The most working-class anarchist group is...

[montevideo]

Is this a case of non players off the green pickman? Or are you choosing who can join the IWCA now?

What I love about the anarchists here is their fierce criticism, and in many cases well founded, of the trots but their inability to be critical of the thousand and one island varieties who call, themselves anarchists.

Personally I think you would be better off without the anarchists but small pool big fish?

ah 'the anarchists' again. Pinch of salt, mate, pinch of salt.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

ah 'the anarchists' again. Pinch of salt, mate, pinch of salt.

I was under the impression that pickman was more than able to contribute himself. I know you like to think of yourself as the people representitive and often appear at courts and police stations but please ask others before you chip in on their behalf.

By the way if you get time , can you try and answer the questions put to you. For example what is your sort of anarchism and does it have any relevance for the working class?

 

[montevideo]

I was under the impression that pickman was more than able to contribute himself. I know you like to think of yourself as the people representitive and often appear at courts and police stations but please ask others before you chip in on their behalf.

By the way if you get time , can you try and answer the questions put to you. For example what is your sort of anarchism and does it have any relevance for the working class?

well we know from past experience your happy to lie through your teeth about 'the anarchists' so any further reference about them we can take with a pinch of salt.

My sort of anarchism is a method, not a goal. This method of self-organisation devoid of hierarchy (formal or otherwise) & coercion. No-one has any greater authority over anybody else, responsibility is a collective one & social responsibility is for the individual to acknowledge.

How this is relevant to working class people is that each of us has a role to play within capitalist society. This role, for working class people, involves a constant subservience to the needs of capital. The fact that working class people make up the majority at any given time & also actually create the concrete needs of everyone means we are forced to bear the brunt of any & all decision made of behalf of capital.

How that works in everyday life is the recognition that no-one has any greater power (be it your boss, The Council, government or lefty radicals (government in waiting)) over who you are. Collective self-identity is a starting point but it doesn't make a class, working or otherwise.

My experience of telling 'ordinary working class people' (of which i am one!) that i am an anarchist is, after that initial fear that you're not going to impose your political ideology on them, is one of absolute normality. Indeed i've always found that people associate anarchists with lefty radicals (soft, cobweb, ultra, trotskyist, whatever) which more than anything fosters suspicion & mistrust..

 

[Nigel Irritable]

My sort of anarchism is a method, not a goal.

This kind of worldview has more in common with the urge to live in a commune than it does with changing the world.

 

[montevideo]

This kind of worldview has more in common with the urge to live in a commune than it does with changing the world.

don't know what you mean by that. But to clarify, i do not subscribe to the notion of an 'anarchist society'.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

don't know what you mean by that. But to clarify, i do not subscribe to the notion of an 'anarchist society'.

I mean that your attitude is that of the kind of people who go to live in leftist communes rather than the attitude of people who want to transform society. It lacks any sense of goal or strategic thinking and instead reduces political activity to personal lifestyle. Your personal lifestyle might be as individualist as becoming a vegan or it might involve some kind of collective action, either way it has nothing to do with getting rid of capitalism.

 

[montevideo]

I mean that your attitude is that of the kind of people who go to live in leftist communes rather than the attitude of people who want to transform society. It lacks any sense of goal or strategic thinking and instead reduces political activity to personal lifestyle. Your personal lifestyle might be as individualist as becoming a vegan or it might involve some kind of collective action, either way it has nothing to do with getting rid of capitalism.

well the transformation is a collective one, not one imposed by a given authority. Society is tranformed in the method of destroying capital, not in its goal.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Society is tranformed in the method of destroying capital, not in its goal.

Could you elaborate on that in more concrete terms please?

 

[montevideo]

Could you elaborate on that in more concrete terms please?

capitalism is a method in which society is organised. The way in which people, collectively, choose to destroy this particular method of organisation would necessitate the destruction of previously understood relationships; that hierarchy, relationships of power, commodity etc. (In fact i would say the concept of alienation - where people not only recognise themselves as a commodity, but are compelled to live their lives around the very notion of it, would be the starting point of the destruction of capitalism as a way of organising society).

To simply instruct & compel people towards a different society, without transforming the way in which people relate to each other, simply perpetuates class antagonism that is the motor of all societies.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

capitalism is a method in which society is organised.

With you so far.

The way in which people, collectively, choose to destroy this particular method of organisation would necessitate the destruction of previously understood relationships; that hierarchy, relationships of power, commodity etc.

I don't think that this is particularly coherent. Do you mean that the overthrow of capitalism will also mean the a change in the social relationships between people? Or am I missing something which elevates your statement beyond truism?

(In fact i would say the concept of alienation - where people not only recognise themselves as a commodity, but are compelled to live their lives around the very notion of it, would be the starting point of the destruction of capitalism as a way of organising society).

You think that recognition of alienation will be the motor for the overthrow of capitalism?

I asked if you could elaborate on this in a more *concrete* fashion. What does this actually mean in practice?

 

[montevideo]

With you so far.



