shit MANarchists say

[Nice one]

That stuff always got very short shrift during my time in the AF - identity/privilege politics was relentlessly attacked within the organisation and publicly (in mags/journals and in activity). Same goes for sol-fed. It's really not accurate to tie in any modern day localised emphasis on this way of dealing with social issues specifically with these two groups. If anything, it's coming from unorganised (in formal groups at least) individuals whose anarchists contacts tend to be internet based and with US individuals - it's a sign of their distance and aleination from groups like the AF (and wider society come to that).

i don't think this is true. Both the af and solfed, certainly in some areas, have taken it board with a vengeance eg
http://manchesterafed.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/how-not-to-be-a-manarchist/
http://libcom.org/forums/solidarity-federation/macho-posting-libcom-solfed-13092011

which i think reflects the constituency of the federations now - mainly young, graduates, brought up on the internet etc

 

[smmudge]

he was in the believer which was a pretty crap story of a jewish neo-nazi. i dont need to continue with that do i? thats a quid ill not see again from amazon!

Oh ok, that sort of makes sense then I guess perhaps

 

[Brainaddict]

I read that libcom piece but I don't get why we must choose either macro-politics or micro-politics. Why not both? It contains a hint of a link between the collapse of social movements in the US and the use of privilige theory, but I could also hint at the link between collapse of social movements in the US and the rise of Apple as provider of electronic consumer products over the same period. The cause and effect relationship is darkly hinted at but never explained.

And not sure privilige is so individualistic - surely the purpose of it is to say you are not just an atomised individual, you are a product of your social class/upbringing and you are positioned within it.

 

[Pickman's model]

i don't think this is true. Both the af and solfed, certainly in some areas, have taken it board with a vengeance eg
http://manchesterafed.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/how-not-to-be-a-manarchist/
http://libcom.org/forums/solidarity-federation/macho-posting-libcom-solfed-13092011

which i think reflects the constituency of the federations now - mainly young, graduates, brought up on the internet etc

If that's the case then both the af and sf should have a look at the swappies and see how their concentration on students has paid off

it's disappointing that the af and sf should have written off the vast majority of the working class

 

[butchersapron]

I read that libcom piece but I don't get why we must choose either macro-politics or micro-politics. Why not both? It contains a hint of a link between the collapse of social movements in the US and the use of privilige theory, but I could also hint at the link between collapse of social movements in the US and the rise of Apple as provider of electronic consumer products over the same period. The cause and effect relationship is darkly hinted at but never explained.

And not sure privilige is so individualistic - surely the purpose of it is to say you are not just an atomised individual, you are a product of your social class/upbringing and you are positioned within it.

Who said that people have to choose between the two approaches? I don't even believe that there are two entirely separate choices there anyway ? My point was that the form these choices/approaches are taking place in these groups are often being made on an individualistic competitive advantage basis that produces both the appearance of these two levels and then consequently producing the difference itself, to the detriment of getting a grasp on the totality here (again, despite the much parroted bleating that this doesn't mean that you're a bad person or whatever) and to sorting out whatever the issues may be. It's chest-prodding of the worst sort.

 

[butchersapron]

i don't think this is true. Both the af and solfed, certainly in some areas, have taken it board with a vengeance eg
http://manchesterafed.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/how-not-to-be-a-manarchist/
http://libcom.org/forums/solidarity-federation/macho-posting-libcom-solfed-13092011

which i think reflects the constituency of the federations now - mainly young, graduates, brought up on the internet etc

I saw the first link before i posted, in fact it was what led me to suggest this may be a localised thing, 2nd link is rather long but will try and have a read through the debate later. Rapidly expanding bristol AF doesn't appear to have adopted this approach though.

 

[kenny g]

Emphasising this kind of shit would be the perfect way of disrupting hitherto effective groups. It is also a good angle for female undercover's to have maximum impact in disruption now that male Officer's building "relationships" with activists is probably not thought of as politically acceptable.

No wonder that Queer/ Trans activist groups seemed to be particularly the least infiltrated/ compromised during the Royal Wedding- there are probably not that many trans met police officers.

Having said that, I do agree with Butchers about privileged peeps using some of this kind of stuff to build their own hierarchies. All too easy for a lesbian Eng. Lit. grad to try to belittle someone's attempt to strike up a conversation. A "not interested" if need be is probably more appropriate than building a whole politics around unwanted conversation openers or ineffective pick up lines. Unless there is another agenda in operation.

