Anarchism. being somehow privileged or more advanced than others>

[Random]

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

So you're implying that I'm lying? Go fuck yourself

 

[chilango]

And yet, what do young leftist radicals do after stating these obvious truths? They enter the service of a Cause--the 'best' of all Causes. The time they have for creative activity they squander handing out leaflets, putting up posters, demonstrating or heckling local politicians. They become militants, fetishizing action because others are doing their thinking for them. Sacrifice seems to have an endless series of tricks up its sleeve.

 

[chilango]

RMP3:

Imho, your argument, such as it is, continues to veer defiantly away from a coherent point because you seem to be clinging onto a number of mistaken assumptions.

1/ You will not get anything approaching a definitive Anarchist postition on your questions till they contain more substance and clarity. It's like grasping at smoke at the moment. Neither will you get a anarchist party line to enter into a polemic with because there simply isn't one.

2/ You continue to conflate "interest in" "experience of" "knowledge" and "expertise" as if they are interchangeable. They are not. You seem to be arguing that because activists (be they SWPs or Anarchists) have "an interest in" class struggle (let's stop using half-assed meaningless terms like "progressive social change") that this somehow turns into "expertise". It doesn't. I am very interested in football. I've played for years and years. I love Manchester United. I know loads of trivia regarding the club. Have I ever or will I ever play for United? (i.e. be an expert) No. (Although Sir Alex, if you're reading, I am free at weekends...). So, similarly just because an Anarchist or Socialist is interested in, and spends time partaking in "class struggle" activism does not mean they are going to be any good at it.

3/ You are completely missing the point of the critique you quote in the OP. it is not about "leadership" as such. It is about the "role of the militant". To put it simply, self-identification as an activist leads to a number of problems. Substitution is one. Martyrdom is another. Plain old Hobbyism is perhaps the most common.

So, whilst the nature of leadership, and the various positions regarding it is a valid question, you have to stop distracting everyone by introducing (imho) muddle-headed confusion by trying to fit the argument into your script.

 

[chilango]

<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. 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.

A couple of points on this.

1/ Why would you want to represent anyone or anything? This encourages (to use terms in their specific Situationist - and thus Marxist Iguess - sense) Seperation and Alienation. The idea is surely to select temporary, recallable delegates for specific circumstances.

2/ Most people's experience of Leninist's in elections are twofold: i/ pathetic performance in elections clearly showing actually at the moment people do not "wish to elect you". ii) or conversely where circumstances allow "playing the system" to manipulate elections so that Leninists are elected despite a lack of widespread support. I personally have witnessed this in Student unions, trade unions and in campaign groups. Leninists are "experts" in exploiting bureaucratic processes i'll give you that!

 

[Athos]

RMP3, you seem to miss the importance of the concept of 'expertise'. It is not same as knowledge.

First, 'expertise' implies some technical skill, whereas 'knowledge' does not: there are many in the working class who, at an instinctive level, KNOW that things need to change, but wouldn't have the first clue if you started discussing the finer points of Marxism i.e. they aren't experts in an academic sense. Thus a focus on 'expertise' leads to alienation and separation (in the ordinary senses of the words) of technocrats from the working class.

Secondly, 'Knowledge' merely implies some objective level understanding, whereas 'expertise' implies comparison i.e. between the expert and the non-expert. A natural consequence of which is that those who define themselves as experts can easily fall into the trap of believing that they are more able to bring about change, on behalf of those less able i.e. substitutionism. This is heightened when, through vanguardism, they also believed themselves to be better placed to do so i.e. at the head of a movement.

Furthermore, depending on the form that leadership takes, the difference between vanguardism and substitutionism can be imperceptible. When leadership means little more than hijacking movements and imposing your own agenda, as is so many people's experience of the SWP, the line is crossed.

 

[barney_pig]

RMP3, you seem to miss the importance of the concept of 'expertise'. It is not same as knowledge.

