Anarchism. being somehow privileged or more advanced than others>

[Blagsta]

Not this time I'm not.I tried to say the absolute minimum. When that didn't work, I try to say a little bit more. It seems no matter what you say, no one is prepared to discuss the issue. Have raised it many times, same response.

I would imagine that the vast majority of people would see somebody like Chomsky as more advanced in the appreciation of social change, than some member of the Ku Klux Klan. Same goes for the likes of violent Panda compared to a BNP member.

so why don't virtually all the anarchists I've come across agree with the vast majority on this point? I'm not saying they should, I just want to hear an anarchist explanation.

I really don't know what point you're making. The article you refer to I have seen before, I think it says some odd things about class and I don't agree with all of it. So...what?

 

[eoin_k]

Seriously? So let me get this right, in anarchist society everybody would have a hand in healing, there wouldn't be any experts, no brain surgeons? Is that where that well-known anarchist phrase comes from, workers of the world unite, all you have to lose is your brains?
As I said, I did honestly like the article. Makes some interesting points, and makes you think about your own activity. But some of the points here and there, they are just peculiar...

Maybe they've been reading Marx more closely than you:

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

The social division of labour goes to the heart of Marx's critique of capitalism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Remind me. What was the question?

Note that when it comes to rmp3's utterances, we're supposed to let "the past be the past", and yet he's happy to dig up the past utterances of others (decontextualised, naturally!) to bolster his own arguments.
Am I catching a faint whiff of hypocrisy, or do I just need to change my socks?

 

[sim667]

There's a massive difference between thinking you're better than someone, and giving a fuck.

 

[dennisr]

is there a folder called "coventry" this thread could be moved to - and any other by the same poster?

 

[chilango]

RMP3, one thing you should bear in mind if this thread develops is that the views expressed in Do or Die! are not necessarily indicative of traditional/mainstream anarchist thought. Do or Die!, whilst many of it's contributors would self-identify as anarchists, contained pieces from a wide, heterogenous, range of people. From liberal environmentalists to fringe primitivists, from animal liberationists to marxist autonomists...and many, many more. Bearing this in mind articles from Do or Die! are not a good starting point for arguments on "what anarchists believe" however interesting or relevent the article itself is.

 

[Wilf]

Whitney Houston died.

..in vein (too early?)

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3, one thing you should bear in mind if this thread develops is that the views expressed in Do or Die! are not necessarily indicative of traditional/mainstream anarchist thought. Do or Die!, whilst many of it's contributors would self-identify as anarchists, contained pieces from a wide, heterogenous, range of people. From liberal environmentalists to fringe primitivists, from animal liberationists to marxist autonomists...and many, many more. Bearing this in mind articles from Do or Die! are not a good starting point for arguments on "what anarchists believe" however interesting or relevent the article itself is.

OK, cheeres for the head's up.

Take this text published in the wake of June the 18th, one of the high water marks of 'Anarchist' activism in recent decades:

http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm

* The inverted commas are an attempt to acknowledge that a lot of class struggle Anarchists have been critical of the sort of activism you are trying to critique for a long time. Also a lot of people who think that the activist scene shouldn't be completely dismissed as irrelevant and might be worth some (critical) engagement don't necessarily think of themselves as Anarchists or use theoretical tools from an Anarchist tradition to make sense of their politics.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Note that when it comes to rmp3's utterances, we're supposed to let "the past be the past", and yet he's happy to dig up the past utterances of others (decontextualised, naturally!) to bolster his own arguments.
Am I catching a faint whiff of hypocrisy, or do I just need to change my socks?

What RMP3 actually did in the other thread was not 'critique activism/substitutionism'; it was an unfounded and ill-conceived swipe at anarchism. Obviously, he showed himself to be ill-informed, prejudiced and dishonest.

And, in the meantime, the usual suspects repeated the usual nonsense.

But I did concede that mistake, and clarified that substitutionism [activism suggested be Eon] should have been my target.

I would support the en masse occupation of empty properties by homeless people, but not by a few people doing it on behalf of the working class. This is substitutionism. I don't know whether you are familiar with the term, and I wasn't clear in my original post, but I am clear now that what I am arguing against is substitutionism.

 

[butchersapron]

 

[TremulousTetra]

dp

 

[butchersapron]

It's a fools game

 

[TremulousTetra]

Are you asking whether anarchists believe that brain surgery should be carried out by amateurs? If so, then, whilst I can't speak for ask anarchists, I would reply: of course not, you tit.

Are you stupid, or being deliberately obtuse, to score cheap points?

Remind me. What was the question?

