Anarchism. being somehow privileged or more advanced than others>

[Blagsta]

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

Why would Nick Griffin want that sort of social change?

 

[1%er]

You keep switching between anarchism and activism. They're not the same y'know.

Your right anarchists sit around getting pissed indoors and talk about changing the world and activists sit around getting pissed and they go out to talk about changing the world, the problem is they are all so pissed that no one in their right mind listens to any of them.

 

[krink]

i'm teetotal.

 

[Random]

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.

You're painting a picture of Leninists being basically like anarchists, but Leninists will also try to get into as many elected positions as possible, as in the Stop the War 'coalition' and the anti poll tax federation. Leninists consider themselves, and their own unique party, to be the 'memory and brain of the working class'. Anarchists, on the other hand, think that they and their theories have something to offer, but their relationship is that of a dialogue, of the class with itself. Leninists derive academic theories from their professional intellectuals and then seek to enact them, whereas anarchist practice should be based on lessons from working class self-activity.

Consider the Russian anarchist Voline's behaviour towards the first Petrograd Soviet in 1905. He and other anarchists were involved in hatching the idea for the soviet, but then made it very clear that it was then the role of the workers themselves to run it. Whereas Lenin was outright suspicious of the Soviet, called for it to be sidelined, and then in 1917 the Leninists decided to take over the Soviets as far as possible and use them to enact their ideas.

Sorry for the Russia example!

So RMP3, anarchists do see themselves as having something to iffer, and think that it's important to get involved, but they reject the idea that their anarchist theories, or their anarchist organisation are what everyone should be following.

In practice far too many anarchist and libertarian activists are involved in forms of soft vanguardism, but that's more related to the fact that the social role of the activist has become very professionalised in the last 309 years of working class defeats in the UK.

 

[Athos]

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.

I have two problems with vanguardists trying to 'influence' the working class: first, is the way that you do so i.e. by hijacking movements, packing meetings etc. - effectively imposing your will on the working class; this concern is heightened by the second issue, which is that so many of you are from outside the working class. This is true both in socio-economic terms, and also as an inevitable consequence of the power relationship you seek to construct: there must be a difference between leaders and followers.

If your point is to try to suggest that anarchists are necessarily vanguardists, then you're way off the mark. Some can fall into that trap e.g. when they distinguish themselves from the rest of the working class by defining themselves as activists in the way criticised in the article which you quoted, but, generally, the vast majority recognise the dangers of doing so.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

I am?
When did that vote happen, and why didn't I get the memo, comrade?

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

RMP3 won't "get" this point. He never does.

 

[Athos]

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

Which, rather conveniently, means that their enemies are necessarily enemies of the class. Such that a self-appointed elite from outside the working class can act in what it deems to be in the workers' interest, and persecute workers who have the audacity to do what they believe to be in the workers' (i.e. their own) interest!

Better than those famous Seattle Substitutionists, though.

 

[Random]

I am? When did that vote happen, and why didn't I get the memo, comrade?

There was no vote, the technocrats just decided. You're our Mario Monti.

 

[1%er]

i'm teetotal.

You mean you type all that shit and talk all this bollocks and your not even pissed? Not really sure what that makes you

 

[krink]

it'll be the crack talking

 

[1%er]

it'll be the crack talking

You mean crackpot surely

 

[ViolentPanda]

There was no vote, the vanguard technocrats just decided. You're our Mario Monti.

*hunts for sharp knife to slash own throat*

 

[1%er]

Clearly some here are leaders and others are followers

 

[The39thStep]

You're painting a picture of Leninists being basically like anarchists, but Leninists will also try to get into as many elected positions as possible, as in the Stop the War 'coalition' and the anti poll tax federation. Leninists consider themselves, and their own unique party, to be the 'memory and brain of the working class'. Anarchists, on the other hand, think that they and their theories have something to offer, but their relationship is that of a dialogue, of the class with itself. Leninists derive academic theories from their professional intellectuals and then seek to enact them, whereas anarchist practice should be based on lessons from working class self-activity.

Consider the Russian anarchist Voline's behaviour towards the first Petrograd Soviet in 1905. He and other anarchists were involved in hatching the idea for the soviet, but then made it very clear that it was then the role of the workers themselves to run it. Whereas Lenin was outright suspicious of the Soviet, called for it to be sidelined, and then in 1917 the Leninists decided to take over the Soviets as far as possible and use them to enact their ideas.

Sorry for the Russia example!

So RMP3, anarchists do see themselves as having something to iffer, and think that it's important to get involved, but they reject the idea that their anarchist theories, or their anarchist organisation are what everyone should be following.

