Anarchism. being somehow privileged or more advanced than others>

[ViolentPanda]

is this a thread where a trot explains to anarchists that he believes anarchists think they know what's best for the working classes better than the working classes do themselves; unlike the trots, who act as the vanguard for the revolution on behalf of the working classes who don't know that they want revolution but secretly they know they do.

You've got it nailed, bluey.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But one can be anti Islamist but not anti Islam surely?

Of course.

I haven't seen much evidence that such is the case with JHE.

 

[1%er]

Of course.

I haven't seen much evidence that such is the case with JHE.

I was going to say something in my first reply about not knowing the poster you were speaking with.

My point was as posted and not part of your discourse with JHE

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was going to say something in my first reply about not knowing the poster you were speaking with.

My point was as posted and not part of your discourse with JHE

Fair enough.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I have a problem with that...

...it's meaningless,banal and irrelevant to any of the more pertinent issues raised by the thread.

only if you accept it as an endpoint, rather than a starting point.

Violent Panda has conceded NOW that the terms advanced and backwards CAN be used in a non-elitist sense. The terms can be used purely in a relational way.

Now in a purely directional sense, in a none elitist sense, saying some members of the WC are more advanced towards anarchist/communist philosophy, and fascists are further away, more rearward, more backwards, is a statement of fact. Yes?

Now with those new glasses, revisit the discussion of Vanguardism. Given those new glasses, can you see how the analogy CAN BE INTERPRETED in a none elitist way?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Add to the above post;

"What is truth?" asked Pontius Pilate. In other words, it's a matter of perspective. Like many of those critical of the SWP, I've read various of the books that past and present members of the CC have put out; dipped into and out of their mag and paper, and formed an opinion based on a combination of that reading material and personal experience.

Your beliefs draw you toward one conclusion, mine draw me toward another.

IF ONLY, you would recognise this in your posts.

is this a thread where a trot explains to anarchists that he believes anarchists think they know what's best for the working classes better than the working classes do themselves; unlike the trots, who act as the vanguard for the revolution on behalf of the working classes who don't know that they want revolution but secretly they know they do.

You've got it nailed, bluey.

and they say anarchists don't have a party line.......

And the say anarchists don't tell lies. in FACT, in 40+ years of publications, meetings etc the SW have NEVER EVER said anyone can carry through a "revolution on behalf of the working classes". In FACT, in 40+ years of publications, meetings etc the SW have said the complete opposite.

 

[SpineyNorman]

so you agree with, "Now in a purely directional sense, in a none elitist sense, I see no problem whatsoever in saying you are more advanced towards anarchist philosophy, and fascists are further away, more rearward, more backwards."

Footballers are more advanced at football than hod carriers. Brickies are more advanced at brick laying than industrial cleaners.

 

[SpineyNorman]

And the say anarchists don't tell lies. in FACT, in 40+ years of publications, meetings etc the SW have NEVER EVER said anyone can carry through a "revolution on behalf of the working classes". In FACT, in 40+ years of publications, meetings etc the SW have said the complete opposite.

This is very frustrating. You've been told again and again that it's what they do that matters, not what they say. You seem very keen to discuss what they say/write and very reluctant to discuss what they do. I wonder why.

 

[1%er]

Footballers are more advanced at football than hod carriers.

Vinnie Jones being the exception that proves the rule

 

[SpineyNorman]

I don't know how good a hod carrier he was but he was a terrible footballer and an even worse actor.

 

[1%er]

I don't know how good a hod carrier he was but he was a terrible footballer and an even worse actor.

So he would have needed to be a crap hod carrier to prove your rule, is that right.