First, 'expertise' implies some technical skill, whereas 'knowledge' does not: there are many in the working class who, at an instinctive level, KNOW that things need to change, but wouldn't have the first clue if you started discussing the finer points of Marxism i.e. they aren't experts in an academic sense. Thus a focus on 'expertise' leads to alienation and separation (in the ordinary senses of the words) of technocrats from the working class.

Secondly, 'Knowledge' merely implies some objective level understanding, whereas 'expertise' implies comparison i.e. between the expert and the non-expert. A natural consequence of which is that those who define themselves as experts can easily fall into the trap of believing that they are more able to bring about change, on behalf of those less able i.e. substitutionism. This is heightened when, through vanguardism, they also believed themselves to be better placed to do so i.e. at the head of a movement.

Furthermore, depending on the form that leadership takes, the difference between vanguardism and substitutionism can be imperceptible. When leadership means little more than hijacking movements and imposing your own agenda, as is so many people's experience of the SWP, the line is crossed.

as for example, the sudden appearance of 'Right to Work' activists in the workfare campaign; having completely ignored the cause for months/years, suddenly on sunday they sit in at a tescos local (with a convenient camera crew in tow) and now as if by magic they are the spokespersons for the campaign.
from swp party notes:

"Right to Work organised protests at short notice over Tesco’s employment of people sent by the government to work for free for 30 hours a week for up to eight weeks.
Stores were hit in areas including Glasgow, Manchester, Norwich and London. The stunts achieved a lot of good publicity. And we want more pressure on Tesco (who are already running scared over this).
Right to Work is calling for a day of action against Tesco stores this Wednesday 22 February.
In London we will be targeting the Tesco in the City of London from 5pm – Tesco, 164 Bishopsgate, City of London, Greater London EC2M 4LN
Can you hold a protest in your area? There are placards, leaflets etc on the RTW website www.rightw ork .org.uk If you, or anyone you know, has been on one of these schemes, please let RTW know."

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you, or anyone you know, has been on one of these schemes, please let RTW know."

At least they're being (probably unwittingly) honest about the fact that they've got fuck-all connection to people who're actually out-of-work.

 

[TremulousTetra]

So you're implying that I'm lying? Go fuck yourself

No, I didn't intend that, so sorry.

 

[butchersapron]

go to hell

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3:



Imho, your argument, such as it is, continues to veer defiantly away from a coherent point because you seem to be clinging onto a number of mistaken assumptions

my state of political consciousness has been acknowledged, and described many times by myself. From having no interest in politics, I engaged with Socialist worker for about 16 years. They completely transformed my view of the world. It was quite revelatory experience. I remember saying at the time, it was like I had had cataracts, and a lot of the world that at one time made no sense, i.e. Northern Ireland, now made sense [in terms of "the history of all hitherto existing society, is the history of class struggle"].
I haven't had any involvement of any note with Socialist worker, for about 10 years. However, the ideology, the dogma, however people want to describe it, colours my view of virtually everything. This remains as true today, as the day I stop being an active member.
So yes, my political glasses effect my interpritation. From this I would expect people to do two things 1. Understand that this WILL lead to misunderstandings. 2. Realise that they too have political glasses, preconceptions, which effect their interpretation of my words.
In my experience Socialist worker, at least the one I recognise as the real one, is misrepresented in almost every post people respond to me with. Sometimes I suspect this is malicious, but it is so sustained I am convinced it isn't.

1/ You will not get anything approaching a definitive Anarchist postition on your questions till they contain more substance and clarity. It's like grasping at smoke at the moment. Neither will you get a anarchist party line to enter into a polemic with because there simply isn't one.

LOL you are right. It is very difficult to attain clarity one's question, when it is clarity you seek. I tried to understand the language of anarchists, which in general seems to be much more sociological than I am used to, in this article. And then tried to present the little bit which seemed peculiar to me, to see what anarchists would say.
on your other point, I do not, I repeat I do not expect one partyline. I just expect each anarchist to give their own opinion. It would be nice to see two contradictory opinions from anarchists. And perhaps a little bit of debate between them, would be interesting, and informative.

