summation'

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Mar 24 2004 16:59

ugh crimethinc, having had the misfortune to read that fecking pamphlet ''We are fighting for our lives'' recently i momentarily wished the state would have you all arrested simply for wasting that much paper

Then i snapped out of my liberalism and saw what a class traitor i was, if only i'd seen through the aesthetic of cops beating the shit out of crimethincs publishers if only..

so on to class

Any decent Class analysis recognises that all forms of oppression are inherently related to class oppression. In that they are a part of it.

They are all empowered by the oppression of capital and are neccessar for the maintenence of the oppression of capital.

Considering that the bourgeoisie reinforce all forms off opression no form of oppression can be truly removed unless the bourgeoisie are removed from power, (and obviously that the power structures that create the bourgeoisie are eliminated.. ie smash the state)

I would've thought that was fairly obvious.

Class simply represents the way in which society is divided up by relation to the means of production, all are oppressed under capital.

john

ps why the feck am i saying this on an anarchist board, jeez this is why every anarchist should read marx and marxist theory before criticising it

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Mar 24 2004 17:02
john wrote:
at least tell me what was wrong with my 'pathetic summation'

To be flippant, everything.

To be less flippant, it takes a partial view of one approach (ignoring all the centrally related stuff about other forms of domination that have *always* gone hand-in-hand with it) and posits it as the sum total of class struggle anarchism. You might as well describe building a house as, "well all need to do is you get some materials and build a rooof.'

How about getting yourself out of the 19th century and reading some contemporary anarchist work that deals with class.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 24 2004 17:34
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Considering that the bourgeoisie reinforce all forms off opression no form of oppression can be truly removed unless the bourgeoisie are removed from power, (and obviously that the power structures that create the bourgeoisie are eliminated.. ie smash the state)

I would've thought that was fairly obvious.

But the 'bourgeoisie' could be removed -- yet many forms of oppression would still remain. Class relations with regard to *wage labour* are only one element of the production of social life. We can either consider that a 'class struggle' approach includes patriarchy, for example, as a 'class' struggle, or accept that we need to base our politics on more than 'class' struggle.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Mar 24 2004 17:36

The fact that that crap has in any way gained credance in what passes for an anarchist movement in the states makes me want to punch myself in the head.

1/ State passes characature of "anarchism" to populace through media to discredit it

2/ idiots take characature and call it anarchism

Absolute cockrot of the highest order. "We must destroy all forms of organisation" indeed! Hey, John and Lazlo, tell me something.

My mum is currently having chemotherapy for spinal cancer. Can you tell me how "death to all specialities" will improve her rehabilitation? Her oncologist has had to specialise quite a bit... And given that her MRI operator is required to produce detailed scans before a consultation, should I tell the oncologist not to bother telling him off if he doesn't do it? That would be "oppressive" afterall.

In summation, fuck off hippies.

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Mar 24 2004 17:37
john wrote:
Quote:
So my grandma's bowls club should be resisted because it has a treasurer, a secretary and annual elections?

well, most of these clubs are extremely hierarchical and reactionary. They are normally full of very judgemental people with very closed minds. I wouldn't want to join one, and I imagine the Secretary is on a bit of power kick.

Fight the power destroy voluntary clubs!

That fascist secretary eh?

Power-hungry bastard. What? You have to elect a secretary to get a voluntary org bank account? Still shoot the bourgeois pig anyway grin

can post more seriously later but gotta go now

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 24 2004 17:43
pingtiao wrote:
My mum is currently having chemotherapy for spinal cancer. Can you tell me how "death to all specialities" will improve her rehabilitation?

Cancer isn't part of the human condition, it is a major part of the industrial condition. In the short term the chemical and medical industries may be able to help your mum. In the long term we need to take action against the causes of cancer -- landfill sites, power cables, exaust fumes, etc. all the infrastructure of a modern economy, in fact.

