Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

shit MANarchists say

if you'd been suffering through student/NUS politics for the last few years - not that i wear that as a badge of honour - you couldn't have failed to recognise it. what's more you'd see it creeping in at the edges of more mainstream political debate and culture too - the SWP for example is already rotted inside out with it.

and what's more, NUS is unfortunately the training ground for the wankstain centre left politicians of the future, and currently it's a factory churning out privilege politics brats
 
Das Uberdog said:
ok, an Afed initiative at the Anarchist Boot Fair 'examining privilege theory as a new starting point' then. still indicative of changing waters no?
Click to expand...
I went to the trouble of finding out how that even probably got on the agenda *at all* - didn't you read it, or don't you believe me?
 
It's the (a)politics of safety, it's cowardly crap. "Ethics" one of the better things Badiou has written takes it apart as retreat from proper politics.

Just as macho posturing was a great way of manoveuring in the 60s and 70s, this whiny shit is its inverse means in the now.
 
Das Uberdog said:
if you'd been suffering through student/NUS politics for the last few years - not that i wear that as a badge of honour - you couldn't have failed to recognise it. what's more you'd see it creeping in at the edges of more mainstream political debate and culture too - the SWP for example is already rotted inside out with it.

and what's more, NUS is unfortunately the training ground for the wankstain centre left politicians of the future, and currently it's a factory churning out privilege politics brats
Click to expand...
I haven't been, i never have.

It's always been that sort of thing in one way or another hasn't it (the NUS and student wankery i mean)? To focus on this would be to admit that student politics basically sets the context within which radical politics not only does but can happen surely? Or to import the obsessions of that scene into wider politics. I repeat, i have never once came across this mortal danger. Despite recognising how shit it is.
 
revol68 said:
It's the (a)politics of safety, it's cowardly crap. "Ethics" one of the better things Badiou has written takes it apart as retreat from proper politics.

Just as macho posturing was a great way of manoveuring in the 60s and 70s, this whiny shit is its inverse means in the now.
Click to expand...
Macho posturing breeds macho response. Whiny shit breeds whiny response. Etc.
 
Yeah ive never came across it in northern ireland but friends involved in student politics in England(i know i mock them too) and the wider millieu around it have certainly experienced it, though left wing youth politics in england do seem very faddish.
 
A Class Struggle Anarchist Analysis of Privilege Theory – from the Women's Caucus.



Aims and definitions

The purpose of this paper is to outline a class struggle anarchist analysis of Privilege Theory. Many of us feel “privilege” is a useful term for discussing oppressions that go beyond economic class. It can help us to understand how these oppressions affect our social relations and the intersections of our struggles within the economic working class. It is written by members of the women’s caucus of the Anarchist Federation. It does not represent all our views and is part of an ongoing discussion within the federation.
http://afed.org.uk/blog/state/327-a...rivilege-theory--from-the-womens-caucus-.html

This is the Anarchist Federation discussion document. It's all there: privilege, people of colour, kyriarchy, intersectionality, etc. The whole US radical liberal internet terminology as a bloc.
 
not a big fan of privilege theory but the london anarchist scene is populated by "mainly white, posh shouty boys", and there has been a couple of instances recently that highlight the problem.

1. new anarchist group set up in london. At end of first meeting (around 80 people in attendance) people were asked to bring their ideas/proposals to next meeting about the structure of the group. Young female indian anarchist wrote up several points of discussion on how this new group could move forward (based, incidently, on what people had talked about in the first meeting). The facilitator of the next meeting (who was also the new secretary of the group) - white middle aged middle class been hanging off the london anarchist scene for years, of his own back refused point blank to allow these points to be put to the meeting, despite having been sent three requests previously to have them put on the agenda. He announced to the room of around 40 people the items were not up for discussion because and i quote "there are too many words". This person was appointed secretary of the group by the facilitator of the previous meeting (a white male anarchist and also a friend of his).