3/ You are completely missing the point of the critique you quote in the OP. it is not about "leadership" as such. It is about the "role of the militant". To put it simply, self-identification as an activist leads to a number of problems. Substitution is one. Martyrdom is another. Plain old Hobbyism is perhaps the most common.

I have said half a dozen times that as A criticism of the activist, this is a very good article. I agree with everything you say about the article. And I agree with virtually all the article. What I said was, some of the foundations/assumptions upon which these true points were made, seemed peculiar to me. So it is not the whole article I am questioning, just this one little quote I originally quoted.

2/ You continue to conflate "interest in" "experience of" "knowledge" and "expertise" as if they are interchangeable. They are not. You seem to be arguing that because activists (be they SWPs or Anarchists) have "an interest in" class struggle (let's stop using half-assed meaningless terms like "progressive social change") that this somehow turns into "expertise". It doesn't. I am very interested in football. I've played for years and years. I love Manchester United. I know loads of trivia regarding the club. Have I ever or will I ever play for United? (i.e. be an expert) No. (Although Sir Alex, if you're reading, I am free at weekends...). So, similarly just because an Anarchist or Socialist is interested in, and spends time partaking in "class struggle" activism does not mean they are going to be any good at it.

The anarchist in this one little quote, not the whole article, said;

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.

I would say that butchers apron, violent panda, athos and yourself ARE INDEED,,,, at this moment in time "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." than some other members of society. Violent panda SEEMS to deny this. Why?
I would say that Karl Marx was INDEED,,,, "more advanced than others in his 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." than some of his contemporary members of society. Violent panda SEEMS to deny this. Why?

ps. Even in your own analogy, you may not be an expert player, that is not what you are an expert in, but you certainly have more expertise as a spectator/fan, than many of the players or myself.

pps. I conflate knowledge and expertise, ONLY because that is what the anarchist did. My point is simple, on a scale from reactionary to progressive politics, some people are more backward, and some people are more advanced. Is this true? If not, why not?
You can have a lot of knowledge about topic, even be considered an expert, but still be wrong in how you apply that knowledge. ie the activists described in this article. That failure does not negate the expertise. Likewise, you could be an activist who also aware of the fact that the emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class, which once acknowledged negates substitutionism as tatic. Such an activist would seek to use his advanced knowledge to facilitate the self activity of the working class and progressive action, rather than reactionary action.

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3, you seem to miss the importance of the concept of 'expertise'. It is not same as knowledge.

in my humble opinion, the anarchist in the original post quote did that, I am merely borowing wo language of an anarchist, to try and communicate with anarchists, in a language they MAY be familiar with. Unsuccessfully, it seems.

First, 'expertise' implies some technical skill, whereas 'knowledge' does not: there are many in the working class who, at an instinctive level, KNOW that things need to change, but wouldn't have the first clue if you started discussing the finer points of Marxism i.e. they aren't experts in an academic sense. Thus a focus on 'expertise' leads to alienation and separation (in the ordinary senses of the words) of technocrats from the working class.

Secondly, 'Knowledge' merely implies some objective level understanding, whereas 'expertise' implies comparison i.e. between the expert and the non-expert. A natural consequence of which is that those who define themselves as experts can easily fall into the trap of believing that they are more able to bring about change, on behalf of those less able i.e. substitutionism. This is heightened when, through vanguardism, they also believed themselves to be better placed to do so i.e. at the head of a movement.

Furthermore, depending on the form that leadership takes, the difference between vanguardism and substitutionism can be imperceptible. When leadership means little more than hijacking movements and imposing your own agenda, as is so many people's experience of the SWP, the line is crossed.

