Are you an anarchist but not a member of an anarchist organisation?

[Pickman's model]

I'm pretty sure that the ACG doesn't demand 24/7 militancy

i hear you have to be stakhanovite in the acg, and comrades who are only militant 24/7 probably get short shrift

 

[danny la rouge]

i hear you have to be stakhanovite in the acg, and comrades who are only militant 24/7 probably get short shrift

We’re steely hard cadre, mate. Only allowed to post on here while on a tea break.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

We’re steely hard cadre, mate. Only allowed to post on here while on a tea break.

Lots of tea breaks then?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

modern as in post-1789

So all of them then.

 

[petee]

Openly middle class - I have acted in accordance with my material interests and accepted a couple of promotions in recent years. I now have an objectively middle class job with senior management responsibilities.

do you have the power to fire?

 

[LDC]

do you have the power to fire?

Members of worker's co-ops do (albeit collectively) as do sometimes quite low level management in the NHS, some NGOs, or some small organisations, for example. So it's a bit out-dated and also not quite so clear cut as it seems, although appreciate it's not a bad starting point.

Might put you in a dodgy position, but it isn't inconsistent with being an anarchist.

 

[JimW]

do you have the power to fire?

No, but he has the fire power

 

[Pickman's model]

No, but he has the fire power
View attachment 296334

more recently of course the space hijackers had an armoured vehicle

 

[Fozzie Bear]

do you have the power to fire?

Kinda. I've not actually had to explore that. AFAIK there'd need to be an investigation and then firing would be done by consensus with the other senior managers.

I have interviewed people for jobs and chosen who is employed with the other interviewer.

I had to stop being the union rep too.

I'm still not sure what I think of all this and I don't want to be one of those wankers who moans about how all this makes them terribly uncomfortable and they long for the simpler times in their youth of van driving and stacking shelves.

 

[Pickman's model]

Kinda. I've not actually had to explore that. AFAIK there'd need to be an investigation and then firing would be done by consensus with the other senior managers.

I have interviewed people for jobs and chosen who is employed with the other interviewer.

I had to stop being the union rep too.

I'm still not sure what I think of all this and I don't want to be one of those wankers who moans about how all this makes them terribly uncomfortable and they long for the simpler times in their youth of van driving and stacking shelves.

firing by consensus eh

 

[LDC]

Sometimes people need sacking tbh, that's not incompatible with being against the State and capital.

 

[JimW]

Sometimes people need sacking tbh, that's not incompatible with being against the State and capital.

Re-assigning to the commune piggery on bucket duty, you mean. Same work points!

 

[LDC]

TBH some people need feeding to the pigs more than they should be trusted to actually feed the pigs.

 

[petee]

Members of worker's co-ops do (albeit collectively) as do sometimes quite low level management in the NHS, some NGOs, or some small organisations, for example. So it's a bit out-dated and also not quite so clear cut as it seems, although appreciate it's not a bad starting point.

Might put you in a dodgy position, but it isn't inconsistent with being an anarchist.

agree, and i was in fact using it as a (classic) starting point.

fire someone because another can be gotten to do the same job at a lower wage and thereby increase profits = resign before doing that.

fire someone because they're undermining the work of the rest and the rest are fed up with it = okay as long as there's been broad input (my ex had a situation like this, and recommended removal as she didn't have the power to fire and the miscreant got moved sideways anyway, to undermine others )

 

[LDC]

agree, and i was in fact using it as a (classic) starting point.

fire someone because another can be gotten to do the same job at a lower wage and thereby increase profits = resign before doing that.

fire someone because they're undermining the work of the rest and the rest are fed up with it = okay as long as there's been broad input (my ex had a situation like this, and recommended removal as she didn't have the power to fire and the miscreant got moved sideways anyway, to undermine others )

Yeah, also depends on the area of work a bit; incompetent in the NHS or normal skiver in massive corporation.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

Yeah, also depends on the area of work a bit; incompetent in the NHS or normal skiver in massive corporation.

Yeah it is a health related charity and not some mega-death-corp. Still a capitalist enterprise, I'm not under any illusions about that.

As part of the restructure that led to one of my promotions a bunch of high earning bullying/sexist shitbags were made redundant and a lot of people who remained seem much happier now.

 

[Fozzie Bear]

So anyway, changing the subject cough cough cough, danny la rouge has any of this been helpful for you?