Don;t tell me to fuck off, its not polite Mr. T

Lemming
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 24 2004 17:49

Does no one have any comments on my post? smile

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Mar 24 2004 17:54
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Considering that the bourgeoisie reinforce all forms off opression no form of oppression can be truly removed unless the bourgeoisie are removed from power, (and obviously that the power structures that create the bourgeoisie are eliminated.. ie smash the state)

I would've thought that was fairly obvious.

But the 'bourgeoisie' could be removed -- yet many forms of oppression would still remain. Class relations with regard to *wage labour* are only one element of the production of social life. We can either consider that a 'class struggle' approach includes patriarchy, for example, as a 'class' struggle, or accept that we need to base our politics on more than 'class' struggle.

no you're missing the point, capitalism upholds patriarchy, and patriarchy upholds capitalism, its a cycle aided and abetted by all forms of ideology and propaganda enforced by the ruling class, ie religion, media,in the workplace, culture, family etc etc etc

The monogamous family is a functioning economic unit. each man provides for his family, meaning that if he goes on strike or dissents, it is not just hios life he puts in his hands but the luife of his family. Patriarchy embodies both superioriity over others and the illusion of responsibility for them.

Families compete against each other, patriarchy and the family inherently stands against the social evolution of mankind to a cooperative species.

The division of labour between women and men is important to how capitalism works. Thus it is vital for the maintenance of an oppressive system that this is maintained.

and there are other factors to consider

Take population, under a communal system, people would have as many children as they want, knowing that they would be provided for. The capitalist system is designed to control population growth, and limit population growth among the poor. Think about how population growth relates to the malthusian psyche of the bourgeois leadership.

I could go on, i suggest reading Rosa luxemburg, Raya Dunavetskaya Emma Goldman or Marx and Engels Anthropology. All of which disucuss the realtion of patriarchy and marriage to class in more depth.

john

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Mar 24 2004 17:55
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
pingtiao wrote:
My mum is currently having chemotherapy for spinal cancer. Can you tell me how "death to all specialities" will improve her rehabilitation?

Cancer isn't part of the human condition, it is a major part of the industrial condition. In the short term the chemical and medical industries may be able to help your mum. In the long term we need to take action against the causes of cancer -- landfill sites, power cables, exaust fumes, etc. all the infrastructure of a modern economy, in fact.

Don;t tell me to fuck off, its not polite Mr. T

You have piss all idea what you are talking about.

Any system as complex as the human being, based as it is on the cumulative action of billions of dividing cells, gradually builds up and accumulates errors. These errors are expressed in the coding of DNA strands, and eventually these abberrations result in cancers. It is true that the frequency of cancers can be increased by environmental factors, but to claim as you have indicates massive ignorance.

And you have not explaned anything about how a lack of organisation and specialty will improve patient care.

Would "childish fantasist" be more polite?

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 17:55

Cantdocartwheels -

the problem that all Marxists have faced is that if you essentialise class as the main source of oppression (e.g. "Considering that the bourgeoisie reinforce all forms off opression no form of oppression can be truly removed unless the bourgeoisie are removed from power") then you can justify all other forms of oppression as a means to overcome capital - e.g. Soviet Union/Stalin

Butcher's Apron -

at least give me a fuller explanation that I can criticise - I can only discuss the arguments that you're making

Pingtiao -

Obviously all forms of structured orgnisation provide some good things - I mean the main argument for capitalism is that it provides food and TVs for most of the working class in the West. What I'd argue is that if we had less enforced and structured organisation we could have more training in medicine - the fact that most people are working to help out those higher than themselves in the hierarchy (rather than to help themselves) means that their medical skills are under-developed (as they don't have the time, information, or equipment to be able to learn the skills that the doctors have) and so we have to rely on the government/NHS to look after us.