God! It is so frustrating the way you and your fellow anarchists, misrepresent me and fellow Lenninist's. You are constantly attacking views I DON'T hold, as if they are mine. If Socialist worker had ever described vanguardism as you have, I would never supported it. No one in Socialist worker has ever described that way, in fact they've gone to great lengths to describe the problems you do, and why and how you should avoid them.
More to the point of the thread. Now just forget about Socialist workers party for one moment, and let's just talk about the working class in regard to Vanguardism. First of all, the analogy in 'vanguard'ism is that of a train. The first thing to note about this, is that the train has a destination, the train is moving from capitalism to a classless society. In this movement from capitalism to a classless society stating that some workers are more advanced [towards the front of that train], than other workers is a statement of fact. To state the workers who's mindset, ideology, world view [however you want to put] is Old Labour, the Socialist party or anarchist are more advanced towards the ideas of a classless society, when compared to those workers who support fascism or conservativism is obviously true.
Even those who oppose communism as a destination, would not deny those workers who's mindset Old Labour, the Socialist party or anarchist are more advanced towards the ideas of communism, than those workers who support fascism or conservativism. So why do anarchist such as the one quoted in the original post, you, violent panda, and many other anarchists in this thread deny this obvious truth?

-------------------
on knowledge and expertise , even your own language exposes the flaw in your argument imo.

A natural consequence of which is that those who define themselves as experts [red]can[/red] easily fall into the trap of believing that they are more able to bring about change, on behalf of those less able i.e. substitutionism.

1. To say that they can fall into the trap, infers the obvious fact that you can avoid the trap as well, as many have you anarchists have done this despite your obvious expertise which goes way beyond the average man and woman in the street that I met. 2. That you are an expert, does not automatically mean you will come up with the right solution to a problem. You will automatically use the correct tactics. And though I have come across many activists who in my opinion used the wrong tactics, substitutionism, you couldn't deny their expertise.

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.

ie I've met hundreds of activists whose obvious expertise in the topic does not make them assume that other people are going to do anything to change their lives.

 

[Athos]

Now just forget about Socialist workers party for one moment, and let's just talk about the working class in regard to Vanguardism. First of all, the analogy in 'vanguard'ism is that of a train. The first thing to note about this, is that the train has a destination, the train is moving from capitalism to a classless society. In this movement from capitalism to a classless society stating that some workers are more advanced [towards the front of that train], than other workers is a statement of fact. To state the workers who's mindset, ideology, world view [however you want to put] is Old Labour, the Socialist party or anarchist are more advanced towards the ideas of a classless society, when compared to those workers who support fascism or conservativism is obviously true.

Who chooses which track to take? And how fast the train goes? How is the driver appointed?

 

[SpineyNorman]

There's an animated video on youtube with Tony Cliff speaking over the top. Almost every argument RMP3 has made on this thread can be found on there.

Here you go: (first of 3 parts)

(To be honest Cliff was quite funny and I reckon I'd probably have liked him if I'd met him)

 

[Athos]

To be honest Cliff was quite funny and I reckon I'd probably have liked him if I'd met him

I feel the same about RMP3.






Except for the bit about liking him.

 

[JHE]

To be honest Cliff was quite funny...

Like any stand-up, Cliff used his jokes at gig after gig after gig. I don't mean he never developed any new material, but once you'd been to see his act several times, you did recognise the same old stuff being used over and over again, word for word the same. (I don't suppose it did him any harm and it was very helpful to mimics.)

 

[butchersapron]

Not very dialectical. Or historical.

 

[Casually Red]

this is why dictators come along and start shooting people

 

[TremulousTetra]

I feel the same about RMP3.






Except for the bit about liking him.

Where you from, we'll meet up, and put your theory to the test.

 

[Athos]

Where you from, we'll meet up, and put your theory to the test.

We're a train journey apart.

 

[The39thStep]

There's an animated video on youtube with Tony Cliff speaking over the top. Almost every argument RMP3 has made on this thread can be found on there.

Here you go: (first of 3 parts)

(To be honest Cliff was quite funny and I reckon I'd probably have liked him if I'd met him)

He was hilarious and very likeable until you were on the wrong end of a faction fight or a hearing.Then he was utterly ruthless.

 

[chilango]

a bunch of stuff....

I haven't got around to answering your points yet. I'll try soon-ish.

