Anarchism. being somehow privileged or more advanced than others>

[TremulousTetra]

You're quoting yourself, I think. You're calling yourself an anarchist now? That could be fun, I suppose. Ernesto played the same game, before be was banned for some imaginary crime or other.

no mate.I do consider the anarchist's comrades of the socialist, revolutionary comrades, rather than anarchist comrades. Does that make sense?

 

[TremulousTetra]

What sort of "social change"?

the kind that the "class struggle anarchist" in the original OP was referring to.

 

[Random]

VP, you're the expert, what do we say next?

 

[butchersapron]

the kind that the "class struggle anarchist" in the original OP was referring to.

Hey. freak, who are you quoting?

 

[Random]

Hey. freak, who are you quoting?

Andrew X iirc

 

[butchersapron]

Nope

(edit: andrew did write the piece but i meant the quote "class struggle anarchist")

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'll probably regret asking this, but what's the difference between an activist expert and a Leninist vanguard?

precisely! Very good question. No difference to my mind in the immediate sense of the question. anarchism is one university of the class. Socialism another. Reformism. Etc. Etc.

The difference may be in how you apply that expertise.

 

[butchersapron]

Brilliant, we now have progressed to arguing for the characteristion of experts in the excerpt. To arguing it's a situation to be aimed for

 

[Random]

precisely! Very good question. No difference to my mind in the immediate sense of the question. anarchism is one university of the class. Socialism another. Reformism. Etc. Etc.

The difference may be in how you apply that expertise.

Still trying to 'prove' to anarchists that they're really vanguardists? As the article you linked to shows, there are anarchists who are aware that lots of non-Leninist activism can result in "soft vanguardism", and they're against it. As are all anarchists, really. I'd doubt that any anarcho worth the name would be in a community campaign meeting thinking "how can I lead this lot of locals down the right path; I'm the expert, after all." Whereas that kind of thinking is inherent in Leninism.

 

[TremulousTetra]

VP, you're the expert, what do we say next?

and you mate. You are certainly more of an expert on anarchism than I am. Certainly more of an expert on social change, how it has occurred, and ideas as to how we could create social change towards a more progressive society in the future, than most of the people I speak to.why you would deny this obvious fact, has been given no justification. By anyone.

 

[Random]

Brilliant, we now have progressed to arguing for the characteristion of experts in the excerpt. To arguing it's a situation to be aimed for

Otherwise you're in favour of amateur surgery.

 

[Random]

and you mate. You are certainly more of an expert on anarchism than I am. Certainly more of an expert on social change, how it has occurred, and ideas as to how we could create social change towards a more progressive society in the future, than most of the people I speak to.why you would deny this obvious fact, has been given no justification. By anyone.

Knowing something about anarchism doesn't make you an "expert at social change". Like I said about the example of the meeting. Some at the meeting may be old hand campaigners, but does that mean they'll necessarily be the most effective, or should deserve to automatically have a leading role?

Edit: the whole point about social change is that it happens in society, by society, rather than being a technique performed by experts on society.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Still trying to 'prove' to anarchists that they're really vanguardists? As the article you linked to shows, there are anarchists who are aware that lots of non-Leninist activism can result in "soft vanguardism", and they're against it. As are all anarchists, really. I'd doubt that any anarcho worth the name would be in a community campaign meeting thinking "how can I lead this lot of locals down the right path; I'm the expert, after all." Whereas that kind of thinking is inherent in Leninism.

you make a very good point. But let's just come back to that later. How about some kind of notion that anarchism is some kind of University of the class? Maybe one University amongst many, but still a university. If it isn't, what is the point of all anarchist reading, thought etc, if it is not to understand how social change occurred in the past, so we can intervene to make it move in a more progressive direction in the future?

 

[Random]

you make a very good point. But let's just come back to that later.

You do this a lot, you know? If I make a good point, does that mean you agree with it, or you're ignoring it and spinning off at another different tangent? You can understand why the second option would be unsatisfactory in a discussion, I hope?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Knowing something about anarchism doesn't make you an "expert at social change". Like I said about the example of the meeting. Some at the meeting may be old hand campaigners, but does that mean they'll necessarily be the most effective, or should deserve to automatically have a leading role?

excellent point, wouldn't deny it for one moment.

Edit: the whole point about social change is that it happens in society, by society, rather than being a technique performed by experts on society.

so what is the point of being a revolutionary? What is the point in doing anything? Why don't we just sit around and wait, if social change is 'inevitable'? [I know you haven't used the word inevitable.]

even if it is "Propaganda of the deed", as one of your comrades suggested, surely as the philosophers of the French Revolution suggested, we have to intervene in history, not just watch it. And if we're going to intervene in history, how do we do so?

 

[TremulousTetra]

You do this a lot, you know? If I make a good point, does that mean you agree with it, or you're ignoring it and spinning off at another different tangent? You can understand why the second option would be unsatisfactory in a discussion, I hope?

even in your sentence above, I don't agree your interpretation of Vanguardism, is the same one I subscribe to. Quite prepared to come back to it, but in order to do so we need to thrash out some agreement on foundation issues imo.

if you insist, we can go straight to the vanguardism.