Just one point, though - I'm not talking about all forms of organisation, but rather those forms that aren't based on voluntary and unconditional cooperation - I don't think the state is voluntary (if you don't obey you go to prison) and I don't think class warriors are unconditional (they only look out for their fellow class members)

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Mar 24 2004 17:58

This total disconnection from reality is one of major problems with the form of anarchism that resulted from the squat-punk movement. It is so removed from real experience that it doesn't even speak the same language. It is nice in an aesthetic, wanky way, but is totally fucking useless at effecting real life for actual human beings.

Lazlo: I'm betting that you don't have a job. Am I right?

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 24 2004 18:52

Reminder for abuse to be kept to a minimal please peeps... wink

Im still genuinely miffed as to why people reject class, when essentially it is the central focus of society, ie a monopoly of economic/social power, and remains the greatest motor for social change available to anarchists. And to reiterate class oppression does reinforce other oppressions, and although its conceiveable that classless society could have racism/patriarchy etc, class remains one of the few vechiles to challenge any of this oppression, therefore shouldnt we have an obligation to class politics?

red n black star

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 24 2004 19:59
pingtiao wrote:
Lazlo: I'm betting that you don't have a job. Am I right?

I'm betting that you're not this rude in real life. I hope I'm right grin

Making medical care a specialised, professional, occupation means that we hand over control of our bodies to alien institutions. In a communal situation we would all have more responsibility for caring, and the burden wouldn't fall only on a few. The fact that this is *still how much social care operates* at the grassroots is why we've survived this long.

"I could go on, i suggest reading Rosa luxemburg, Raya Dunavetskaya Emma Goldman or Marx and Engels Anthropology"

Cheers for suggesting this, John. Engels' work was based on faulty Victorian research, and I've read the other authors as well. Look, I don't bleed straw Mr. T

I don't pretend that capitalism isn't the main foce supporting patriarchy right now. but patriarchy survived the fall of patrimonial, peasant, and 'feudal' sciety, which should make us wonder whether it might survive capitalism's end.

LeighGionaire
Offline
Joined: 28-02-04
Mar 24 2004 21:16
john wrote:
well, most of these clubs are extremely hierarchical and reactionary. They are normally full of very judgemental people with very closed minds. I wouldn't want to join one, and I imagine the Secretary is on a bit of power kick.

An example to counter your arguement.

I was once the secretary for our pub football team. I wasn't on any kind of power trip, in fact the job was foisted upon me. All the lads wanted to play but nobody wanted the responsibility of actually filling all the crap forms in and attending league meetings. Neither did I, but I was virtually press-ganged into the job, having to do all the mundane shit or we wouldn't have had a team.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 24 2004 21:48

I agree. Most organisations at the small, local level are basically non-hierarchical. That's why we can say that anarchy is already happening around us. We don't have to radically change society -- we have to liberate it in its communal aspects from the chanis that have been imposed on it.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Mar 24 2004 21:52
october_lost wrote:
Reminder for abuse to be kept to a minimal please peeps... wink

Good idea smile

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Mar 25 2004 10:33

Lazlo and John:

My sincere apologies for my behaviour yesterday. I felt bad about what I had written pretty much as soon as I left the internet cafe. I can't defend myself, it's just that I had some news yesterday about my Mum, hence bringing it up.

It was very bad form to let that effect my interactions with othes.

Sorry to both of you.

red n black star

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Mar 26 2004 17:27
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
.

"I could go on, i suggest reading Rosa luxemburg, Raya Dunavetskaya Emma Goldman or Marx and Engels Anthropology"

Cheers for suggesting this, John. Engels' work was based on faulty Victorian research, and I've read the other authors as well. Look, I don't bleed straw Mr. T

I don't pretend that capitalism isn't the main foce supporting patriarchy right now. but patriarchy survived the fall of patrimonial, peasant, and 'feudal' sciety, which should make us wonder whether it might survive capitalism's end.

Ok Ok, sorry for that.

You've read Raya Dunavetskaya? cool, what did you think of her?