 

[Captain Hurrah]

Too scene, too middle class.

 

[kenny g]

Emphasising this kind of shit would be the perfect way of disrupting hitherto effective groups. It is also a good angle for female undercover's to have maximum impact in disruption now that male Officer's building "relationships" with activists is probably not thought of as politically acceptable.

No wonder that Queer/ Trans activist groups seemed to be particularly the least infiltrated/ compromised during the Royal Wedding- there are probably not that many trans met police officers.

Having said that, I do agree with Butchers about privileged peeps using some of this kind of stuff to build their own hierarchies. All too easy for a lesbian Eng. Lit. grad to try to belittle someone's attempt to strike up a conversation. A "not interested" if need be is probably more appropriate than building a whole politics around unwanted conversation openers or ineffective pick up lines. Unless there is another agenda in operation.

Just read the Manchester Afed page linked to and it is quite good- thought provoking. Plenty of potential for abuse of these areas but that isn't a reason for not opening up what can be a can of worms. Just a need to keep things in perspective and not over navel gaze.

 

[kenny g]

Too scene, too middle class.

and it is amazing how exclusionary "tree people" as we used to call them can be.

 

[october_lost]

i don't think this is true. Both the af and solfed, certainly in some areas, have taken it board with a vengeance eg

No they haven't. Afed have a large anarcho-feminist contingent who can't be dismissed as having identity politics and as for SF, it's demographics have long been a serious cause for concern, the discussion is a just a reflection of that. The problem here is that the manarchism shit does have a grain of truth to it, but it's warped out of context with the 'personal is political' crowd along with consensus decision making and a plethora of other sub-cultural bullshit.

The reason I say it's important, for example, is because if we're wanting substantial more working class women to get involved in organising, it stands to reason that we address a baseline of things like division of labour and things like child care provision, as well as ensuring young women aren't leered over but the some of flotsam who inhabit the various circles. I recall an antifa gathering I attended wherein the small handful of women present of about 30+ did all the cooking and cleaning, so needless to say if it's not talked about and addressed we just perpetuate our cultural baggage regardless.

 

[Nice one]

No they haven't. Afed have a large anarcho-feminist contingent who can't be dismissed as having identity politics and as for SF, it's demographics have long been a serious cause for concern, the discussion is a just a reflection of that. The problem here is that the manarchism shit does have a grain of truth to it, but it's warped out of context with the 'personal is political' crowd along with consensus decision making and a plethora of other sub-cultural bullshit.

The reason I say it's important, for example, is because if we're wanting substantial more working class women to get involved in organising, it stands to reason that we address a baseline of things like division of labour and things like child care provision, as well as ensuring young women aren't leered over but the some of flotsam who inhabit the various circles. I recall an antifa gathering I attended wherein the small handful of women present of about 30+ did all the cooking and cleaning, so needless to say if it's not talked about and addressed we just perpetuate our cultural baggage regardless.

the manchester af minutes speaks for themselves.

I would imagine there's obviously internal discussions going on in all the branches which forms its collective opinion and approach. I don't think anybody is dismissing this or the weight that it carries.

What is strange in the manchester af minutes (and i assume the meeting itself) is that certain words have been directly imported from the states - they come fully formed and as such not open for debate and discussion. So the af minutes read like they do have "a grain of truth to it, but it's warped out of context with the 'personal is political' crowd along with consensus decision making and a plethora of other sub-cultural bullshit".

It also reads like a check list of guilt for the incumbent midddle class anarchist.

From a general outsider perspective the gender/privilege concepts being introduced in the way that they are, it seems like the next generation is staking its claim over the anarchsist federations. I could be completely wrong in this but i reckon the internal discussions and debates will prove interesting.

 

[october_lost]

A workshop (by whom, for whom?) is not representative of the AF as a whole. I am guessing this was an open workshop hosted by them. For what its worth its cringe worthy reading. I know of people who promote 'white privilege' and other anarcho-ghetto type politics and I have never encountered this shit from AF people. As someone previously said, its usually unorganised anarchos circles, where informal hierarchies exist, and these things are seen as a way with dealing with those said hierarchies. They don't, but hey...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Too scene, too middle class.