 

[Random]

if you insist, we can go straight to the vanguardism.

I'd prefer to discuss what we're discussing. Do you disagree that Leninists in campaigns have a need to take a lead, that this kind of thinking is demanded of them by their party, and that this is part of vanguardism?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Still trying to 'prove' to anarchists that they're really vanguardists? As the article you linked to shows, there are anarchists who are aware that lots of non-Leninist activism can result in "soft vanguardism", and they're against it. As are all anarchists, really. I'd doubt that any anarcho worth the name would be in a community campaign meeting thinking "how can I lead this lot of locals down the right path; I'm the expert, after all." Whereas that kind of thinking is inherent in Leninism.

it is not soft vanguardism it Substitutionism, something any proper Vanguardist''s should argue against. [See my point?]

 

[butchersapron]

I'd prefer to discuss what we're discussing. Do you disagree that Leninists in campaigns have a need to take a lead, that this kind of thinking is demanded of them by their party, and that this is part of vanguardism?

Ask him if he agrees that vangaurdism is inherently a cross-class approach - and has to be.

 

[Random]

it is not soft vanguardism it Substitutionism, something any proper Vanguardist''s should argue against. [See my point?]

No, trying to lead a campaign is vanguardism. Leninist think this is better than substitutionism as they're not substituting the class, they're leading the class and taking it along with them. Both approaches sees activist experts as outside the class.

 

[Random]

Ok I've run out of VP/DLR-juice and am off to bake a cake

 

[butchersapron]

No, trying to lead a campaign is vanguardism. Leninist think this is better than substitutionism as they're not substituting the class, they're leading the class and taking it along with them. Both approaches sees activist experts as outside the class.

...or worse, as the class, as the self-anointed bearers of the interests of the class.

 

[1%er]

Ask him if he agrees that vangaurdism is inherently a cross-class approach - and has to be.

I thought vanguardism was the study of people who sit in the back of security vans until I discovered the SWP

 

[Athos]

.

 

[eoin_k]

Ok I've run out of VP/DLR-juice and am off to bake a cake

Probably for the best before you persuade ResistanceMP3 to give anarchism a try.

 

[Athos]

one anarchist, doesn't know what another anarchist means? LOL
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.

who would have thunk it?

The idea that every anarchist understands every other is ridiculous.

And I wanted to know what YOU meant.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Still trying to 'prove' to anarchists that they're really vanguardists? As the article you linked to shows, there are anarchists who are aware that lots of non-Leninist activism can result in "soft vanguardism", and they're against it. As are all anarchists, really. I'd doubt that any anarcho worth the name would be in a community campaign meeting thinking "how can I lead this lot of locals down the right path; I'm the expert, after all." Whereas that kind of thinking is inherent in Leninism.

Oh, right, is that the game we're playing today? Jolly good.

I am the vanguard, everyone follow me.

 

[chilango]

excellent point, wouldn't deny it for one moment.
so what is the point of being a revolutionary? What is the point in doing anything? Why don't we just sit around and wait, if social change is 'inevitable'? [I know you haven't used the word inevitable.]

Finally, you're getting close.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'd prefer to discuss what we're discussing. Do you disagree that Leninists in campaigns have a need to take a lead, that this kind of thinking is demanded of them by their party, and that this is part of vanguardism?

but that wasn't what we were discussing in the thread. We were discussing anarchism. and specifically the idea raised by anarchists that they have no expertise.

From this could flow a discussion of anarchism, and its counter idea,, its anti-thesis to vanguardism. How it is different. And how it is the same. Sure! But I will answer your question, if it leads us back to discussing the topic of anarchism.


Vanguardist's who recognise that we cannot substitute for the class, the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, do seek to have as much influence as possible amongst the working class, to achieve our shared goals. So yes, they do seek to lead by example and the word, the working class into emancipating itself.

But while we seek this influence, we recognise that others are also seeking influence/lead by example and the word. IE anarchists. one of your 'comrades' mentioned "propaganda of the deed". "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward a position" in your case the position "all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished." including the workers state.

 

[chilango]

but that wasn't what we were discussing in the thread. We were discussing anarchism. and specifically the idea raised by anarchists that they have no expertise.

From this could flow a discussion of anarchism, and its counter idea,, its anti-thesis to vanguardism. How it is different. And how it is the same. Sure! But I will answer your question, if it leads us back to discussing the topic of anarchism.


Vanguardist's who recognise that we cannot substitute for the class, the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, do seek to have as much influence as possible amongst the working class, to achieve our shared goals. So yes, they do seek to lead by example and the word, the working class into emancipating itself.

But while we seek this influence, we recognise that others are also seeking influence/lead by example and the word. IE anarchists. one of your 'comrades' mentioned "propaganda of the deed". "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward a position" in your case the position "all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished." including the workers state.

You keep switching between anarchism and activism. They're not the same y'know. Which one do you want to discuss?