In practice far too many anarchist and libertarian activists are involved in forms of soft vanguardism, but that's more related to the fact that the social role of the activist has become very professionalised in the last 309 years of working class defeats in the UK.

Interesting observation , explain a bit more

 

[Random]

Interesting observation , explain a bit more

I meant 30 yrs. Still interesting?

Based on my ten years of 'activism' it seems to me that most campaigns on the anarcholeft are kept going by a few self-nominated highly motivated people who are highly committed to activism as a way of life. In the 1990s most of these were on the dole; nowadays it seems that more and more are trust-funded or employed by various NGOs or other groups. Although libertarian campaigners often talk about being part of broad-based movements they're often drawn from a very narrow demographic. Maybe you can tell me whether this was at all different, 30 years ago?

 

[chilango]

I meant 30 yrs. Still interesting?

Based on my ten years of 'activism' it seems to me that most campaigns on the anarcholeft are kept going by a few self-nominated highly motivated people who are highly committed to activism as a way of life. In the 1990s most of these were on the dole; nowadays it seems that more and more are trust-funded or employed by various NGOs or other groups. Although libertarian campaigners often talk about being part of broad-based movements they're often drawn from a very narrow demographic. Maybe you can tell me whether this was at all different, 30 years ago?

These permanent activists are the ones that provide a consistent stream of activity for others to pass in and out of.

This provides an element of continuity that would otherwise be lacking - except for the contributions provided by interested ex-activists and those involved with maintaining ideological traditions (SolFed, AFed, most of the Left groups etc,) whose observations provide "political" context.

I remember in the 90s there was growing divide between the full-time activists and those whose campaigning was only one part of their life. For many of the activists it became de rigeur to sneer at the "weekenders" who couldn't/wouldn't commit to full-time, full-on activism. This caused a damaging separation, one fully exploited by the State as it led the activists into set piece battles like the Newbury Bypass campaign and the later round of summit-hopping.

This experience led many from those days to reflect seriously on the nature of activism as a "role" (in Vaneigem's sense of the word)...I don't know if other generations or traditions have done the same. I'd certainly be interested in reading them if they have...

 

[butchersapron]

Militancy - Highest stage of Alienation - could have been called activism- Highest stage of Alienation.

(wtf does chrome insist on fucking about with quotes?)

 

[TremulousTetra]

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 sort of "social change"?

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

Why would Nick Griffin want that sort of social change?

for me, any of you anarchists are more expert in achieving the kind of social change the class struggle anarchist in the original post was talking about, than Nick Griffin. You are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. In fact I would say most of you are even more expert than him about fascism.

The point is, the class struggle anarchist in the original post in RIGHTLY decrying substitutionism, went too far in my opinion when he tried to also decry expertise. Some people ain't interested in politics, some people are. Fact.

not only that, some of the people guilty of substitutionism that I have worked with, the direct action network, were worthy of a massive amount of respect I felt, for their expertise. [The mentality of the original post talks about, led to a certain amount of sectarianism towards able-bodied people. It was a coalition of anarchists and socialists over disability issues.]

 

[Athos]

for me, any of you anarchists are more expert in achieving the kind of social change the class struggle anarchist in the original post was talking about, than Nick Griffin. You are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. In fact I would say most of you are even more expert than him about fascism.

The point is, the class struggle anarchist in the original post in RIGHTLY decrying substitutionism, went too far in my opinion when he tried to also decry expertise. Some people ain't interested in politics, some people are. Fact.

not only that, some of the people guilty of substitutionism that I have worked with, the direct action network, were worthy of a massive amount of respect I felt, for their expertise. [The mentality of the original post talks about, led to a certain amount of sectarianism towards able-bodied people. It was a coalition of anarchists and socialists over disability issues.]

You seem to have missed the point. The article doesn't decry those who have gained knowledge through participating in the struggle per se, but rather those who allow that to skew their thinking, such that they define themselves as activists, and see themselves as different from (and acting on behalf of/leading) the working class.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You seem to have missed the point. The article doesn't decry those who have gained knowledge through participating in the struggle per se, but rather those who allow that to skew their thinking, such that they define themselves as activists, and see themselves as different from (and acting on behalf of/leading) the working class.

well considering it has been so long, and the other anarchist has contradicted you, I will assume what you have said is a fairly well shared position amongst the anarchists on here.


AHHHHHHHH, AT LAST, after six pages of asking similar questions somebody finally admits there is no point in denying " those who have gained knowledge through participating in the struggle per se" their knowledge/expetise. that was the point of my questions for the last 6 pages ie anarchists such as VP, Random etc are indeed more knowledgeable/expert than many people in the working-class. So long, just to establish such a basic obvious fact.