I don't think that this is particularly coherent. Do you mean that the overthrow of capitalism will also mean the a change in the social relationships between people? Or am I missing something which elevates your statement beyond truism?



You think that recognition of alienation will be the motor for the overthrow of capitalism?

I asked if you could elaborate on this in a more *concrete* fashion. What does this actually mean in practice?

1. well that would depend on how you would choose to 'overthrow' capitalism. But okay, simply a change in methods of social organisation (feudalism to capitalism) still retain the essential features of authority, hierarchy & control but in a different form. So all previously understood ways (ie the reliance on abstract forms - be it the state, the party, the legal form) must also be destroyed. In their destruction people recognise the ability to form social relations above & beyond what is given. They are not mediated through any other form.

How you get to the point of the destruction of capitalism is just as important, if not more so, that the fact that capitalism is destroyed.

2. No

3. *conctrete* as in a plan of action? Or *concrete* as in how i would personally do it?

 

[sovietpop]

ie (if I'm reading you correctly?)

the means determine the end

 

[The Black Hand]

I mean that your attitude is that of the kind of people who go to live in leftist communes rather than the attitude of people who want to transform society. It lacks any sense of goal or strategic thinking and instead reduces political activity to personal lifestyle. Your personal lifestyle might be as individualist as becoming a vegan or it might involve some kind of collective action, either way it has nothing to do with getting rid of capitalism.

We do have strategy and tactics, it's just our methods are egalitarian rather than elitist. We don't want to recreate state structures, or take them over, they need to be destroyed and something new built to take their place...

 

[Herbert Read]

Socialist Party typical clap trap well done nigel for being nominated for the trumpet of the year award. ctegory most likely to describe narchists as cartoon charicatures. Take a bow and join LLETSA.

Join your SP mates and name names to the police, state socailist idiots (class traitors springs to mond after the poll tax Nige)

 

[Chuck Wilson]

We do have strategy and tactics, it's just our methods are egalitarian rather than elitist. We don't want to recreate state structures, or take them over, they need to be destroyed and something new built to take their place...

Just who is the 'we' ? You and Monty the den builder or anarchists per se? Taking your logic isn't it a bit elitist to be speaking on behalf of all anarchists or have you had 'permission to speak' ?

 

[Chuck Wilson]

well we know from past experience your happy to lie through your teeth about 'the anarchists' so any further reference about them we can take with a pinch of salt.

Again who is this 'we'? Are you an official spokesman for some cladestine organisation or is the 'we' you?

Are you still trying to say that the spoof website had no conection with anarchists? Perhaps 'another boy' did it?

 

[montevideo]

Again who is this 'we'? Are you an official spokesman for some cladestine organisation or is the 'we' you?

Are you still trying to say that the spoof website had no conection with anarchists? Perhaps 'another boy' did it?

royal 'we'.

I am still trying to say what evidence adduced from the website makes you think it was done by 'the anarchists'.

 

[Thumper Browne]

Just who is the 'we' ? You and Monty the den builder or anarchists per se? Taking your logic isn't it a bit elitist to be speaking on behalf of all anarchists or have you had 'permission to speak' ?

3. *conctrete* as in a plan of action? Or *concrete* as in how i would personally do it?

No dice Chuck, you were given options.

As far as I can tell there definitely is an issue of how to form a social consensus without forming some kind of state but so long as the consensus is highly localised, subject to frequent monitoring and change and the people doing the monitoring and implementing the changes are the people affected then the risks of statism can be negated. No one need speak on everyones behalf anymore, anarchism means involvement in this respect.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

No dice Chuck, you were given options.

As far as I can tell there definitely is an issue of how to form a social consensus without forming some kind of state but so long as the consensus is highly localised, subject to frequent monitoring and change and the people doing the monitoring and implementing the changes are the people affected then the risks of statism can be negated. No one need speak on everyones behalf anymore, anarchism means involvement in this respect.

The first sentence is a bit cryptic for me, and the second virtually impenetrable. Let's go back to this question of relevance and the working class, do you want working class rule?

 

[montevideo]

No dice Chuck, you were given options.

As far as I can tell there definitely is an issue of how to form a social consensus without forming some kind of state but so long as the consensus is highly localised, subject to frequent monitoring and change and the people doing the monitoring and implementing the changes are the people affected then the risks of statism can be negated. No one need speak on everyones behalf anymore, anarchism means involvement in this respect.

I thought you were off & running? More bloody comebacks than frank sinatra. Away with ya, it's just a bit of grit in me eye i tell ya.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

royal 'we'.

I am still trying to say what evidence adduced from the website makes you think it was done by 'the anarchists'.

I'm a republican monty and don't see a role for royalty . TBH I am beginning to struggle seeing the worth of your own brand of anarchist activity as well.

 

[montevideo]

I'm a republican monty and don't see a role for royalty . TBH I am beginning to struggle seeing the worth of your own brand of anarchist activity as well.

fair enough, no-one's forcing you to, just less of the knee-jerk reactionary bulshittery about 'the anarchists' & i'm happy.

