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

[ska invita]

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.

good rule of thumb, to be judged against your own conscience:

 

[ska invita]

You wouldn't get through the door at the ACG

Join - Anarchist Communist Group

*though in a true co-op everyone has the " ultimate power to hire and fire " - in a co-op everyone becomes boss class!

 

[Serge Forward]

Down with hip capitalism! Smash the co-ops!!!

I think we'd probably make an exception for someone being part of a workers' cooperative that collectively decides to boot a ne're-do-well.

---

 

[quimcunx]

I’ve told the story of my granny on here before, but here it is again:

Interesting as a number of Irish Catholic posters on mumsnet deliberately took their kids to protestant play groups because of their fondness for protestant traybakes.

 

[Sue]

Interesting as a number of Irish Catholic posters on mumsnet deliberately took their kids to protestant play groups because of their fondness for protestant traybakes.

I have to ask...Protestant traybakes...?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Interesting as a number of Irish Catholic posters on mumsnet deliberately took their kids to protestant play groups because of their fondness for protestant traybakes.

Chocolate Orange ones?

 

[danny la rouge]

I have to ask...Protestant traybakes...?

Rocky Shankhill Road.

 

[quimcunx]

I have to ask...Protestant traybakes...?

Iirc it was things like tiffin and caramel slice and something called fifteens. Fridge cakes.

"To this day I sneak into proddy church halls to get at their cakes. Only this morning I had a wonderful streusel traybake up at the Methodists, while they also entertained DS.

I bet they get into heaven first - I couldn't even really argue against it."

Which is the tastiest Protestant traybake? | Mumsnet

NI Protestants are famed for their tray bakes but which is the ^best^ traybake of all? I’m thinking something crunchy and chocolatey, a tiffin like t...

www.mumsnet.com

Apologies Danny for diverting your thread.

 

[Serge Forward]

A worthy diversion though

 

[Pickman's model]

Interesting as a number of Irish Catholic posters on mumsnet deliberately took their kids to protestant play groups because of their fondness for protestant traybakes.

They are the orangies' greatest recruiting tool

 

[quimcunx]

They are the orangies' greatest recruiting tool

Better than IRA scones anyway.

 

[kabbes]

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.

OK, I see. Well, I can see the idea of what you are trying to do and also agree that the praxis is important.

It’s extraordinarily difficult within a modern neoliberal capitalist society, though, to disentangle one’s life from things like capital ownership. For a start, every single person that is retired is living on the proceeds of their capital. This is primarily financial capital, because most people have some degree of private pension. But even a state pension is a form of social capital.

Then we have people who have some savings towards their retirement. At what point does this become ownership of capital that can be lived off? Long before people get to the point that they are happy to live off that capital, they theoretically could live off it. They would be poor for the rest of their life, but if you are being absolutist about “have to work” then the strict answer is, “no, they could not work”. The same applies to any kind of accumulation of wealth — owned property, any kind of savings. And since money is created through debt in modern capitalism, the ability to borrow and convert that borrowing to equity becomes part of this equation of whether you could live off your capital ownership. Suddenly, your net is actually capturing a really large number of people.

This isn’t a gotcha, it’s a recognition that the nature of a capitalist society is that it forces those within it to collaborate with the system (or starve). It was a really deliberate strategy — I’m sure you remember Blair’s speech about a “stakeholder economy”. Once people are reliant on capital ownership to be able to retire, you make it difficult for them to work against the system. I don’t think the answer to that is to shut them out further, though. You just end up with a small number of people talking to each other.

Now, I think you’re going to say here that this is just unnecessary sophistry and of course you aren’t intending to exclude retired people and homeowners and people who are 50 but have already saved a reasonable proportion of their ultimate retirement savings. But they’re your rules, not mine, written in the way you intend them. If you don’t want to blanket-exclude a large minority if not a majority of the population, it is worth at least a bit of thought about what comprises the difference between those who actively create and maintain the capitalist society versus those who are just trying to survive within it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Better than IRA scones anyway.

i've heard inla's pannetone and stollen were to die for

 

[Serge Forward]

Better than IRA scones anyway.

As opposed to the armoured cars and tanks and scones.

ETA: buns would have fit better than scones

 

[danny la rouge]

OK, I see. Well, I can see the idea of what you are trying to do and also agree that the praxis is important.

It’s extraordinarily difficult within a modern neoliberal capitalist society, though, to disentangle one’s life from things like capital ownership. For a start, every single person that is retired is living on the proceeds of their capital. This is primarily financial capital, because most people have some degree of private pension. But even a state pension is a form of social capital.

Then we have people who have some savings towards their retirement. At what point does this become ownership of capital that can be lived off? Long before people get to the point that they are happy to live off that capital, they theoretically could live off it. They would be poor for the rest of their life, but if you are being absolutist about “have to work” then the strict answer is, “no, they could not work”. The same applies to any kind of accumulation of wealth — owned property, any kind of savings. And since money is created through debt in modern capitalism, the ability to borrow and convert that borrowing to equity becomes part of this equation of whether you could live off your capital ownership. Suddenly, your net is actually capturing a really large number of people.

This isn’t a gotcha, it’s a recognition that the nature of a capitalist society is that it forces those within it to collaborate with the system (or starve). It was a really deliberate strategy — I’m sure you remember Blair’s speech about a “stakeholder economy”. Once people are reliant on capital ownership to be able to retire, you make it difficult for them to work against the system. I don’t think the answer to that is to shut them out further, though. You just end up with a small number of people talking to each other.