There is nothing wrong in my opinion, in suggesting that anarchists educate themselves in, by reading and being involved in the class struggle, in the class struggle. That they develop a level of expertise, many other working class people could attain, but show no interest in.

The same is true of many activists. I had nothing but admiration for the level of expertise the anarchists in the direct action network I was involved with, had developed. But there was a level of substitutionism.

There is also nothing wrong with the SWP suggesting, "the party should try to be the University of the class". It is saying no different to the paragraph above I have said about anarchists such as VP.


Now before somebody jumps down my throat, none of the last four paragraphs suggests, that's a good expert never forgets how to learn. Any class struggle expert, should always be looking to learn from the working-class. But this is a side issue for now.





In my opinion, this is your* problem "(and acting on behalf of/leading)", when you try to deal with the arguments of your enemy. I have never met one single member of the SWP who does not argue for leadership, whilst arguing against acting on behalf of the working class. You conflate two different things, and described that view to such as myself, when I don't hold it. Same with random.




*When I say your problem, in my experience you are not quite as sectarian as the others. And perhaps enemy is too strong a word for you.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

VP was just a random example, to try to establish a basic fact. Thankfully, Athos has come clean. Can you now do the same? lol

 

[Athos]

well considering it has been so long, and the other anarchist has contradicted you, I will assume what you have said is a fairly well shared position amongst the anarchists on here.

I don't purport to speak for anyone else.

AHHHHHHHH, AT LAST, after six pages of asking similar questions somebody finally admits...

I haven't 'admitted' anything. I just explained what the article was saying, and how you had missed its central point. I didn't say that I agree with everything that the article says.

... there is no point in denying " those who have gained knowledge through participating in the struggle per se" their knowledge/expetise.

Well, as a matter of logic, it would be ridiculous to deny that those who have gained knowledge, have gained knowledge, wouldn't it? What is your point?

that was the point of my questions for the last 6 pages ie anarchists such as VP, Random etc are indeed more knowledgeable/expert than many people in the working-class. So long, just to establish such a basic obvious fact.

But that's not the point. It's just a bit of petty point-scoring and semantics. The central question is what that expertise means. More particularly, what it means for people to define themselves as experts, and specialise in activism. It's about the way in which expertise affects the relationship between activists and the rest of the working class. It's an interesting and important point, and worthy of more than an opportunity for you to score points.

There is nothing wrong in my opinion, in suggesting that anarchists educate themselves in, by reading and being involved in the class struggle, in the class struggle. That they develop a level of expertise, many other working class people could attain, but show no interest in.

You're still not addressing the important point; how that expertise can create a dynamic within the working class.

The same is true of many activists. I had nothing but admiration for the level of expertise the anarchists in the direct action network I was involved with, had developed. But there was a level of substitutionism.

Which I think is a bad thing.

There is also nothing wrong with the SWP suggesting, "the party should try to be the University of the class". It is saying no different to the paragraph above I have said about anarchists such as VP.

Yes it is both wrong and different. It is about the creation of a relationship between groups within the working class, and the balance of power between those groups.

In my opinion, this is your* problem "(and acting on behalf of/leading)", when you try to deal with the arguments of your enemy. I have never met one single member of the SWP who does not argue for leadership, whilst arguing against acting on behalf of the working class. You conflate two different things, and described that view to such as myself, when I don't hold it. Same with random.

Explain to me the difference between the sort of 'leading' that the SWP does and acting on behalf of. Both on a philosophical level, and in terms of real-life action.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You're painting a picture of Leninists being basically like anarchists, but Leninists will also try to get into as many elected positions as possible, as in the Stop the War 'coalition' and the anti poll tax federation.

<THIS is a real distinction between anarchists and socialists. And a key mistake in my opinion for anarchist's. So I would sincerely like you to explain why? Why refuse to represent those who wish to elect you? After all, as anarchists keep telling me, you are working class.

Leninists consider themselves, and their own unique party, to be the 'memory and brain of the working class'. Anarchists, on the other hand, think that they and their theories have something to offer, but their relationship is that of a dialogue, of the class with itself. Leninists derive academic theories from their professional intellectuals and then seek to enact them, whereas anarchist practice should be based on lessons from working class self-activity.

well this Leninist would also condemn any 'Leninist'who behaved in the fashion you have painted. Fortunately, that is not how I would work, and nor would it be the way of anybody I have met in the SWP. It's a strawman that is so often painted on here.

Consider the Russian anarchist Voline's behaviour towards the first Petrograd Soviet in 1905. He and other anarchists were involved in hatching the idea for the soviet, but then made it very clear that it was then the role of the workers themselves to run it. Whereas Lenin was outright suspicious of the Soviet, called for it to be sidelined, and then in 1917 the Leninists decided to take over the Soviets as far as possible and use them to enact their ideas.