I'm sure someone here will know his skill level with a hod.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Footballers are more advanced at football than hod carriers. Wrickies are more advanced at brick laying than industrial cleaners.

precisely. So the anarchist in the OP, is wrong.http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm
Experts

By 'an activist mentality' what I mean is that people think of themselves primarily as activists and as belonging to some wider community of activists. The activist identifies with what they do and thinks of it as their role in life, like a job or career. In the same way some people will identify with their job as a doctor or a teacher, and instead of it being something they just happen to be doing, it becomes an essential part of their self-image.
The activist is a specialist or an expert in social change. To think of yourself as being an activist means to think of yourself as being somehow privileged or more advanced than others in your appreciation of the need for social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it and as leading or being in the forefront of the practical struggle to create this change.
Activism, like all expert roles, has its basis in the division of labour - it is a specialised separate task. The division of labour is the foundation of class society, the fundamental division being that between mental and manual labour. The division of labour operates, for example, in medicine or education - instead of healing and bringing up kids being common knowledge and tasks that everyone has a hand in, this knowledge becomes the specialised property of doctors and teachers - experts that we must rely on to do these things for us. Experts jealously guard and mystify the skills they have. This keeps people separated and disempowered and reinforces hierarchical class society.
A division of labour implies that one person takes on a role on behalf of many others who relinquish this responsibility. A separation of tasks means that other people will grow your food and make your clothes and supply your electricity while you get on with achieving social change. The activist, being an expert in social change, assumes that other people aren't doing anything to change their lives and so feels a duty or a responsibility to do it on their behalf. Activists think they are compensating for the lack of activity by others. Defining ourselves as activists means definingour actions as the ones which will bring about social change, thus disregarding the activity of thousands upon thousands of other non-activists. Activism is based on this misconception that it is only activists who do social change - whereas of course class struggle is happening all the time.

This is very frustrating. You've been told again and again that it's what they do that matters, not what they say. You seem very keen to discuss what they say/write and very reluctant to discuss what they do LI wonder why.

my point is that anarchists always want to project onto terms like; higher and lower levels of consciousness, or in the analogy of a Vanguard and train advanced and backwards, elitist connotations which don't exist. BlueStreak talks about trots wanting to carry out revolution on behalf of the working class, which is in FACT exactly the opposite to what SW say.

Now if anarchist are can't be trusted to present the reality of what socialist worker say, how can they be trusted to judge the evidence of their actions?

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm not an anarchist (I was in the SWP not that long ago, now I'm in the SP and although I prefer to think of myself as a kind of Marxist without adjectives, if that makes sense, most people on here would say I'm a Trot) yet I have pretty much the same judgement of what the SWP do as the anarchists you're raging against. Does that mean I can be trusted whereas they can't?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm not an anarchist (I was in the SWP not that long ago, now I'm in the SP and although I prefer to think of myself as a kind of Marxist without adjectives, if that makes sense, most people on here would say I'm a Trot) yet I have pretty much the same judgement of what the SWP do as the anarchists you're raging against. Does that mean I can be trusted whereas they can't?

but the purpose of my intervention in this forum, I've explained many many many times [beyond amusement which is the main criteria] is to try to get people to attack the SWP for what it say's, and what it does, instead of making shit up. No more no less.

is this a thread where a trot explains to anarchists that he believes anarchists think they know what's best for the working classes better than the working classes do themselves; unlike the trots, who act as the vanguard for the revolution on behalf of the working classes who don't know that they want revolution but secretly they know they do.

so as a fellow trot is this a fair representation of your position, or made up shit?

 

[Athos]

What the SWP does is...

... in FACT exactly the opposite to [they] say.

 

[TremulousTetra]

What the SWP does is...

Now we're getting somewhere.

So we have an alledged crime.So what is the motive?

 

[SpineyNorman]

so as a fellow trot is this a fair representation of your position, or made up shit?

I'd say it's a fairly accurate description of this thread.

 

[Athos]

Now we're getting somewhere.

So we have an alledged crime.So what is the motive?

Self-aggrandisement. Egotism. Getting laid. Various.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Self-aggrandisement. Egotism. Getting laid. Various.

So you are saying for the past 40 years socialist worker modus operandi, sustained modus operandi, has been determined by a series of character defects in their leadership?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I know that I shouldn't rise to your attempts to needle me, and that your assessment of my class is irrelevant.