Now, I think you’re going to say here that this is just unnecessary sophistry and of course you aren’t intending to exclude retired people and homeowners and people who are 50 but have already saved a reasonable proportion of their ultimate retirement savings. But they’re your rules, not mine, written in the way you intend them. If you don’t want to blanket-exclude a large minority if not a majority of the population, it is worth at least a bit of thought about what comprises the difference between those who actively create and maintain the capitalist society versus those who are just trying to survive within it.

We’re all part of capital. Labour (as in small l) is part of capital. It produces surplus value. It’s also itself a commodity. Strathclyde Pensions (Glasgow City Council’s pension fund) invests in fossil fuels. I don’t have an occupational pension, but my partner does through her previous employer. It’s probably invested in no end of dodgy things: arms, property speculation, all sorts. That’s capital. That’s the system we’re in. It’s definitely not a “gotcha” to point that out: Marx does so explicitly.

Is there a point at which people start identifying their interests more with the owning class than the working class? Yes, of course there is. And the dominant culture in society wants us to start identifying our interests with those even before that point. That’s what nationalism is for. That’s that “aspiration” is for. That’s what the cultural identity morass these discussions always get stuck in is for.

 

[Pickman's model]

As opposed to the armoured cars and tanks and scones.

ETA: buns would have fit better than scones

The verse outs those who rhyme scone with bone

 

[kabbes]

We’re all part of capital. Labour (as in small l) is part of capital. It produces surplus value. It’s also itself a commodity. Strathclyde Pensions (Glasgow City Council’s pension fund) invests in fossil fuels. I don’t have an occupational pension, but my partner does through her previous employer. It’s probably invested in no end of dodgy things: arms, property speculation, all sorts. That’s capital. That’s the system we’re in. It’s definitely not a “gotcha” to point that out: Marx does so explicitly.

Is there a point at which people start identifying their interests more with the owning class than the working class? Yes, of course there is. And the dominant culture in society wants us to start identifying our interests with those even before that point. That’s what nationalism is for. That’s that “aspiration” is for. That’s what the cultural identity morass these discussions always get stuck in is for.

Well, quite. That’s kind of my point. So writing rules that excludes people for needing to exist within this system seems a bit counterproductive, no?

 

[Pickman's model]

Well, quite. That’s kind of my point. So writing rules that excludes people for needing to exist within this system seems a bit counterproductive, no?

No one needs to be a policeman or a bailiff or a boss. They are conscious choices and decisions which come with a range of consequences for your place in society.

 

[danny la rouge]

Well, quite. That’s kind of my point. So writing rules that excludes people for needing to exist within this system seems a bit counterproductive, no?

If we have people in revolutionary organisations who see their interests as lying with the capitalist class then that’s a conflict of interests. So that’s why they’re excluded.

 

[Shechemite]

Does all of those who have “the power to restrain or imprison in detention centres of all varieties” also have their material interests aligned with capaitalism?

 

[Pickman's model]

Does all of those who have “the power to restrain or imprison in detention centres of all varieties” also have their material interests aligned with capaitalism?

What do you mean by material interests?

 

[danny la rouge]

Does all of those who have “the power to restrain or imprison in detention centres of all varieties” also have their material interests aligned with capaitalism?

Yes.

 

[BristolEcho]

No one needs to be a policeman or a bailiff or a boss. They are conscious choices and decisions which come with a range of consequences for your place in society.

I do agree with this point, and it's why I've avoided any management roles beyond mid line keyworking stuff. However, I do think there is an economic reality for most people especially in low paid sectors such as health and social care where the manager role is the only one that pays anything towards a "normal" salary. I wouldn't organise with bosses, but I do empathise with their reasons for taking that role in a system that is really fucked.

Policeman, bailiffs and fucking prison guards can all fuck off though.v

 

[BristolEcho]

Does all of those who have “the power to restrain or imprison in detention centres of all varieties” also have their material interests aligned with capaitalism?

Been thinking a lot about this recently and talking about the role of CMHT in this. Really we should be striving for a system that does away with ourselves.

 

[Shechemite]

Yes.

Health and social care staff?

 

[Pickman's model]

I do agree with this point, and it's why I've avoided any management roles beyond mid line keyworking stuff. However, I do think there is an economic reality for most people especially in low paid sectors such as health and social care where the manager role is the only one that pays anything towards a "normal" salary. I wouldn't organise with bosses, but I do empathise with their reasons for taking that role in a system that is really fucked.

Policeman, bailiffs and fucking prison guards can all fuck off though.v

Yeh. For me it's where does supervision stop and the power to hire and fire begin. To take a military analogy I don't suppose people here would have a massive problem with sergeants or warrant officers. But much more likely to have one with commissioned officers.

 

[danny la rouge]

Health and social care staff?

I’m thinking of immigration detention, rather than mental health sectioning. I think the latter is a more complicated relationship to capital. But I do think I it’s an important one. I personally wouldn’t exclude health and social care staff on that basis.

 

[kabbes]

I think I’m beginning to see the shape of the answer to your original question, danny

 

[danny la rouge]

I think I’m beginning to see the shape of the answer to your original question, danny

Is it “a lot of people don’t join revolutionary organisations because they think they’re middle class”?

 

[kabbes]

Is it “a lot of people don’t join revolutionary organisations because they think they’re middle class”?

According to the definition of middle class you have essentially created there then yes. As I’ve tried to explain, you’ve applied the label on an incredibly wide basis. You think that spent our people off? You’re othering them! Rather than laughing, too, you might want to at least consider the outsider perspective. If you’re genuinely mystified why membership remains low, anyway.