(Aside from another entry in the black book of class enemies)

 

[danny la rouge]

So anyway, changing the subject cough cough cough, danny la rouge has any of this been helpful for you?

(Aside from another entry in the black book of class enemies)

It’s a very useful discussion I think. As for your own class position, it says in the IWW rules that you can only join if you’re a worker not an employer. I’d say it was a stretch to call you an employer. In the ACG rules, you can’t join if your primary role in the workplace is hiring and firing. Yours isn’t.

Basically, you’re not a capitalist or HR so you’re OK.

 

[kabbes]

It’s an interesting discussion to me too, because I find myself very much in empathy with everything Fozzie says, tip to taint, so to speak.

At what point does one become an employer, would you say danny la rouge ? A modern corporation is owned by shareholders, but is hard to claim that the CEO is not an employer, even if he or she owns no shares. At what point does that line get drawn?

 

[brogdale]

It’s a very useful discussion I think. As for your own class position, it says in the IWW rules that you can only join if you’re a worker not an employer. I’d say it was a stretch to call you an employer. In the ACG rules, you can’t join if your primary role in the workplace is hiring and firing. Yours isn’t.

Basically, you’re not a capitalist or HR so you’re OK.

I like that bastard headteachers can't join; the cunts.

 

[belboid]

The wobbly rules seem to have been slightly amended. They certainly used to explicitly say no employers. Now it is the distinctly vaguer:

17.2 Membership can be denied to those workers whose employment is incompatible with the aims of this union.

 

[kabbes]

The wobbly rules seem to have been slightly amended. They certainly used to explicitly say no employers. Now it is the distinctly vaguer:

17.2 Membership can be denied to those workers whose employment is incompatible with the aims of this union.

Isn’t that essentially the case for anybody who works for an organisation that props up capitalism?

 

[belboid]

Isn’t that essentially the case for anybody who works for an organisation that props up capitalism?

It certainly is a bit vague, which is never really good. Most employers, other than revolutionary organisations, will prop up capitalism in some way, so it does leave open a risk that they could expel someone just cos they didnt like them and were looking for an excuse (not unlike 'bringing the organisation into disrepute' you see in various bodies)

 

[hitmouse]

"I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of any anarchist organization."

Am I right in thinking that you're involved with the AWW? Who don't describe themselves as anarchists but I reckon should probably grow the fuck up and accept that they're anarchists, although I say that about everyone.

in all seriousness i am pretty ignorant of what organisations, national or otherwise, exist and have been put off joining any because of the sorts of people that advertise themselves as being anarchtits

Now there's a good freudian slip. Unless it's intentional.

Any modern anarchist books people would recommend? I was going to start a new thread recently, but think it's okay to ask here.

Depends what subject? Most anarchist books worth reading are on particular subjects, there's a time and a place for "this is what anarchy is" books but you've probably encountered some of them? Uh, I remember being impressed by Fighting For Ourselves when it came out but haven't gone back to it yet, The Housing Monster is the longest prole.info text and they're all great, Class Power On Zero Hours is imo a pretty important book by a certain group that wouldn't describe themselves as anarchists but I reckon are? Hinterland by Phil Neel is similarly like "doesn't have a circle A on the cover but is a great book by someone who's not overly fond of capitalism or the state"?

I do think though, that as others have said above, location is a huge factor. I've spent very little time in Scotland (I did visit for the G8 in 2005) and have never been to Glasgow (though I'm keen to sometime). Nevertheless, I do have a sense that there is far more class solidarity and general left-wing sentiment where you are than in my home town in the South East of England.

One of the first books I ever read about anarchism was Stuart Christie's, 'Granny made me...', and that had a big impact on me. I'm aware of the history and tradition of left-wing politics in Glasgow, and I am full of respect and admiration for activists such as yourself. That video I saw on here a while back of the people in Kenmure Street forcing the Border Control people to release those two men, that really warmed my heart. But at the same time I was thinking, "that might be able to happen in Glasgow but it'd never happen in Kent."

Perhaps if there had been more class consciousness and class solidarity in the community I was brought up in, I might have been less inclined to want to 'escape' society and find an alternative ("lifestyle anarchist", if you like) community to become a part of.

And I suppose really that that's as good an argument as any for trying to set something up or get something going in the places where there isn't much or any anarchist presence.

This is an interesting post, there's a lot to respond to there.

