Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Anarchism. being somehow privileged or more advanced than others>

P.S. I wouldn't describe myself as an anarchist, despite being a contributor to the journal you quote in the OP.
 
Random said:
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/4363825/ most take the piss. Several take the thread off on a tangent discussing a totally mythical Vanguardism.

I've made it clear in several posts, I actually agree with the article in general. I was taking up on the subtext, from the little quote I posted, this idea that some workers cannot at a moment in time be more advanced towards progressive ideas than other workers. Why? Because whenever you talk about advanced sections of the working class, anarchists always seem to get into a hissy fit. I don't mind this, I'm still waiting for any explanation as to why. You most definitely haven't done this.
 
chilango said:
RMP3: I refer you back to my earlier answers.
Click to expand...
sorry, could you be a bit more specific. I haven't seen anything that addresses this point.



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.
Click to expand...
I 100% accept your point. It is a point that has been made over and over to me by the SWP. ""progressive social change" as you put it, is not a hobby. It is moments of social and economic relationships in process." That is a very good way of putting it. The idea of process is absolutely central to Hegel's and Marx dialectic.
The example I would think of to actually underline the point you are making, is the Bolshevik party. Lenin came back to Russia seeing most of the Bolsheviks arguing for a consolidation of capitalism. Lenin realised him and the Bolsheviks were wrong, that Trotsky was right in his theory of permanent revolution, and that at certain points in a process the most advanced workers, could become fetters upon the process. And in Trotsky's history of the Russian Revolution, July Days, Trotsky talks about how the Saint Petersburg working class was pushing for a revolution in July, and how Lenin argued they were too far in advance of the rest of the Russian working class. How revolution then would be premature, isolated, and defeated if they didn't wait for the rest of the working class to catch up.
But the recognition of that process does not in any way negate the fact that in any snapshot of time you can point to more advanced, more reactionary elements of the working class. In fact your comments acknowledged, that the more reactionary worker could move to a more progressive "consciousness". Move from being more backwards, to more advanced.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
Because whenever you talk about advanced sections of the working class, anarchists always seem to get into a hissy fit
Click to expand...
It's unfair on the others on this thread to say you've only got a hissy fit. You've had thousands of words of explanation. Unless there's any evidence to the contrary I'm going to assume that you're simply unable to take in other people's arguments on this.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
So, any clues for me as to political viewpoint? :)
Click to expand...

Errrrr....

Influenced, in theory, by autonomism, the situationists, libertarian communism, zapatismo, anarcho-syndicalism and radical environmentalism. In practice this is all largely irrelevant to what I do and, more often, don't do.
 
ResistanceMP3 said:
But the recognition of that process does not in any way negate the fact that in any snapshot of time you can point to more advanced, more reactionary elements of the working class. In fact your comments acknowledged, that the more reactionary worker could move to a more progressive "consciousness". Move from being more backwards, to more advanced.
Click to expand...

No.

Not more advanced.

More in line with your/my politics perhaps.

But, absolutely not more advanced.

It's not as simple a linear process as that.

Of course at any moment, in any given place, you will find some people who are more effective at doing what is being done, and others who are less so. But this is not a permanent or irreversible state. It is, as with so much, in a state of constant flux. Someone who is effective at one thing, could be at the same time useless at another aspect.
 
Random said:
It's unfair on the others on this thread to say you've only got a hissy fit. You've had thousands of words of explanation. Unless There's any evidence to the contrary I'm going to assume that you're simply unable to take in other people's arguments on this.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they had done it in this thread, I said "whenever you talk about advanced sections of the working class, anarchists always seem to get into a hissy fit", I'm talking about my experience on U75.

Possibly one of the reasons it didn't occur in this thread, is that I tried to introduce the topic in a manner to avoid the hissy fit, by using the words of an anarchist. This hasn't worked, as not one person has addressed this question. [except chilango, sort of].

If you don't want to discuss how A anarchist would suggest you can circumnavigate "the manufacturer of consent" fine. Par for the course.

I don't mind people suggesting I misrepresent anarchists. is true, mostly due to ignorance. I do however think the constant misrepresenting of what the SWP say by anarchists, by many who claim to have been former members, is probably why none of the SWP members contribute to this for any more.
 
Re: SWP being part of the working class and/or a party of the working class:
Why is it that this "party of the working class, for the working class", has made no inroads into establishing working-class support for the party?
Is this due to the intransigence of the majority of the working classes?
Is it because the working classes are "naturally conservative"?
Or is it because the working classes see, over and over again the SWP "parachute" into live political situations on working-class turf, posture for a bit, attempt to sell their ideology and appropriate the local cause, and then fuck off when it becomes obvious they're neither wanted nor needed?

The SP is rarely guilty of such tactics, and consequently appear to do better in terms of grassroots support, if not in membership.
 
chilango said:
No.



Not more advanced.


More in line with your/my politics perhaps.