 

[The Black Hand]

Just who is the 'we' ? You and Monty the den builder or anarchists per se? Taking your logic isn't it a bit elitist to be speaking on behalf of all anarchists or have you had 'permission to speak' ?

Its me, the groups I am in and work with, a 'collective' we... I am not speaking on behalf of all anarchists as given the various ideologies you can find under the word anarchist it covers stuff I don't believe in. And given that you know that 'anarchist' is a large unmbrella the questions a bit purile too..

 

[LLETSA]

but these are your words. "I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider..." & i want to know how do you know this. If it's not difficult then explain yourself. I'm simply throwing your own words back at you. In fact you take out your generalisations (that reinforce your position) & you are actually saying very little. - a few non-politico's you've spoken to who have heard aabout class war think *this* about class war.

If you were hoping for some political argument then put some forward instead of your gossipy bullshit.

I thought that to gossip you had to name names.

Once again: I detailed briefly my experience of how Class War was viewed by the only non-political people I've ever known who had ever actually seen a copy of the paper. Nothing more, nothing less.

In order to get political argument going surely it is enough to question ideologies adhered to by other posters? This is what I have tried to do in this thread with regard to anarchism. Evidently some people view their chosen ideology as beyond questioning and therefore sacred. Eeh these individualist libertarians eh?

 

[LLETSA]

lletsa

all you seem to be concerned about is publicity - not even propaganda.

to my mind, the iwca are better off with yr money and without you as a member.

Publicity? Nobody on this board knows me personally.

 

[LLETSA]

Then, as with Ryazan, how come it's registered with yerself?

Not all that interested in the positive, negative, or extent of image, anarchism (and especially the anarchist movement) has with 'normal working class people', I'm interested in the self-organisation of the working class, the majority, in order remove the economic and political power of the minority. Whether that's self-consciously anarchist or not is less important than it eventually leading to libertarian communism. However, I'm honest about my politics with people and always give people as much information as they want if they're interested.

The extent to which I'm an anarchist is the extent to which I think it's impossible to effectively achieve libertarian communism via representative democracy, this is to an extent ideological, but more accurately a practical assessment of how the state works in contemporary society. And because I identify with the philosophical legacy of Bakunin, Kropotkin and Bookchin, along with the self-organised elements of revolutions over the past 500 years, whether self-consciously anarchist or not. I have little or no identification with the subcultural elements of the anarchist movement as it exists in the UK (or US for that matter), nor to I have much contact with the movement apart from the AF in London and a few individuals.

Plenty of anarchists on here are very critical of large sections of the anarchist movement, something you and your mates conveniently forget. If Attica, Thumper Browne, Monte and Pickman's Model want to argue against (or in some cases reinforce) your strawman attacks on anarchism, then that's fine. Since I and many other anarchists on here have disagreed with Attica and Monte several times before, you can't expect me/us to jump in against you as some kind of homogenous ideological group in an us or them fight.

I never asked anybody to form an homogeneous ideological group. I merely asked a few questions. Yours is probably the best post from an anarchist so far - at least you put forward a viewpoint that details your way of analysing things rather than being a mere 'how do you know?/ who says?/you twat.'

As for how I knew of anarchism and the people I spoke of didn't - this is self-explanatory: I had been active on the left and had therefore encountered anarchism, while they hadn't.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Its me, the groups I am in and work with, a 'collective' we... I am not speaking on behalf of all anarchists as given the various ideologies you can find under the word anarchist it covers stuff I don't believe in. And given that you know that 'anarchist' is a large unmbrella the questions a bit purile too..

Isn't there room in the world for a bit of purile?
Attica who are these groups then? I am getting a bit confused as to who on here is what strand of anarchism and where the anrchist umbrella ends.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

fair enough, no-one's forcing you to, just less of the knee-jerk reactionary bulshittery about 'the anarchists' & i'm happy.

I'm afraid there's more to life than just you being happy chum. If anarchism is a method ( some form of voluntary association with no leaders and no structures?) rather than an end what is the end you are striving for, is it working class rule?

 

[Thumper Browne]

I thought you were off & running? More bloody comebacks than frank sinatra. Away with ya, it's just a bit of grit in me eye i tell ya.

Yeah, just popped back into to log off properly so that no-one picks up my cookies, don't wanna end up like The Black Hand now do I?

See yous all later.

 

[rednblack]

I'm afraid there's more to life than just you being happy chum. If anarchism is a method ( some form of voluntary association with no leaders and no structures?) rather than an end what is the end you are striving for, is it working class rule?

i must admit i don't understand what monty meant by that bit

tbh i want to see an anarchist society and i think it will only be achieved by working class self organisation - i don't think that has to take a specifically anarchist form though - although it's the best for me at the moment - and in the short term it can lead to improvements in our living conditions on a day to day basis

as for working class rule in working class areas, i don't have a problem with that as a slogan if it means us running our own areas for our own benefit - and even if it means excluding those non working class people in our areas who don't recognise our rule