shit MANarchists say

[Ash Mahay]

Ash, what do you mean by anarchism fracturing?

The anarchist movement fractured repeatedly "back in the day" and the different factions went different ways.

Also, "right wing anarchists" aren't anarchists, although they might be activists.

I wasnt refering to the right/left paradigm of the full political sphere more identifying different branches of anarchism & in the case of America whilst not right wing as in the sense of toryism they are more naturally aligned to things like libertarianism (which is viewed as right wing) than either the Republicans or the Democrats, who are both even further removed from anarchism.

 

[cesare]

It's impossible to have a conversation with someone that changes their tune to that extent between one post and the next.

Edit: and don't try and refer me to bloody shirtfront for a balanced view, either.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm not entirely sure it's as all-pervasive as it may have been intimated here. And I'm not sure that there's anything about anarchism in and of itself that has opened it up to it,

I'm not sure if Anarchism per se is inherently more open to this sort of liberal politics than other left currents, but as American "Anarchism" is for the most part at best half a step from radical liberalism and co-exists with NGOism and open liberalism in broad activist milieus, there probably is something inherent to US Anarchism which is particularly open to it.

I'm not sure if the conduit into UK Anarchism has been the influence of US Anarchism or US liberal feminism though. Nor am I really sure how significant the inroads it has made really are.

I've just noticed, by the way, that the concept of "privilege" makes an appearance in the Dublin Revolutionary AnarchaFeminist Group's explanation of Anarcha Feminism, although only a relative brief one. The Irish Feminist Gathering from a few years ago had a meeting addressed to men called "Challenging Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies", which manages to gather together a whole bunch of concepts and terms imported from the US.

 

[8ball]

The Irish Feminist Gathering from a few years ago had a meeting addressed to men called "Challenging Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies", which manages to gather together a whole bunch of concepts and terms imported from the US.

Does the 'pro-feminist allies' bit mean 'as opposed to describing themselves as feminists'?

 

[SpineyNorman]

i think the emphasis should be placed on being right rather than appealing to people in some personal need of political salvation... most of the identity politics recruits i've seen are definitely not in it for the long term. not high quality...

I know exactly what you mean there, there's one very active student member of the SWP, who I'm sure you'll know, who's particularly bad on this. There's an SWPer who I work closely with on a couple of things, IMO he's the best activist the SWP have got in Sheffield - a working class lad, not a party hack, not patronising and willing to think for himself - and this identity politics student apparently claimed that the lad in question "must" be homophobic because of his thick northern accent. Of course he's nothing of the sort. Bear in mind he's a member of a group that we're told aims at "the emancipation of the working class as the act of the working class" /rmp3

 

[Vintage Paw]

Does the 'pro-feminist allies' bit mean 'as opposed to describing themselves as feminists'?

I'm not sure it is, I think it just means 'feminist' but is using the fashionable trend of calling people allies. But then, maybe that's because I personally can't see any problem with a man calling himself a feminist. Maybe there are some feminists out there who do have a problem with that. To which I just sigh.

 

[Das Uberdog]

I know exactly what you mean there, there's one very active student member of the SWP, who I'm sure you'll know, who's particularly bad on this. There's an SWPer who I work closely with on a couple of things, IMO he's the best activist the SWP have got in Sheffield - a working class lad, not a party hack, not patronising and willing to think for himself - and this identity politics student apparently claimed that the lad in question "must" be homophobic because of his thick northern accent. Of course he's nothing of the sort. Bear in mind he's a member of a group that we're told aims at "the emancipation of the working class as the act of the working class" /rmp3

Let me guess, regional northern accents are indicative of machoism which is in turn a sub-category of homophobia...

all the more irritating as the identity twat in question has a cuntish middle-class background from Altrincham, attended the grammar school and has quite obviously never suffered for anything in his life (let alone been persecuted for his sexuality)

 

[8ball]

I'm not sure it is, I think it just means 'feminist' but is using the fashionable trend of calling people allies. But then, maybe that's because I personally can't see any problem with a man calling himself a feminist. Maybe there are some feminists out there who do have a problem with that. To which I just sigh.