 

[Athos]

in my humble opinion, the anarchist in the original post quote did that, I am merely borowing wo language of an anarchist, to try and communicate with anarchists, in a language they MAY be familiar with. Unsuccessfully, it seems.

God! It is so frustrating the way you and your fellow anarchists, misrepresent me and fellow Lenninist's. You are constantly attacking views I DON'T hold, as if they are mine. If Socialist worker had ever described vanguardism as you have, I would never supported it. No one in Socialist worker has ever described that way, in fact they've gone to great lengths to describe the problems you do, and why and how you should avoid them.
More to the point of the thread. Now just forget about Socialist workers party for one moment, and let's just talk about the working class in regard to Vanguardism. First of all, the analogy in 'vanguard'ism is that of a train. The first thing to note about this, is that the train has a destination, the train is moving from capitalism to a classless society. In this movement from capitalism to a classless society stating that some workers are more advanced [towards the front of that train], than other workers is a statement of fact. To state the workers who's mindset, ideology, world view [however you want to put] is Old Labour, the Socialist party or anarchist are more advanced towards the ideas of a classless society, when compared to those workers who support fascism or conservativism is obviously true.
Even those who oppose communism as a destination, would not deny those workers who's mindset Old Labour, the Socialist party or anarchist are more advanced towards the ideas of communism, than those workers who support fascism or conservativism. So why do anarchist such as the one quoted in the original post, you, violent panda, and many other anarchists in this thread deny this obvious truth?

-------------------
on knowledge and expertise , even your own language exposes the flaw in your argument imo.

1. To say that they can fall into the trap, infers the obvious fact that you can avoid the trap as well, as many have you anarchists have done this despite your obvious expertise which goes way beyond the average man and woman in the street that I met. 2. That you are an expert, does not automatically mean you will come up with the right solution to a problem. You will automatically use the correct tactics. And though I have come across many activists who in my opinion used the wrong tactics, substitutionism, you couldn't deny their expertise.
ie I've met hundreds of activists whose obvious expertise in the topic does not make them assume that other people are going to do anything to change their lives.

What the SWP says about vanguardism is redundant in the face of the way in which it acts.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I haven't got around to answering your points yet. I'll try soon-ish.

Hey,chill chilango.

appreciate your contributions. Perhaps looking at the posts to Athos, might make clearer what my question actually is. The question is so obvious to me, I'm finding it difficult to couch it in terms different them I've already done. Perhaps a practical example may help.
Now forget political parties, am just talking about ordinary workers. Have you never met a worker [A] who votes for the Conservative party, loves the Royal family, and has reactionary views on most political topics? And then met another worker who hates the ruling class, is a trade union militant, and has progressive views on most political topics? I'm positive you have, so why do virtually all the anarchists in this thread refuse to acknowledge there are in fact more advanced sections, and more backward sections of the working class? [Again, forget political parties, I'm just talking about the working class]

 

[TremulousTetra]

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

So you're implying that I'm lying? Go fuck yourself

Come on random, I can see you're still reading the thread, and I have apologised for any offence. Never at all intended to suggest you were lying, just trying to pin people down to actually answering the question they have avoided for 7 pages.
You know, you took the thread off topic to Vanguardism and I responded, so why cannot you just once in this thread actually address my query?
The position of anarchists on here seems to be so illogical, I must have it wrong. So just an explanation as to why you won't acknowledge that some sections of the working class are more advanced towards progressive ideas, and some other sections of the working class are more backwards. And if you don't want to use that phraseology, what phraseology would you use that would acknowledge that fact?

 

[TremulousTetra]

What the SWP says about vanguardism is redundant in the face of the way in which it acts.

Well at least well done for actually acknowledging the way you a lot present the arguments of the SWP, is NOT IN FACT what they actually say. What they actually say is completely contradictory to how you present Vanguardism.
Okay. Let's accept what you say for the sake of argument. So, are you saying they have been telling barefaced lies in their publications for the last 40+ years? [I think this is VP's conspiracy theory about the CC.] Or do you acknowledge the SWP do believe what they say?