Now i don't know what you call this. The privilege crowd will have all manner of words that defines and explain it, but two things spring to mind

a - would he have acted that way if the person hadn't been a young asian female?
b - did he feel he had the authority to act this way because he was secretary of the group - an appointment given by a mate of his?



2. Meeting set up to discuss the structure idea of this same group. Again the young indian female anarchist put forward her ideas about she had previously submitted. One faux-lumpen white male middle aged anarchist who's been hanging off the anarchist scene for years suddenly pipes up that the discussion should end and the meeting stop now. When it didn't he got up and walked out followed by five other (white male anarchists). I'd never seen anything like it before. Should point out these five had had a meeting together immediately prior to this one and came to this meeting late, as a group.

One of the people walking out was also the facilitator of the first meeting above.

Now, being a white working class male anarchist whose been hanging off the anarchist scene for years i haven't seen this kind of thing happen before mainly because there has never really been a young female asian woman who has wanted to be an active participant in the anarchist scene before. Can it be explained by importing wholesale social theory from the states? Whatever you want to call it it looks bad. To be honest i'd be happy with just plain old racism/sexism.
 
On the face of it, and without any knowledge of any further background, I don't think that specialised terminology is required to explain that. We already have the words "racist", "sexist" and "dickheads", some or all of which may be applicable.
 
I agree, Nice one. I'm not sure that pointing at a social theory, and arguing/discussing whether the theory itself is valid is particularly useful. You can spend an awful lot of time picking apart what's right or wrong or neutral about a theory, and in doing so avoid looking at behaviour.

We could pick apart the examples that you've given in terms of privilege theory (and that could be interesting if anyone's inclined) but - for me - those are examples of behaviour that would have annoyed me if I'd been at that meeting. My annoyance would have been because (a) as a new member I'd have found it pretty unpalatable to see someone trying to take control of a meeting in that way; (b) it would have left me reconsidering whether anarchist principles were anything more than theoretical language and that when it comes down to it all of that goes out of the window when practically presented with opposing viewpoints;and (c) on the face of it, yes that looks like sexist/racist behaviour in addition to the wresting dominance aspect. I'd be interested to know what happened afterwards . . . inevitably there'll be differences of opinion, fallings out etc in any group, but how was it resolved?

I read Nigel's AFED link, but I read it trying not to focus on the words of kyriarchy, intersectionality, etc etc. Once I dispensed with those distractions, I found it hard to disagree with most of the meaning/reasoning.
 
cesare said:
I read Nigel's AFED link, but I read it trying not to focus on the words of kyriarchy, intersectionality, etc etc. Once I dispensed with those distractions, I found it hard to disagree with most of the meaning/reasoning.
Click to expand...

The point has never been that it's impossible to describe real phenomena or make useful points while using that language. It's that the discourse carries other baggage with it, implying a whole number of things about the issues it's describing.
 
Nigel Irritable said:
The point has never been that it's impossible to describe real phenomena or make useful points while using that language. It's that the discourse carries other baggage with it, implying a whole number of things about the issues it's describing.
Click to expand...
Your point may have been that. There have been many other points made though including some that question the validity of the real phenomena at all.

Edit: by real phenomena I assume you mean examples of sexist, racist etc behaviour.
 
cesare said:
Your point may have been that. There have been many other points made though including some that question the validity of the real phenomena at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, some people have, although not too many in this discussion. Which doesn't change that the theoretical approach used in this article to describe those "real phenomena" is a US liberal one, implying things congenial to US radical liberalism.

You pointed out earlier that, if you mentally stripped out the discourse the article is framed in, it makes some sensible arguments. So what exactly of benefit does the framework add to those arguments? And more importantly, what assumptions is it smuggling in?
 
Nigel Irritable said:
Yes, some people have, although not too many in this discussion. Which doesn't change that the theoretical approach used in this article to describe those "real phenomena" is a US liberal one, implying things congenial to US radical liberalism.