Too 1980s revivalism, as well.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

From this year's Anarchist Boot Sale programme:

"4pm – 5pm
Privilege Theory: Thinking about Minorities and Inequalities
The British anarchist movement remains largely white and male-dominated. It arguably pays lip-service to LGBTQ and other issues around equal access and participation. Only our movement can change itself, but are we capable of moving beyond tokenism and the 'other oppressions' clauses in our aims and principles? In an attempt to learn from other movements about inequality, and about the interactions between struggles, the AF has been examining 'privilege theory' as a new starting point. We would value your thoughts and experiences too. Contact us in advance for a discussion document on Privilege Theory if you like (but not essential!).
Organised by: Anarchist Federation (www.afed.org.uk)"

Is this stuff getting more traction?

 

[Das Uberdog]

it will be, it's very 'in'

 

[SpookyFrank]

The British anarchist movement remains largely white and male-dominated.

Largely white yeah, but male dominated? Belching out unqualified statements like that is not very helpful IMO, particularly if it cheapens progress that has already been made. My experience of anarchism in Britain today is that there are still persistent issues with gender and sexuality but they don't amount to male domination. Other people's experiences may be different, but that blurb quoted above makes no allowance for that. Everything's shit, everything everyone has done so far has failed, only this workshop on privilege theory can save us now. And if you want to understand it you'd better give us a call first so we can explain everything. We wouldn't want anyone to be in a privileged position after all.

The interesting thing about privilege is you can't always choose whether you have it or not. But you can choose whether or not to be a patronising tosspot and tell everybody else your opinion of what they do with their time as if it's a scientific fact.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Oi, get my name off that quote!

 

[Nigel Irritable]

it will be, it's very 'in'

It's all over the yank liberal parts of the internet certainly, and it seems to be completely hegemonic amongst radical liberals over there. It's made quite slow progress on this side of the Atlantic though. So far.

 

[butchersapron]

Largely white yeah, but male dominated? Belching out unqualified statements like that is not very helpful IMO, particularly if it cheapens progress that has already been made. My experience of anarchism in Britain today is that there are still persistent issues with gender and sexuality but they don't amount to male domination. Other people's experiences may be different, but that blurb quoted above makes no allowance for that. Everything's shit, everything everyone has done so far has failed, only this workshop on privilege theory can save us now. And if you want to understand it you'd better give us a call first so we can explain everything. We wouldn't want anyone to be in a privileged position after all.

The interesting thing about privilege is you can't always choose whether you have it or not. But you can choose whether or not to be a patronising tosspot and tell everybody else your opinion of what they do with their time as if it's a scientific fact.

wtf blurb did you read?

Terrible to see the AF introducing rather than challenging this.

 

[revol68]

From this year's Anarchist Boot Sale programme:

"4pm – 5pm
Privilege Theory: Thinking about Minorities and Inequalities
The British anarchist movement remains largely white and male-dominated. It arguably pays lip-service to LGBTQ and other issues around equal access and participation. Only our movement can change itself, but are we capable of moving beyond tokenism and the 'other oppressions' clauses in our aims and principles? In an attempt to learn from other movements about inequality, and about the interactions between struggles, the AF has been examining 'privilege theory' as a new starting point. We would value your thoughts and experiences too. Contact us in advance for a discussion document on Privilege Theory if you like (but not essential!).
Organised by: Anarchist Federation (www.afed.org.uk)"

Is this stuff getting more traction?

Yep, it certainly seems that way from what I hear from friends in England and the return to the activist ghetto on libcom.
Hilariously it is being pushed by some of the very posters who were utterly crude in their reductionist two class politics as a kind of overcompensation. Tbh libcom admin policy over the years has become a bit like the old CP always swinging from one extreme to the other depending on what they think will "grow the website".

Also the criticism of activism that grew on libcom seems to have been rather superficial, the problem being understood as simply the "wrong kind of activism" and so workplace organising and such is still seen through an activist prism, the word activist is switched for "organiser" but still remains the subject acting on the object (class).

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Yep, it certainly seems that way from what I hear from friends in England and the return to the activist ghetto on libcom.
Hilariously it is being pushed by some of the very posters who were utterly crude in their reductionist two class politics as a kind of overcompensation. Tbh libcom admin policy over the years has become a bit like the old CP always swinging from one extreme to the other depending on what they think will "grow the website".