All those societies had one similarity, they had a rigid division of labour, and therefore inherently had class divisions, thats the point of class analysis. All those societies had a ruling class which supported patriarchy as it kept them in power.

peace

john

ps i wouldn't dismiss marx and engels anthropology too much, i still think people should read marx even if he got some things very wrong.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Mar 26 2004 17:39
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:

Making medical care a specialised, professional, occupation means that we hand over control of our bodies to alien institutions. In a communal situation we would all have more responsibility for caring, and the burden wouldn't fall only on a few. The fact that this is *still how much social care operates* at the grassroots is why we've survived this long.

.

hmm i don't see what your getting at?

Your going to need big healthcare syndicates in cities, face it you need specialised knowledge to be a doctor

The point is that these unions would have to be organised horizontally, now under capitalism we don't have enough doctors, and work is delegated in a bureacracy and labour aristocracy.

So you need more doctors and a greater diffusion of knowledge to prevent that specialisation and bureacracy.

Your going to HAVE to keep patient records, otherwise you'd just give people the wrong treatment and kill them. But witha self organised union work can be democratically designated and shared to prevent bureacratisation of the health service.

Unless we were living in some non-existent primmo agrarian utopia your going to need a specialised health service thats why the democraticly horizontal organisation of unions is so neccesary.

I know i'm stating the obvious a bit here but i worry about this backward looking stance that some ''anarchist'' groups take.

john

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 27 2004 10:22

Well I think we agree on quite a lot.

You write:

"So you need more doctors and a greater diffusion of knowledge to prevent that specialisation and bureacracy."

To point at which we disagree is largely one of emphasis. During a situations where healthcare was a communal responsibility my aim would be to see the elimination of any seperation between 'doctors' and patients -- just like the divide between police and public would also be eliminated. If we can have self-policing, why not self-organised healthcare? Remember that most positive action on health is *preventative*, just like action against crime should be, and so best carried out at a community, everyday level -- rather than being handed over to an institution.

That's not to say you wouldn't have defined health syndicates -- just as you'd have defined polcing collectives. But hopefully the people involved would rotate, as we all gained greater knowledge about our own bodies.

I don't see how any of this is 'backward'. Good health depends on good diet, sanitation and no pollution -- we're going to have to do better than the past in these terms.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Mar 28 2004 13:07

thats ok i just had this worrying image on like a single community 'doctor' trying to deal with a cholera outbreak, thats the image that always fills my head whn i talk to primmos lol

sorry i just got the wrong end of the stick there

i think i agree with you, although the problem with rotation is that perhaps its a bit too utopian for our current level of understanding

It raises the problem of how you'd teach kids all this information if they were expected to have advanced medial knowledge and other technical skills. How could you do it without drilling the knowledge into them or something. Unfortunately mos libertarian schools (like ferrer) work around the principle of children exploring the areas they are interested in.

Certainly most of us who've grown up in capitalist society won't be able to learn those medical skills, i don't have a clue about a lot of medicine, failed my biology a level lol

I think rotation would be awesome but persoanally i doubt it will be possible for a long time, so specialised health syndicates will probably be neccesary i reckon.

I don't think they're that undesirable tho, i mean most synidcates will be specialised to some degree.

john

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 28 2004 21:48

Well this is what we mean when we say that the real revolution has only just started when the state is overthrown.

We'll change our entire attitude to things like learning, education and lifetime creative activity. Think of all hte time that's lost to work and recovering from work -- I'm sure we could all lean a lot about orselves in that time.

On another point, Cholera is caused by polluted drinking water. We'd all share the respnsibility of sorting that out (digging sewage systems, doing a shift at the water plant, etc) so in that way we'd already have health as a communal responsibility.

Anonymous
Mar 29 2004 13:35
cantdocartwheels wrote:

I think rotation would be awesome but persoanally i doubt it will be possible for a long time, so specialised health syndicates will probably be neccesary i reckon.