We had a big discussion on Urban about it a while back. After some thought I wound up on the side of not feeling comfortable calling myself a feminist, being a bloke, but I've never been one to want to regulate the language of others.

 

[Ash Mahay]

I'm not sure if Anarchism per se is inherently more open to this sort of liberal politics than other left currents, but as American "Anarchism" is for the most part at best half a step from radical liberalism and co-exists with NGOism and open liberalism in broad activist milieus, there probably is something inherent to US Anarchism which is particularly open to it.

I'm not sure if the conduit into UK Anarchism has been the influence of US Anarchism or US liberal feminism though. Nor am I really sure how significant the inroads it has made really are.

I've just noticed, by the way, that the concept of "privilege" makes an appearance in the Dublin Revolutionary AnarchaFeminist Group's explanation of Anarcha Feminism, although only a relative brief one. The Irish Feminist Gathering from a few years ago had a meeting addressed to men called "Challenging Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies", which manages to gather together a whole bunch of concepts and terms imported from the US.

Thanks, yes, is exactly the sort of things Im on about. Really quite surprised so few on the E-A (european anarchist side, to avoid right/left confusions) are aware of this parrallel evolution of anarchism.

E-A & A-A (American anarchism) do share a common history that traces back to a shared point in time so its actually quite relevant.

Btw. when calling them E-A & A-A that isnt to say that there are not European A-As or American E-As, there always have been its more to indicate where each branch is more prevelant.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Let me guess, regional northern accents are indicative of machoism which is in turn a sub-category of homophobia...

all the more irritating as the identity twat in question has a cuntish middle-class background from Altrincham, attended the grammar school and has quite obviously never suffered for anything in his life (let alone been persecuted for his sexuality)

If I were to randomly type the letters MB would that mean anything to you?

 

[Vintage Paw]

We had a big discussion on Urban about it a while back. After some thought I wound up on the side of not feeling comfortable calling myself a feminist, being a bloke, but I've never been one to want to regulate the language of others.

There's a big problem, imo, in getting caught up in terminology. It's the ideas and deeds that matter, ultimately. That said, I can certainly understand why some feel that being able to control various terms is important to them, but in the long run I find it a distraction and something that causes more division and unnecessary bullshit.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Does the 'pro-feminist allies' bit mean 'as opposed to describing themselves as feminists'?

That's the unspoken assumption behind it, yes. It's not an outgrowth of minor British feminist arguments about whether men should call themselves feminists in the 80s. Instead it's a concept important directly from American internet liberal identity politics, whereby those who sympathise with a movement but don't themselves "identify" as a member of the oppressed group at the centre of that movement are "allies". It fits very closely with privilege theory.

 

[8ball]

There's a big problem, imo, in getting caught up in terminology. It's the ideas and deeds that matter, ultimately. That said, I can certainly understand why some feel that being able to control various terms is important to them, but in the long run I find it a distraction and something that causes more division and unnecessary bullshit.

Yes, it's nothing I'd want to spend time getting bogged down with, but I don't think it would be right to call myself a feminist, for reasons discussed on prior thread. It's down to tactics more than definition, really.

 

[8ball]

That's the unspoken assumption behind it, yes. It's not an outgrowth of minor British feminist arguments about whether men should call themselves feminists in the 80s. Instead it's a concept important directly from American internet liberal identity politics, whereby those who sympathise with a movement but don't themselves "identify" as a member of the oppressed group at the centre of that movement are "allies". It fits very closely with privilege theory.

So when they are saying 'men should be pro-feminist allies', is it not the 'should' bit that they are debating, using language of their choice, but are just actually trying to persuade men to stop calling themselves feminists cos half the time they're just trying to get into their pants?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

So when they are saying 'men should be pro-feminist allies', is it not the 'should' bit that they are debating, using language of their choice, but are just actually trying to persuade men to stop calling themselves feminists cos half the time they're just trying to get into their pants?