Also the criticism of activism that grew on libcom seems to have been rather superficial, the problem being understood as simply the "wrong kind of activism" and so workplace organising and such is still seen through an activist prism, the word activist is switched for "organiser" but still remains the subject acting on the object (class).

Are people on libcom actually pushing this though? Nobody has openly defended it on the thread over there. Very few people are willing to put the boot into it either though. It's all a bit shifty and uncomfortable.

(Also, all of the moderators and old hands over there seem to have changed their usernames so I'm not actually sure who used to argue what).

 

[revol68]

Are people on libcom actually pushing this though? Nobody has openly defended it on the thread over there.

(Also, all of the moderators and old hands over there seem to have changed their usernames so I'm not actually sure who used to argue what).

not actively pushing it no, but being very easy on it. It's all part of their campaign for hearts and minds, everyone has to be super nice to idiotic ideas because it's about a paedological approach were "us" with the correct politics patronisingly tutor the less enlightened to the "right politics" and being a bit mean or snappy will put people off and they'll be lost to "the struggle", as if struggle comes from winning people round to the right ideas by patronising the shit out of them. The way they now talk about "organising" is pretty much activist crap.

 

[Vintage Paw]

The problem with 'privilege' as I see it is that it can often encourage an attitude whereby it's 'enough' to simply say you recognise your privilege, and then that's it, it stops there. As long as you write yourself a dandy little privilege list, you've done your politics. As long as you shout at everyone else to 'check their privilege' you've done your politics.

In and of itself, it's not automatically a terrible concept, because anything that can be used as a tool to try to understand the tangle of relations and structures that position people (and through which people position themselves, let's not forget that part of it) has the opportunity to be used for good (for want of a less trite term). A lot of the limiting issues of the idea of 'privilege' are simply that it can discourage any other kind of activity or even thinking. Once you've identified your own privilege and laid it out on the table, there's the danger that you're going to sit back and feel superior, and think that all you need to do now is just get everyone else to make their own little privilege list and then...well, what then?

I recognise it can be very useful to use the concept, but it shouldn't be the only concept that's used. For some people though, it often is.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The problem with 'privilege' as I see it is that it can often encourage an attitude whereby it's 'enough' to simply say you recognise your privilege, and then that's it, it stops there.

The problem with "privilege" as I see it is that it's a one size fits all theory which elides the differences between distinct forms of oppression and distinct sets of social relationships. And that it results in a politics of guilty self-flagellation. And that it presents individual behaviour changes as solutions to problematic social relationships and structural issues. And that it is often used to shut down debate. And... etc etc etc.

 

[butchersapron]

Still never came across this in this country in any form.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Still never came across this in this country in any form.

It occasionally shows up here in places like the Irish Feminist Network's facebook page, about twenty comments in to some discussion or other. I haven't encountered in real life yet, but its dominance on the yank-liberal internet is probably going to give it a presence here sooner or later.

 

[Vintage Paw]

The problem with "privilege" as I see it is that it's a one size fits all theory which elides the differences between distinct forms of oppression and distinct sets of social relationships. And that it results in a politics of guilty self-flagellation. And that it presents individual behaviour changes as solutions to problematic social relationships and structural issues. And that it is often used to shut down debate. And... etc etc etc.

Which is partially what I was trying to say, particularly in terms of individual behaviour and shutting down debate.

I see no problem, if that's what someone wants to do, with using it as a starting point by which someone might come to an awareness that there are differences in the way in which people function in societies and are treated by those societies. As long as that isn't all there is. As long as it moves on to a more sophisticated analysis. Well, you know, if they want. I can't tell anyone what to do.

 

[butchersapron]

It occasionally shows up here in places like the Irish Feminist Network's facebook page, about twenty comments in to some discussion or other. I haven't encountered in real life yet, but its dominance on the yank-liberal internet is probably going to give it a presence here sooner or later.

I don't see why. It's a race based sublimation of class. No relevance here.

 

[revol68]

I don't see why. It's a race based sublimation of class. No relevance here.

Originally but some feminist groups are big into it, some of the stuff I see about photoshoots that use the cultural artifacts of "the other" would make you cry.