 

[Random]

I've dipped back into the thread, but not read enough to see your apology, so thanks.

Regarding the other points, I've made my position clear over many many posts, and if you've still not got it I think it's your problem, rather than a lack of explanation from me. If anyone else wants to say that they're also wanting an answer then I'll probably write more, but otherwise I think it'd be throwing good money after bad.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Who chooses which track to take? And how fast the train goes? How is the driver appointed?

Note, I answer questions.



Well, completely contradictory to the windmill 'vanguardism' you and your anarchist comrades like to tilt at, in the real Vanguardism the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. They are the coaches, the engine, the driving force behind social revolution. The Vanguard HAS to be connected to that train. It has to be part of the working class (Note this completely contradicts the BOLLOCKS violent Panda was talking about the SWP not being a working-class party.) to try to promote direct action of the working class in the interest of the working class. So the working class get to choose the lot.However, there is a sharp contrast between anarchists and socialist.

From my perspective, and in the two threads I've tried to indicate, there is a massive propensity among anarchists NOT to act as part of the self organised activities of the working class. It seems they see themselves more like benevolent sirens. "The ends do not justify the means, the means are the ends. In order to create anarchism, you have to be anarchism." What this means in practice is, creating anarchism within capitalism, to act as a beacon to which the working class can be attracted. If anybody fits your definition of Vanguardism, it is anarchists, as they are acting apart from the self organised working class, for the vast majority of the working class are not anarchist, they don't accept this strategy. Do not accept the ideas of anarchists. [This is not pointscoring. They don't accept the idea of revolutionary socialist either. It is how you navigate the problem that Tony Cliff is talking about, and so am I.) You know you would think for anyone interested in social revolution, how you circumnavigate the ruling classes "Manufacturer of Consent" would be an interesting topic.

Now can you actually answer a question? Again, forget about the Socialist workers party. Why does the anarchist in the original post ,several in this thread, and you I think, deny that some people in the working class are more advanced towards the ideas of communism/anarchism than other's. I don't mind you denying it, it is just that nobody, not one single person in this thread has given explanation.

PS. I'm not quite sure about you. At one point you seem to acknowledge that some people in the working class could be more advanced than others.
PPS. I don't personally accept that the SWP is THE Vanguard party. For me, it is impossible for an individual to know which revolutionary method of organisation from the myriad of methods on the left, is THE correct one. It is good there are many different approaches.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I've dipped back into the thread, but not read enough to see your apology, so thanks.

Regarding the other points, I've made my position clear over many many posts, and if you've still not got it I think it's your problem, rather than a lack of explanation from me. If anyone else wants to say that they're also wanting an answer then I'll probably write more, but otherwise I think it'd be throwing good money after bad.

you've explained it in this thread? Or elsewhere? Just point me in the right direction, and I will have a reread.

 

[Random]

you've explained it in this thread? Or elsewhere? Just point me in the right direction, and I will have a reread.

For seven pages I've been answering your questions, about experts, about progressive social change etc etc etc. You can't just ignore all of that and then jump off at a tangent and declare a new round begins. Well, you can, you do it all the time. But like I said, I'm not playing anymore. Unless anyone else wants to also say that they're unclear about anarchists' ideas on this? Otherwise I'll assume it's mostly a RMP3 problem.

 

[chilango]

RMP3: I refer you back to my earlier answers.

There is a difference between being "interested in" or "wanting something" and actually being good at it.

The reactionary worker you use as an example might well turn out to be a more effective agent of change should circumstance push them them into that position. They might have better connections in their local community, be a more persuasive speaker, speak a better speach, write a better leaflet, think of more effective tactics. the dedicated trade unionist on the other hand could be isolated, trapped by dogma and ritualistic tactics, could lack credibility...all manner of things.

"progressive social change" as you put it, is not a hobby. It is moments of social and economic relationships in process.

It does not follow that those who you deem to advanced will be effective. That's a whole different ball game. Expertise i.e. effectiveness will change and shift depending upon circumstance and situation.