It's not as clear cut at that. Yanko-liberals of this sort place individual identity at the core of their politics. Men can't really understand what it's like to be oppressed as a woman, because for them that's all about personal experience, but they can be "allies" of those who do really understand. Similarly, white people can only be "allies" of black people in the struggle against racism for the same reason.

It's not really about people trying to get into anyone's pants, or the fear thereof.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

By the way, did anyone get a response from the Anarchist Federation after requesting a copy of the discussion document? I'm not sure if they aren't getting back to me because nobody is checking their emails or if they've pegged me as an undesirable.

 

[8ball]

It's not as clear cut at that. Yanko-liberals of this sort place individual identity at the core of their politics. Men can't really understand what it's like to be oppressed as a woman, because for them that's all about personal experience, but they can be "allies" of those who do really understand. Similarly, white people can only be "allies" of black people in the struggle against racism for the same reason.

Not sure the terms quite match up there. I have reservations about men identifying as feminists, but wouldn't say a man couldn't describe himself as 'anti-sexist', nor would I say a white person could not describe themself as 'anti-racist'.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Not sure the terms quite match up there. I have reservations about men identifying as feminists, but wouldn't say a man couldn't describe himself as 'anti-sexist', nor would I say a white person could not describe themself as 'anti-racist'.

That's where some of the hostility can come from. By no means is everyone who uses the ideas of privilege doing this, but it's often used in a hostile way, a la "you're not black, how dare you attempt to speak for me" when the person may have merely been expressing solidarity or saying they were anti-racist. Hence the divisiveness. It's all very messy, because it's bleedingly obvious that someone who suffers endless shit because they are black, or gay, or whatever, is going to be better placed to say what that is like than someone who doesn't, but extending it further to say someone who isn't black, or gay, or whatever, can't then be active in wanting to do something to help, that they can't empathise, is stupid. But as I say, that's not necessarily where it ends up, and those pictures earlier in the thread aren't the only results coming out of people talking about privilege - it's easy to think that's all it is though.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Not sure the terms quite match up there. I have reservations about men identifying as feminists, but wouldn't say a man couldn't describe himself as 'anti-sexist', nor would I say a white person could not describe themself as 'anti-racist'.

I know, that's what I've been trying to explain in a rather inarticulate way. The stuff about "allies" at the Irish Feminist Gathering was not an outgrowth of the kind of arguments you sometimes got in Irish or British feminism about whether men should call themselves feminists. Instead it's Yanko-Liberal discourse being imported wholesale and in that milieu, the notion of the oppressed group and "allies" covers anti-racism, anti-homophobia etc as well as anti-sexism. This language then interacts with the already existing issues around the word feminist to produce a meeting called "Recognising Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies".

 

[8ball]

I know, that's what I've been trying to explain in a rather inarticulate way. The stuff about "allies" at the Irish Feminist Gathering was not an outgrowth of the kind of arguments you sometimes got in Irish or British feminism about whether men should call themselves feminists. Instead it's Yanko-Liberal discourse being imported wholesale and in that milieu, the notion of the oppressed group and "allies" covers anti-racism, anti-homophobia etc as well as anti-sexism. This language then interacts with the already existing issues around the word feminist to produce a meeting called "Recognising Our Own Privilege: Why Men Should Be Pro-Feminist Allies".

Right, gotcha.

Seems a bit odd how some groups can have very high opinions of the merits of empathy, but then shun support by people who merely empathise rather than have experienced a form of oppression.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He'll just claim to have invented kropotkin

Bakhunin, more likely. No-one wants to pretend to have invented an aristo, even one as well-rounded and sound as the Prince.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ash, what do you mean by anarchism fracturing?