But, for the record, I have never owned the means of production or had the ability to buy the labour power of others, and have always had to sell my own labour power to survive. In a Marxian sense, that makes me a worker.


And my social and economic background could only be described as working class: local comp, first in my family to stay at school past 16, parents are blue-collar workers etc.



But, more important are my loyalties, self-identification, and politics.



What I really hate is this prolier-than-thou bullshit. The idea that just doing a certain job immediately excludes you from a particular class is over-simplistic bollocks. I became a solicitor because, in my naivety, I thought it was a way to protect the weak from the strong. What of it?


I'm a working class man who won't be told to know his place by the likes of you.

what I hate, is this constant misrepresenting, misreading of what I said. I have asked you to discuss what you mean by middle-class, and you refused to discuss. There was no attempt to needle you, in fact an an explanation as to why this was a debatable comment FYPOV.
It is not me that is having a go at middle-class people. VP had a go at the socialist workers party purely on the basis, HE CLAIMS they are middle-class. I have said on several occasions I don't care about whether people are middle-class or not [giving as a perfectly legitimate reason imo the example of Engels and marx.]. So in No way can you interpret my comment as being prolier than thow, because actually defending middle-class people's involvement. It is not me that has the prolier than thou attitude, it is VP.
I have also explained I am not a workerist. I do not worship the working class. Which again pinpricks the idea I consider myself prolier than anybody.


Far more interesting.
You said you didn't want to discuss class, because it isn't relevant to the topic. However very few comments from anarchists have related to the topic of anarchism, the topic of the thread. So in my opinion the nature of class not being relevant to the original topic, is of no concern. So let's go forth.
Would you have described a teacher in the 1950s as middle-class? If yes, why? I think a teacher in the 1950s would have been considered middle-class, and the reasons to why he would be labelled as middle-class, remain pertinent to why many solicitors would remain labelled middle-class.
Another element of the Marxist definition of middle-class, was how much control you had over your own work process, wasn't it? I would imagine solicitors have far more control over their own work process, than the average teacher does today. And yet above, teachers were given as an example of how 'middle-class' the SWP is. If teachers make the SWP middle-class, then solicitors must make the anarchists middle-class? See my point?
Whether the Marxist model of class, ruling class, middle class, and proletariat, "is oversimplistic", depends surely upon what you intend the abstract tool to do. What you expect it to describe, or throw light upon. I would be the first to admit that such a simple model, is simple. Only having three classes. But I think personally it is by far the best tool for its intended purpose.

 

[Athos]

So you are saying for the past 40 years socialist worker modus operandi, sustained modus operandi, has been determined by a series of character defects in their leadership?

Not just the leadership.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Not just the leadership.

well done! I fine delineation of anarchist 'political' analysis.

 

[SpineyNorman]

So you are saying for the past 40 years socialist worker modus operandi, sustained modus operandi, has been determined by a series of character defects in their leadership?

I think the answer I gave you on the other thread (that you ignored, presumably out of discomfort) ought to suffice:

What precisely do you want? Lack of internal democracy allowing them to do this kind of thing. Little communication between branches (below the level of branch secretary) making it almost impossible for people to discuss concerns with people outside their own branch. The leaders would have had those character flaws regardless, but this is what allowed them to project those flaws onto the party as a whole and made it virtually impossible for the membership to reign them in.

 

[Athos]

what I hate, is this constant misrepresenting, misreading of what I said. I have asked you to discuss what you mean by middle-class, and you refused to discuss. There was no attempt to needle you, in fact an an explanation as to why this was a debatable comment FYPOV.
It is not me that is having a go at middle-class people. VP had a go at the socialist workers party purely on the basis, HE CLAIMS they are middle-class. I have said on several occasions I don't care about whether people are middle-class or not [giving as a perfectly legitimate reason imo the example of Engels and marx.]. So in No way can you interpret my comment as being prolier than thow, because actually defending middle-class people's involvement. It is not me that has the prolier than thou attitude, it is VP.
I have also explained I am not a workerist. I do not worship the working class. Which again pinpricks the idea I consider myself prolier than anybody.