I don't think they're that undesirable tho, i mean most synidcates will be specialised to some degree.

I agree specialised health syndicates might be useful. The point is that who will decide who specialises.

Membership of the syndicate needs to be open to all, and to be on voluntary basis (this includes the possibility of opting-in and opting-out whenever you want) - the alternative is merely the return to a system in which the allocation of resources/work is governed by people other than ourselves (the state? the market?)

meanoldman
Offline
Joined: 15-01-04
Mar 29 2004 15:11

Many of the roles of doctors are simply not possible to rotate. To become a surgeon takes 6 years at university (3 years doing a medical degree, 3 years at clinical school) and then at least 2 years of further study before they reach the skill level of a surgeon. I can't see how it is feasible to rotate this kind of very specialist role.

I think rotation of all roles is a silly utopian ideal which has little basis in reality if we don't want to revert of a primitive society.

Quote:
I agree specialised health syndicates might be useful. The point is that who will decide who specialises.

Presumably the people who want to specialise. It would be nonsense to have others deciding what people should learn in an anarchist society.

Anonymous
Mar 29 2004 15:22
meanoldman wrote:
I can't see how it is feasible to rotate this kind of very specialist role.

come on - be a bit imaginative - the reason for that degree of specialism at the moment is because the effects of the hierarchies that surround us are so stultifying that our human capacities are stunted to the degree that we need to spend 7 years learning. If we were allowed to flourish we would only need a few days intensive training (or even basic medical skills would be common knowledge for everyone).

In short - if we don't all spend our time on production lines and doing other shitty jobs, we have more time to learn, which creates a more intelligent society, in which we are all able to develop our skills to much higher levels than those at present

Quote:
Presumably the people who want to specialise. It would be nonsense to have others deciding what people should learn in an anarchist society.

I agree - but surely self-selection and specialisation are incompatible? Otherwise we are all specialists - the idea of specialisation surely involves a group of people deciding that one person is a specialist and another isn't? - hence it's not self-selection, but other-selection

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Mar 29 2004 19:02
Quote:
come on - be a bit imaginative - the reason for that degree of specialism at the moment is because the effects of the hierarchies that surround us are so stultifying that our human capacities are stunted to the degree that we need to spend 7 years learning. If we were allowed to flourish we would only need a few days intensive training

Are you mental?! Maybe in the Monty Python School of Surgery you could train to be a surgeon in a few days but in the real world you can't. I'd love to see what you'd do if you needed surgery "A brain surgeon?! Fuck that, I'll train a couple of monkeys to do it. Can't be that hard. Gimme a week tops....."

Sorry bruv but in the free society we wish to create, we're not all gonna be surgeons. Have you ever seen the inside of a body? It's very complicated. And I don't think it's capitalist and state social limitations making our brain unable to comprehend it that makes it like that, the human body is just complicated. Also, you seem to be overlooking the chance that not everyone will want to be a surgeon. Sure lots prolly will but not everyone. People who don't like gore for one thing. And people who just can't be arsed (like me) and would rather do summat else apart from surgery. This is why self-selection and specialisation are compatable, some people will want to be surgeons and some won't. SOME will CHOOSE to SPECIALISE.

Anyway, I for one, wouldn't let you operate on me after a few days at a blackboard. Christ mate, I can't believe I'm arguing that it takes longer than a few days to be a surgeon. This is easily the most bizarre political discussion I've ever been involved in. Mr. T Mr. T Mr. T

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 29 2004 20:00

Doctors don't cause good heath. Many people in hospital right now are there for illnesses brought on by the action of doctors -- iatrogenic disorders.

We need to move away from a system where we go to other people to be sorted out when we get ill, to one where we all have responsibility for amintaining good health.

how many doctors are surgeons? How many acts of surgery are realted to existing under capitalism? Most doctors simply sit there handing over large amounts of chemicals when what their patients really need is rest, relaxation and good food.