Anarchism never fractured. It was never a unitary philosophy amenable to fracture, just people who agreed about some things and disagreed about others coming together for specific purposes, then taking their leave.

Also, "right wing anarchists" aren't anarchists, although they might be activists.

I think he means "libertarian", as defined by Americans rather than by Brits.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So, what is the difference about class, that makes it different from other inequalities?

Class arches over all other cleavages/inequalities. Look at those "other inequalities", and class is always present as well as the "other inequality".

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's impossible to have a conversation with someone that changes their tune to that extent between one post and the next.

Ah, you've noticed his flexible positioning too?

 

[Athos]

Class arches over all other cleavages/inequalities. Look at those "other inequalities", and class is always present as well as the "other inequality".

Though the same person could be the victim of one of the 'isms' at the same time as being a beneficiary of class inequality. Doesn't it make more sense to say that the other forms of domination are an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Or perhaps that's what you meant?

 

[butchersapron]

Bakhunin, more likely. No-one wants to pretend to have invented an aristo, even one as well-rounded and sound as the Prince.

Also an aristocrat, or at least from a noble bakground.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Though the same person could be the victim of one of the 'isms' at the same time as being a beneficiary of class inequality. Doesn't it make more sense to say that the other forms of domination are an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Or perhaps that's what you meant?

That first part is what this privilege theory at its most basic is concerned with - that you might be a victim of one thing, but a beneficiary of another, but it falls short of recognising class as the overarching thing that, as vp says, is there all the time.

 

[Athos]

That first part is what this privilege theory at its most basic is concerned with - that you might be a victim of one thing, but a beneficiary of another, but it falls short of recognising class as the overarching thing that, as vp says, is there all the time.

It's just that I don't quite follow what you mean by the overarching nature of class. Some of the posts here seem to imply that a victim of an 'ism' is necessarily a victim of class inequality. But that can't be right, can it?

Also, I understand that, regardless of any other attribute which might mean we are subject to unfavorable treatment, we all stand somewhere in relation to the means of production. But I don't see that there's anything in the internal logic of privilege theory which requires class to be be afforded any more significance than any other attribute. Or is that your point? That privilege theory fails to recognise that many forms of domination arise from capitalism.

 

[Vintage Paw]

It's just that I don't quite follow what you mean by the overarching nature of class. Some of the posts here seem to imply that a victim of an 'ism' is necessarily a victim of class inequality. But that can't be right, can it?

Also, I understand that, regardless of any other attribute which might mean we are subject to unfavorable treatment, we all stand somewhere in relation to the means of production. But I don't see that there's anything in the internal logic of privilege theory which requires class to be be afforded any more significance than any other attribute. Or is that your point? That privilege theory fails to recognise that many forms of domination arise from capitalism.

Yes, the bit at the end. That's how I see it anyway, others may disagree.

 

[Vintage Paw]

It's just that I don't quite follow what you mean by the overarching nature of class. Some of the posts here seem to imply that a victim of an 'ism' is necessarily a victim of class inequality. But that can't be right, can it?

Also, I understand that, regardless of any other attribute which might mean we are subject to unfavorable treatment, we all stand somewhere in relation to the means of production. But I don't see that there's anything in the internal logic of privilege theory which requires class to be be afforded any more significance than any other attribute. Or is that your point? That privilege theory fails to recognise that many forms of domination arise from capitalism.

Also, a victim of an 'ism' isn't necessarily a victim of class inequality, they might be a beneficiary of class inequality, but class inequality is always there.

I suppose privilege theory would indeed hold that that is no different than anything else; it would argue that a victim of homophobia may or may not also be a victim of racism, but that the presence of racism is still there and they may in fact be a beneficiary of its existence. So the whole 'check your privilege' thing is about looking at the various forms of domination that exist to see whether you benefit from them, when you may have had no reason to think about it before because you see it as someone else's problem. The difference is that they don't tend to do so within a framework of class struggle to begin with.