Sorry for the Russia example!

Are you familiar with the accusations made against the anarchist in the Spanish Civil War, and their failure to assume the power the working-class wished them to take, and how this gifted the Stalinists?

The point I'm trying to make a, is that Lenin was wrong in 1905. And in my opinion, the anarchists were wrong in the Spanish Civil War. 1. We all make mistakes. 2. more importantly, the SWP have read about the same events and have come to a completely different analysis to you, of Vanguardism. >


Were you also in the SWP like VP? Did you ever come across the phrase, organically linked to the class? Have you read Trotsky's history of the Russian Revolution? How do you explain Lenin's vault fast on Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution? Listening to, and learning from the working class is absolutely central to MY Vanguardism.
You, VP etc are constantly trying to shoehorn me into a view I don't hold. Why? why not take on what the SWP really say which incorporates my views above about revolutionaries relationship to the working class which involves dialogue, and opposes substitutionism. You don't want to admit it, but my views are very very very similar to yours. Again, the key difference is over leadership imo.

So RMP3, anarchists do see themselves as having something to iffer, and think that it's important to get involved, but they reject the idea that their anarchist theories, or their anarchist organisation are what everyone should be following.

you don't think it would be better suited to achieving its aims, for the working-class to be won through discussion and example to the 'fact' 'that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class, and so must reject all forms of leadership"?

In practice far too many anarchist and libertarian activists are involved in forms of soft vanguardism, but that's more related to the fact that the social role of the activist has become very professionalised in the last 309 years of working class defeats in the UK.

I am a vanguardist, who is against substitutionism [acting on behalf of the working class] but who is for leadership [advocating a clear methodology for the emancipation of the working class, by the working class]. For me this is key problem that runs through your attacks upon the SWP etc. You conflate substitutionism and Vanguardism. For me, what these activists are doing has nothing to do with Vanguardism, in fact it is completely misunderstanding it. And you are misunderstanding if you think that is what I advocate. You, VP, and all the others can keep stating that is what I advocate, but I don't. Same for the SWP. We are completely against substitutionism, as I have made very clear in two threads, and over 15 pages.

But forget vanguardism, discuss the anarchist position on leadership, please.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well, as a matter of logic, it would be ridiculous to deny that those who have gained knowledge, have gained knowledge, wouldn't it?

Thank you.

OP

I just wondered what people think about some of the ideas raised in this quote.

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.

that's just one point, there are several other issues of interest i think.
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.

now what is wrong in me saying that you, random, VP have a level of knowledge about the history of class struggle and so are more advanced in your appreciation of the need for social change, than some other members of the working class and? [That is not stating you have to take up a leadership position, or you have to substitute yourself for the working class. You could have the appreciation, but not be doing anything about it whatsoever. Or you could have that appreciation, but at the same time appreciate that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class.]

 

[JHE]

Anarchists are more advanced

RMP3 appreciates their advanced appreciation

 

[TremulousTetra]

But that's not the point. It's just a bit of petty point-scoring and semantics. The central question is what that expertise means. More particularly, what it means for people to define themselves as experts, and specialise in activism. It's about the way in which expertise affects the relationship between activists and the rest of the working class. It's an interesting and important point, and worthy of more than an opportunity for you to score points.




You're still not addressing the important point; how that expertise can create a dynamic within the working class.

But does expertise have to create substitutionism? One can be and expert and be opposed to substitutionism, yes?


I am not pointscoring, in fact quite the opposite. As random correctly points out, I am trying to delineate how my vanguardism "indoctrinated" into to me by the SWP, has far more in common with anarchism, than anarchists wish to admit.

In my opinion to real division is over the issue of leadership.

 

[JHE]

No, no, no, no, no...

Look, RMP3. You've got to stop sucking up to them and pretending to find common ground. What you need here is a bit of Bolshevik steel.

Call them petit bourgeois counter-revolutionaries and, when they complain, taunt them by calling them partridges and then mutter darkly about tragic necessity.

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3 won't "get" this point. He never does.

you cannot give me a link to where you have explained this point! [waits to be proved wrong, and to make his due apology. ]

 

[ViolentPanda]

you cannot give me a link to where you have explained this point! [waits to be proved wrong, and to make his due apology. ]

For about the 5th time on this thread, I could provide you with a link, but I'm not going to. If anyone is interested (including you) they can undertake a mind-numbing search through your threads of the last 6 months, and (if they survive the experience unscarred) see for themselves that I have indeed made that point to you before.
Me, I'm certainly not going to waste time doing something for you that you could easily do yourself.