You pointed out earlier that, if you mentally stripped out the discourse the article is framed in, it makes some sensible arguments. So what exactly of benefit does the framework add to those arguments? And more importantly, what assumptions is it smuggling in?
Click to expand...

There may not have been many, but lack of volume doesn't point to lack of force. I'd rather the points were made though, because I think that it's better to have these things out in the open.

What I think the theory adds (potentially) is ongoing analysis. If nothing else, a reminder that social structures change and that we should (at least be open to) change with them. It's natural to have a degree of resistance to anything different to what we think is right, when our view of what's right may have been formed at an earlier stage of life. So when I do as you ask and look for the benefits - it potentially serves as a way/method of my questioning my own assumptions and opinions on an ongoing basis to the extent that I don't already. Another benefit is that it's a more interesting way of looking at how power manifests and how this fluctuates. A third benefit is that it potentially serves as a way of encouraging analysis of behaviour as it happens rather than labelling a number of behaviours in aggregate over a period of time e.g. pointing behaviour out there and then rather than labelling someone as, for example, "a sexist". Fourthly, it potentially encourages people to get involved/engaged on the basis that at least it's being taken into consideration.

What does it smuggle in? That's quite tricky, because some of what has been pointed out as a downside isn't new, and can't really be laid at the door of privilege theory. I'm thinking here about identity politics, and the divisive/segregational nature of those. Privilege theory in itself doesn't introduce that, or smuggle it in - it was there already. What it might do, though, is provide identity politics with a seemingly valid theoretical vehicle in which to operate with less challenge and eventually being part and parcel of "privilege theory" when it isn't. The other objection I have is that it seems to encourage the "speaking on behalf of ..." aspect which makes me cross :D Also, I really don't like the spoken "check your privilege" which seems to serve to close down discussion and throw people on the defensive.

Is that enough to be going on with? I can think of loads more, but it'll end up an essay and tl:dr
 
Nice one said:
not a big fan of privilege theory but the london anarchist scene is populated by "mainly white, posh shouty boys", and there has been a couple of instances recently that highlight the problem.

1. new anarchist group set up in london. At end of first meeting (around 80 people in attendance) people were asked to bring their ideas/proposals to next meeting about the structure of the group. Young female indian anarchist wrote up several points of discussion on how this new group could move forward (based, incidently, on what people had talked about in the first meeting). The facilitator of the next meeting (who was also the new secretary of the group) - white middle aged middle class been hanging off the london anarchist scene for years, of his own back refused point blank to allow these points to be put to the meeting, despite having been sent three requests previously to have them put on the agenda. He announced to the room of around 40 people the items were not up for discussion because and i quote "there are too many words". This person was appointed secretary of the group by the facilitator of the previous meeting (a white male anarchist and also a friend of his).

Now i don't know what you call this. The privilege crowd will have all manner of words that defines and explain it, but two things spring to mind

a - would he have acted that way if the person hadn't been a young asian female?
b - did he feel he had the authority to act this way because he was secretary of the group - an appointment given by a mate of his?



2. Meeting set up to discuss the structure idea of this same group. Again the young indian female anarchist put forward her ideas about she had previously submitted. One faux-lumpen white male middle aged anarchist who's been hanging off the anarchist scene for years suddenly pipes up that the discussion should end and the meeting stop now. When it didn't he got up and walked out followed by five other (white male anarchists). I'd never seen anything like it before. Should point out these five had had a meeting together immediately prior to this one and came to this meeting late, as a group.

One of the people walking out was also the facilitator of the first meeting above.

Now, being a white working class male anarchist whose been hanging off the anarchist scene for years i haven't seen this kind of thing happen before mainly because there has never really been a young female asian woman who has wanted to be an active participant in the anarchist scene before. Can it be explained by importing wholesale social theory from the states? Whatever you want to call it it looks bad. To be honest i'd be happy with just plain old racism/sexism.
Click to expand...