But, absolutely not more advanced.



It's not as simple a linear process as that.



Of course at any moment, in any given place, you will find some people who are more effective at doing what is being done, and others who are less so. But this is not a permanent or irreversible state. It is, as with so much, in a state of constant flux. Someone who is effective at one thing, could be at the same time useless at another aspect.
Click to expand...


random is quite correct. I am not as Athos suggests, sniping at anarchists, pointscoring. Quite the opposite, I am suggesting that anarchists and Vanguardists have far more in common than anarchists would like to acknowledge.

For me there is NO massive disagreement here. You dislike the word advanced. You probably object to the terms higher and lower levels of consciousness. I've always suspected these "hissy fit's" are more about language, than substance. For while you object to the language, you do in fact accept "More in line with your/my politics perhaps." and "Of course at any moment, in any given place, you will find some people who are more effective at doing what is being done, and others who are less so. But this is not a permanent or irreversible state. It is, as with so much, in a state of constant flux." Which is stating the same thing, in a different fashion/language.

I would be interested as to whether any anarchists think there is more substance to this disagreement than language. Whether any disagree with Chilango's representation of your opposition to higher levels of consciousness, more advanced consciousness.
 
Woah there RMP3! :)

I'm speaking for myself. Not, I repeat NOT, on behalf of Anarchism.

..and I really don't think what I've said is in agreement with what you've said. :p
 
ViolentPanda said:
Re: SWP being part of the working class and/or a party of the working class:
Why is it that this "party of the working class, for the working class", has made no inroads into establishing working-class support for the party?
Is this due to the intransigence of the majority of the working classes?
Is it because the working classes are "naturally conservative"?
Or is it because the working classes see, over and over again the SWP "parachute" into live political situations on working-class turf, posture for a bit, attempt to sell their ideology and appropriate the local cause, and then fuck off when it becomes obvious they're neither wanted nor needed?

The SP is rarely guilty of such tactics, and consequently appear to do better in terms of grassroots support, if not in membership.
Click to expand...
I knew you couldn't resist. :D

You have claimed Socialist worker do not have working-class constituency, whilst admitting you have no data, and giving no definition of working-class, Whilst I think suggesting Athos* a 'solicitor' is not middle class. I don't care. LOL

My dad was a lorry driver, my mum was a dinner lady, does this make me prolier thou? Does it make me a better revolutionary? Does it fuck. Does it make me prolier than Marx and Engels [Marx at least middle-class, Engels ruling class]? Well possibly, but certainly not more revolutionary. They were working class 'organisers' FMP, because they are organised to promote the self activity of the working class, in the interests of the working class, as do Socialist worker.

In my opinion you are mistaking the inconsequential SWP and "sects" of the revolutionary left, for the working class, who are in the main blissfully unaware of the minutiae of into left infighting.


*Athos I am not having a dig. I do not believe your middle-class occupation, negates your revolutionary credentials. I [eta] DON'T subscribe to workerism.
 
chilango said:
Woah there RMP3! :)

I'm speaking for myself. Not, I repeat NOT, on behalf of Anarchism.
Click to expand...
WOAH there Chil, I never said you were speaking on behalf of anarchism .what I actually said was
ResistanceMP3 said:
I would be interested as to whether any anarchists think there is more substance to this disagreement than language. Whether any disagree with Chilango's representation of your opposition to higher levels of consciousness, more advanced consciousness.
Click to expand...


..and I really don't think what I've said is in agreement with what you've said. :p
Click to expand...
Well the invite "I would be interested as to whether any anarchists think there is more substance to this disagreement than language. Whether any disagree with Chilango's representation of your opposition to higher levels of consciousness, more advanced consciousness." is extended to you too mate. So explain yourself comrade. :)
 
chilango said:
Okay. I read "Chilango's representation of your opposition" in the wrong way then, soz.
Click to expand...
No problem mate. I could have been clearer. I can see how you could read it the way you did.

You haven't said anything to me so far, that hasn't been said over and over by the Socialist workers party. Your comments do not in any way negate the terms higher/advanced levels of consciousness, if you take the value notion away from the terms imo.

To give a clue to the logic, I believe the misunderstanding of advanced/higher levels of consciousness, is based upon the anarchists misunderstanding of Vanguardism as elitist.

*FMPOV anarchism is far more elitist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Oceangate's Titan. The Bayesian yacht. Why do the deaths of rich people matter more than poor people?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
258
Views
9K
PTK
PTK
TopCat
  • Poll
WPGB or LP
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
4K
redsquirrel
R
N
Anyone else feel like the NHS almost doesn't exist for them any more?
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
257
Views
9K
Looby
Looby
ash
Why do the French protest/riot better than we do
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
4K
gentlegreen
gentlegreen
savoloysam
  • Poll
The creeping roll out of facial recognition. Are you for or against?
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
8ball
8ball
Back
Top Bottom