All the useful bits of stuff that can be practicably done and also can be claimed to be "anarchism" don't need to be done under that label anyway. 99% of informal organising to get things done at a local level, outside of official processes isn't done by people who write the A symbol in toilet cubicles or type out waffly essays on urban75 or fantasise about sending politicians to prison camps in the Antarctic. It's more likely to be done by retired people who vote liberal democrat.

Bugger, that's me told, I'd really thought that no-one ever did acts of solidarity, mutual aid or direct action unless they had a PhD in Kropotkin first. So what you're saying is that our ideas are in everyone's heads?

I had to stop being the union rep too.

Wow, either you're pretty senior or your union branch is more hardline than mine, we definitely have some managers on our branch committee (not me, I hasten to add). Our former chair, who I never really got to know cos he stepped down around the same time as I started getting involved, had to stop being chair cos he got promoted too high up, but he was definitely pretty lofty by that point.

It’s a very useful discussion I think. As for your own class position, it says in the IWW rules that you can only join if you’re a worker not an employer. I’d say it was a stretch to call you an employer. In the ACG rules, you can’t join if your primary role in the workplace is hiring and firing. Yours isn’t.

Basically, you’re not a capitalist or HR so you’re OK.

Does this mean Fozzie's union branch is more hardline than the ACG and IWW?

 

[Fozzie Bear]

To be clear - the Union was ok with me carrying on being the rep. Wrongly in my view.

It was my fellow senior managers and HR who said I needed to step down.

I am on good terms with my successor but will not say more than that

 

[BristolEcho]

All the useful bits of stuff that can be practicably done and also can be claimed to be "anarchism" don't need to be done under that label anyway. 99% of informal organising to get things done at a local level, outside of official processes isn't done by people who write the A symbol in toilet cubicles or type out waffly essays on urban75 or fantasise about sending politicians to prison camps in the Antarctic. It's more likely to be done by retired people who vote liberal democrat.

That's part of the issue though. Why is most activism/organising done by this particular group of people? If that's actually true and not just a perception. Lots of people don't have the opportunity, comfort or time to play an active role in their local community. Often they are excluded due to various reasons. That's something that needs to be changed.

Thanks Hitmouse. Have read the solfed one. I will check out those recommendations. The last book I've read along those lines was DP hunters - I need to go back and read the follow up again, but it resonated a fair amount. I meant ones along the lines of those you've mentioned rather than heavy theory books so that's helpful thank you. I tried an audio book of conquest and it was a bit much!

 

[danny la rouge]

Does this mean Fozzie's union branch is more hardline than the ACG and IWW?

I would doubt it. Mainstream, reformist trades unions have all grades in them. That’s one of the problems.

 

[danny la rouge]

It’s an interesting discussion to me too, because I find myself very much in empathy with everything Fozzie says, tip to taint, so to speak.

At what point does one become an employer, would you say danny la rouge ? A modern corporation is owned by shareholders, but is hard to claim that the CEO is not an employer, even if he or she owns no shares. At what point does that line get drawn?

I’ve been out at band practice, so just coming to this now. For me, the distinction is around owning capital. Do you have to work (sell your labour of hand or brain) for a living, or can you live on the proceeds of your capital? There is a somewhat longer discussion to be had about the managing/coordinating class, which I’ve gone into at length on here before, but that’s the basic division: ownership.

This is where someone comes along and says “ah, but what is the means of production really? Could it be a shovel?” And so on. But everyone knows very well how control and power is divided.

Does that mean that people in the capital owning class are automatically bad people, or can’t be sympathetic to the social revolution? No, not necessarily. But their material interests are necessarily for the way things are.

It’s true that the IWW rule is unnuanced. (That’s a word, right?). But that’s the way of one sentence rules. Their (our) rule book goes into more detail.

 

[Dom Traynor]

I am an anarcho communist but my day job as a senior manager in a trade union and my voluntary role as an office holder in the Labour Party mean I just don't have the time to give to an anarchist organisation.

 

[Serge Forward]

You wouldn't get through the door at the ACG

Now check you’re NOT one of the following people who cannot join the ACG:

• police and prison officers
• those who have the power to restrain or imprison in detention centres of all varieties
• bailiffs
• full-time paid trade union officials
• members of political parties
• strike breakers
• those who have ultimate power to hire and fire or those whose primary role in the workplace is to hire and fire
• those who have the ultimate power to remove benefits
• those who make a living out of the exploitation of others

Join - Anarchist Communist Group