The machinations for control of left wing groupuscles has gone on forever. It's only recently that it's been increasingly labeled racist/sexist, partly because of the growing involvement of people other than white males! (Though I don't doubt that such prejudices do exist within those groups.)
 
Nice one said:
not a big fan of privilege theory but the london anarchist scene is populated by "mainly white, posh shouty boys", and there has been a couple of instances recently that highlight the problem.

1. new anarchist group set up in london. At end of first meeting (around 80 people in attendance) people were asked to bring their ideas/proposals to next meeting about the structure of the group. Young female indian anarchist wrote up several points of discussion on how this new group could move forward (based, incidently, on what people had talked about in the first meeting). The facilitator of the next meeting (who was also the new secretary of the group) - white middle aged middle class been hanging off the london anarchist scene for years, of his own back refused point blank to allow these points to be put to the meeting, despite having been sent three requests previously to have them put on the agenda. He announced to the room of around 40 people the items were not up for discussion because and i quote "there are too many words". This person was appointed secretary of the group by the facilitator of the previous meeting (a white male anarchist and also a friend of his).

Now i don't know what you call this. The privilege crowd will have all manner of words that defines and explain it, but two things spring to mind

a - would he have acted that way if the person hadn't been a young asian female?
b - did he feel he had the authority to act this way because he was secretary of the group - an appointment given by a mate of his?



2. Meeting set up to discuss the structure idea of this same group. Again the young indian female anarchist put forward her ideas about she had previously submitted. One faux-lumpen white male middle aged anarchist who's been hanging off the anarchist scene for years suddenly pipes up that the discussion should end and the meeting stop now. When it didn't he got up and walked out followed by five other (white male anarchists). I'd never seen anything like it before. Should point out these five had had a meeting together immediately prior to this one and came to this meeting late, as a group.

One of the people walking out was also the facilitator of the first meeting above.

Now, being a white working class male anarchist whose been hanging off the anarchist scene for years i haven't seen this kind of thing happen before mainly because there has never really been a young female asian woman who has wanted to be an active participant in the anarchist scene before. Can it be explained by importing wholesale social theory from the states? Whatever you want to call it it looks bad. To be honest i'd be happy with just plain old racism/sexism.
Click to expand...

This has happened countless times at London Anarchist meetings (and I've been at meetings with you where it has) to all sorts of people and is down to a variety of reasons - I don't think the person in question was treated the way she was due to ethnicity or gender - however I wouldn't blame her or new people for thinking it might be - and it is an illustration of the lack of any real politics when an amorphous group comes together just because most of them think they're class struggle anarchists who live in London so should work together on that sole basis.

None of that is a reason for not examining "privilege" or whatever you want to call it of course I think there is a need to address sexism, racism, and homophobia within all sections of society including the activist scene.
 
My mum loved it, she didn't think at all that this document (and remember its not been adopted by the AF, it's a discussion piece, produced for the internal bulletin i presume) was a classic example of the sort of exclusions that come with the small-private-liberal-arts-college-ification of the soppy end of anarchism at all. She didn't feel alienated by the language at all, and didn't feel that there was a contradiction in the demand that other people must take up the use of these technical terms as they were coined by 'those at the forefront of struggle' and so best expressed her own experiences. She particularly didn't feel that the point made about looking at things in this sort of way makes for great propaganda due to its inherent inclusivity to be at all laughable.

She also wanted me to add in a tokenistic way the the caveat that her thoughts on this documents responses to the issues are exactly that, thoughts on these responses, not on the issues of sexism, racism etc Just to cover her back like.
 
My dad reckons it's shit and someone's pretending it's a discussion document when it's commentary dressed up as discussion.
 
Going with the presumption this was produced in the Internal Bulletin i would be be very interested in seeing what, if any, responses there were. I don't think there's much chance of that happening though.
 
Blimey, I didn't realise that AFED internal bulletins were for public consumption by way of a link.