Why you being soft? I didn't flounce when you joshed me, I reciprocated. Get sense of humour.

 

[Athos]

Why you being soft? I didn't flounce when you joshed me, I reciprocated. Get sense of humour.

I didn't flounce, at all. I am genuinely confused by whatever point you're trying to make. Which is one thing we have in common, at least.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I didn't flounce, at all. I am genuinely confused by whatever point you're trying to make. Which is one thing we have in common, at least.

Do you accept that ie violent panda is more expert, is more advanced in the appreciation of social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it, than a BNP member ie NG?

 

[Athos]

Do you accept that ie violent panda is more expert, is more advanced in the appreciation of social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it, than a BNP member ie NG?

What does "more expert, is more advanced in the appreciation of social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it, than a BNP member ie NG" mean?

 

[dennisr]

"joshing" arf

 

[chilango]

Do you accept that ie violent panda is more expert, is more advanced in the appreciation of social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it, than a BNP member ie NG?

No.

 

[barney_pig]

Do you accept that ie violent panda is more expert, is more advanced in the appreciation of social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it, than a BNP member ie NG?

By more advanced, I presume you mean, more in agreement with. Certainly in terms of 'how to achieve it' neither anarchism nor the leninists have much of a track record of acheiving their aims (although the leninists and the inspirers of Cyclops have certainly killed more than their fair share in their enthusiasm).

 

[ViolentPanda]

No.

When he said that about me (in a different thread) I disagreed with him. he couldn't understand why.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Maybe they've been reading Marx more closely than you:



The social division of labour goes to the heart of Marx's critique of capitalism.

And so the division of Labour that existed in the Paris commune between those who were elected to organise and the rest, that Marx supported and was to inspire his life's work?

I don't think destruction of the structures that compel a division of Labour on class grounds, capitalism, negate a division of Labour for Marx. For me the difference is, the product of the division of Labour is held in common, and the process of the division of Labour is held in common, by producing democratic structures that negate the power of the expert, manager, or anyone.

So those in the Paris commune who held the 'power' to lead and organise, had that 'power' negated by the fact they were paid the average wage, electable and sackable. They don't have power, because they are controlled by the common.

To deal with your specific point, That ie Stephen Hawkings would be free to fish, to hunt etc, does not mean he would be compelled to be distracted from his expertise. This would be ridiculous. However exploitation of the many through the use of his expertise would be negated by holding in common the product of his expertise.


The notion that you can abolish, or even deny expertise is illogical. That violent panda is more expert, is more advanced in the appreciation of social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it, than a BNP member, is obvious to me. Is it not obvious to you?


So for me the activist's are often NOT mistaken to believe "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." They often are more expert. Where they are mistaken is to believe that they can substitute for the working class, bring about social change on behalf of the working class. The emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class, because until they know how to take power, they cannot know how to hold it in common and so negate it.


The only caveat I would add to that, is that the expert/teacher who forgets how to learn, is no longer a teacher/expert. The situation between a activist, and the working class is dynamic. As the experience of the Russian Revolution shows. Often the working class can be in advance of the activist. Even if you are not part of the class, as in the case of Marx and Engels, you have to be organically connected to the class, to achieve social change, social revolution.

[BTW violent Panda, I believe this last paragraph negates your argument about the socialist workers party not being part of the class. Though I don't necessarily accept your argument, the constituency of the SWP is not working class. We don't have the evidence to say one way or the other. I can only work off my own experience, and that says the vast majority of them were.]

 

[Athos]

That violent panda is more expert, is more advanced in the appreciation of social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it, than a BNP member, is obvious to me. Is it not obvious to you?

No. I don't know what it means. Will you explain?

 

[TremulousTetra]

"joshing" arf

for somebody who wants to send me to Coventry, you're not doing a very good job of it. Trolled ya.

 

[chilango]

"The notion that you can abolish, or even deny expertise is illogical. That violent panda is more expert, is more advanced in the appreciation of social change, in the knowledge of how to achieve it, than a BNP member, is obvious to me. Is it not obvious to you?"

The BNP member is also an "activist".

So even using your own argument, it is still not obvious.

 

[TremulousTetra]

No.

Fair enough, why?

 

[TremulousTetra]

When he said that about me (in a different thread) I disagreed with him. he couldn't understand why.

So, explain why.

 

[chilango]

See my post above for starters.

 

[Athos]

What does the statement mean RMP3?

 

[Lo Siento.]

do people still use "advanced" when they mean more radical/militant? Bit 1920s, isn't it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So, explain why.

I did, at great length.