Far more interesting.
You said you didn't want to discuss class, because it isn't relevant to the topic. However very few comments from anarchists have related to the topic of anarchism, the topic of the thread. So in my opinion the nature of class not being relevant to the original topic, is of no concern. So let's go forth.
Would you have described a teacher in the 1950s as middle-class? If yes, why? I think a teacher in the 1950s would have been considered middle-class, and the reasons to why he would be labelled as middle-class, remain pertinent to why many solicitors would remain labelled middle-class.
Another element of the Marxist definition of middle-class, was how much control you had over your own work process, wasn't it? I would imagine solicitors have far more control over their own work process, than the average teacher does today. And yet above, teachers were given as an example of how 'middle-class' the SWP is. If teachers make the SWP middle-class, then solicitors must make the anarchists middle-class? See my point?
Whether the Marxist model of class, ruling class, middle class, and proletariat, "is oversimplistic", depends surely upon what you intend the abstract tool to do. What you expect it to describe, or throw light upon. I would be the first to admit that such a simple model, is simple. Only having three classes. But I think personally it is by far the best tool for its intended purpose.

I didn't say class is irrelevant, but that it is tangential to the topic under discussion. Nor did I suggest that Marx's categorisation is an over-simplification. Rather that your syggestion that certain jobs automatically exclude someone from the working class is.

This thread is about 'anarchism being more advanced' whatever that means (I notice you've still not really defined it). But, as I said, if you start a thread about the way in which classes are defined, I'll take a look.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Add to the above post;

IF ONLY, you would recognise this in your posts.

Mmmm, because I'm not at all reflexive, am I?
Perhaps there's a reason beyond reflexivity why I don't recognise it. Ever stopped to consider that?

and they say anarchists don't have a party line.......

They don't tend to, unless they're platformists.

And the say anarchists don't tell lies.

Don't be an idiot. Everyone tells lies. It's part of the so-called "human condition".

in FACT, in 40+ years of publications, meetings etc the SW have NEVER EVER said anyone can carry through a "revolution on behalf of the working classes". In FACT, in 40+ years of publications, meetings etc the SW have said the complete opposite.

"In FACT" (because it makes all the difference in the world to the veracity of your assertion if you capitalise it!) they may not have used that form of words, but have they made statements that have led people from wildly-different political traditions to draw conclusions about the SWP which have similar sentiments? You betcha!

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is very frustrating. You've been told again and again that it's what they do that matters, not what they say. You seem very keen to discuss what they say/write and very reluctant to discuss what they do. I wonder why.

Nothing to do with their actions over time giving the lie to their words, oh no. not at all. No sirree, and anyone who says otherwise will be expelled!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Self-aggrandisement. Egotism. Getting laid. Various.

"Healyism", as I like to call it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

what I hate, is this constant misrepresenting, misreading of what I said. I have asked you to discuss what you mean by middle-class, and you refused to discuss. There was no attempt to needle you, in fact an an explanation as to why this was a debatable comment FYPOV.
It is not me that is having a go at middle-class people. VP had a go at the socialist workers party purely on the basis, HE CLAIMS they are middle-class.

On the basis that the majority of them are not of the working classes, that their prescriptions don't represent the interests of the working classes (they represent the interests that the SWP seek to attribute to the working classes).

I have said on several occasions I don't care about whether people are middle-class or not [giving as a perfectly legitimate reason imo the example of Engels and marx.]. So in No way can you interpret my comment as being prolier than thow, because actually defending middle-class people's involvement. It is not me that has the prolier than thou attitude, it is VP.

Of course it is.

I have also explained I am not a workerist. I do not worship the working class. Which again pinpricks the idea I consider myself prolier than anybody.

You couldn't really afford to be workerist as a Swappie, could you? At least not in the face you showed to fellow party-members. The proles on the other hand...

 

[Pickman's model]

what I hate, is this constant misrepresenting, misreading of what I said.

by 'misrepresenting' i take it you in fact mean 'representing'.