My dad also says that people should cut the fucking waffle out and look at who's feeling oppressed by it all.
 
cesare said:
There may not have been many, but lack of volume doesn't point to lack of force. I'd rather the points were made though, because I think that it's better to have these things out in the open.

What I think the theory adds (potentially) is ongoing analysis. If nothing else, a reminder that social structures change and that we should (at least be open to) change with them. It's natural to have a degree of resistance to anything different to what we think is right, when our view of what's right may have been formed at an earlier stage of life. So when I do as you ask and look for the benefits - it potentially serves as a way/method of my questioning my own assumptions and opinions on an ongoing basis to the extent that I don't already. Another benefit is that it's a more interesting way of looking at how power manifests and how this fluctuates. A third benefit is that it potentially serves as a way of encouraging analysis of behaviour as it happens rather than labelling a number of behaviours in aggregate over a period of time e.g. pointing behaviour out there and then rather than labelling someone as, for example, "a sexist". Fourthly, it potentially encourages people to get involved/engaged on the basis that at least it's being taken into consideration.

What does it smuggle in? That's quite tricky, because some of what has been pointed out as a downside isn't new, and can't really be laid at the door of privilege theory. I'm thinking here about identity politics, and the divisive/segregational nature of those. Privilege theory in itself doesn't introduce that, or smuggle it in - it was there already. What it might do, though, is provide identity politics with a seemingly valid theoretical vehicle in which to operate with less challenge and eventually being part and parcel of "privilege theory" when it isn't. The other objection I have is that it seems to encourage the "speaking on behalf of ..." aspect which makes me cross :D Also, I really don't like the spoken "check your privilege" which seems to serve to close down discussion and throw people on the defensive.

Is that enough to be going on with? I can think of loads more, but it'll end up an essay and tl:dr
Click to expand...

Don't have time to properly reply to any of this at the moment, but this is pretty much all spot on for me.
 
Das Uberdog said:
the organisational questions were posed in terms of safety - the whole idea of risk-assessing an NCAFC demo is pretty absurd you have to admit. and refusing to put on coaches to support it was a downright sin.
Click to expand...

That they used the supposed safety of disabled students as a justification for non-participation says quite a lot in terms of their failure to "check their privilege".
But then, questioning such people merely evinces our inability to check our privilege, in their eyes. :)
 
sihhi said:
Here's how it looks to me: Fear as in people being afraid but unwilling to admit. I am afraid. Others are afraid. People see long prison sentences for the student demos of 2010-11, they see a 6-month sentence for swimming, they see years for taking jeans from an already smashed up shop. But instead of admit the fear, they try to cover it up as if they are helping disabled people. It's easier to say 'we are helping disabled people' rather than 'we are cowards'.
Click to expand...

I can't find anything to disagree with.
 
Vintage Paw said:
Don't have time to properly reply to any of this at the moment, but this is pretty much all spot on for me.
Click to expand...
Cheers. Although I suppose I should point out that I was in a reflective mood at that hour in the morning and inclined to give the matter more reflection than I would normally do. The grim reality is that I would (and have :oops: ) probably normally get quite exasperated by it. Pretty much in the way I get exasperated when people hold up an equal opportunities policy or the like and say "wtf! What a useless equal opportunities policy, you can't do x y or z with that and it doesn't even mention class!" and my reaction is "it's not meant to, you idiot, all it's doing is covering the employers' back not some great way of magically creating a fairer workplace". If you see what I mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Demonstrate this Wednesday, say no to cuts in Lambeth!
Replies
0
Views
560
One_Stop_Shop
O
T
Say hello & give your support to RMT members on Friday 29 Oct
Replies
2
Views
504
where to
W
R
protests may be banned altogether says Met chief.
Replies
26
Views
2K
audiotech
audiotech
bluestreak
Say no to a market-based NHS
Replies
0
Views
338
bluestreak
bluestreak
B
G20 'media's fault' says Scotland Yard
Replies
8
Views
643
taffboy gwyrdd
taffboy gwyrdd
Back
Top Bottom