Why anarchism as a method of action doesn't work.

[SpineyNorman]

Apart from rmp3 and perhaps audiotech are there nay other SWPs and fellow travllers left on the boards? Is Das Uberdog still around? Any others? Poor old rmp3 is fighting a lonely battle at the moment....

I think we've just about all been in the SWP at one stage or another, it's like serving your time as an apprentice with a really shit craftsman - shows you what not to do.

 

[SpineyNorman]

No, I wasn't.
What I am, is fed-up with being required to explain myself over and over again by some dupe whose politics don't benefit the working classes.

Why do you prefer the term classes out of interest vp? I've always preferred class myself, for reasons that EP Thompson states far more eloquently than I ever could:

Class, rather than classes, for reasons which it is one purpose of this book to examine. There is, of course, a difference. "Working classes" is a descriptive term, which evades as much as it defines. It ties loosely together a bundle of discrete phenomena. There were tailors here and weavers there, and together they make up the working classes.

By class I understand an historical phenomenon, unifying a number of disparate and seemingly unconnected events, both in the raw material of experience and in consciousness. I emphasise that it is an historical phenomenon. I do not see class as a "structure", nor even as a " category", but as something which in fact happens (and can be shown to have happened) in human relationships.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Current Swappies get enraged at accusations of being cult-like, but to be fair, nowhere near as enraged as members of the AWL do if you accuse them of it.

Cheers for the tip, there's one AWLer round here that really winds me up, the most condescending, patronising twat I've ever met (and I've met Alex Callinicos) so I'll be sure to bring up the cult thing next time we meet

 

[SpineyNorman]

I know a fair few members of the SP who joined as a deliberate choice after exposure to the SWP, so it seems to drive people to more points of the political compass than just anarchism.

That's pretty much exactly what I did, with a couple of years off in the meantime.

(Sorry about the multiple posts, came to the thread late and I've been replying to posts as I read them)

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why do you prefer the term classes out of interest vp? I've always preferred class myself, for reasons that EP Thompson states far more eloquently than I ever could:

I'm a big fan of Thompson, but I believe that classes makes more sense now than it did in Thompson's day, mostly because whereas in Thompson's time "classes" meant different strata of mostly workers and families (if you believe the "full employment" schtick), nowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all.
Plus, I'd assert that, at least more than in Thompson's time, where industry was still a large employer and therefore led (in the eyes of the Labour party, anyway) to a class homogeneity of interest, working class interests are heterogeneous (they shouldn't be, but are), and that needs to be acknowledged.

 

[ViolentPanda]

got to admit, had a bit a moment standing back in the mid-late 80's, first marxism ,right fist in the air,singing the Internationale just behind Chris Dean , with Cliff up on the stage . It soon passed, but still....

The buzz.
It gets us all, and you soon realise that it's not about the people on stage, it's about the people you're with.

 

[butchersapron]

I think we've just about all been in the SWP at one stage or another, it's like serving your time as an apprentice with a really shit craftsman - shows you what not to do.

I haven't. I'm pure.

 

[krink]

I think we've just about all been in the SWP at one stage or another, it's like serving your time as an apprentice with a really shit craftsman - shows you what not to do.

I've not. Been an anarchist since I was a kid. I've never understood why people would settle for less

 

[ViolentPanda]

I haven't. I'm pure.

Truly, you are the Messiah!

 

[articul8]

I think we've just about all been in the SWP at one stage or another, it's like serving your time as an apprentice with a really shit craftsman - shows you what not to do.

Nope, me neither.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nope, me neither.

Fabians are the exception that proves the rule, surely?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Stop thanking me. I feel complicit enough in your little endevour as it is. As if I have naively directed a vampire to a feeding opportunity.

LOL, another 16 pages thread brewing.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why do you prefer the term classes out of interest vp? I've always preferred class myself, for reasons that EP Thompson states far more eloquently than I ever could:

STFU if VP says it classes it is. an nobody is allowed to say otherwise.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Err... yes we are - I just did. Strangely I got a perfectly reasonable reply. I wonder why that might be...

 

[SpineyNorman]

Nope, me neither.

Yeah but it's clear from your posts on here that you don't really need anyone to show you what not to do - you've figured that one out all for yourself

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm a big fan of Thompson, but I believe that classes makes more sense now than it did in Thompson's day, mostly because whereas in Thompson's time "classes" meant different strata of mostly workers and families (if you believe the "full employment" schtick), nowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all.
Plus, I'd assert that, at least more than in Thompson's time, where industry was still a large employer and therefore led (in the eyes of the Labour party, anyway) to a class homogeneity of interest, working class interests are heterogeneous (they shouldn't be, but are), and that needs to be acknowledged.

"nnowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all" wow, that is unusual for British capitalism. lol are you one of these underclass merchants?

and hasn't always the working class had heterogeneous interests? Why more so today?

 

[ViolentPanda]

STFU if VP says it classes it is. an nobody is allowed to say otherwise.

Have I ever imposed my thinking on anyone?
Of course I haven't, but that doesn't stop you making out that I have, does it?

Well done for providing yet another illustration of why you're held in such low esteem by so many posters.

 

[TremulousTetra]

What, you don't remember denying it and disingenuously asking "what is 'vanguardist?' " when the subject came up in one of your previous threads having a pop at anarchism?

No I would never say that seriously. Do you have a link?

 

[ViolentPanda]

"nnowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all" wow, that is unusual for British capitalism. lol are you one of these underclass merchants?

More drivel from an idiot, I see.

It is "unusual" in the context of the post-WW2 welfare state. It's only happened (on a lesser scale) once before in the last almost 70 years.

and hasn't always the working class had heterogeneous interests? Why more so today?

Why the fuck do you think?
Ah, my mistake. You don't think. You let someone else do that for you.

Quick lesson: Interests are increasingly heterogeneous because there are greater and more diverse forces arrayed that have as their aim the deliberate alienation of members of the working classes from the interests of the working classes. Media saturation makes this far easier than it was even 10 or 20 years ago.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No I would never say that seriously.

Of course you wouldn't. It's always the other person who shits on the floor, never you.

Do you have a link?

Go search through your threads of the second half of last year.

 

[SpineyNorman]

"nnowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all" wow, that is unusual for British capitalism. lol are you one of these underclass merchants?

and hasn't always the working class had heterogeneous interests? Why more so today?

He's actually making a perfectly valid point (though one I'm not sure I completely agree with, need to have a think about it) since, for Thompson, class was an historical phenomenon - rather than being defined by the relations of production, it's merely partially determined by it. Class only "happens" when workers act as a class, or "act in class ways" as Thompson would put it. It's a combination of objective and subjective factors, or to use Marxist jargon, class only happens when class consciousness happens.

And the thing about them always having had hetrogenous interests - when Thompson was writing the labour movement was strong. We had large, unionised workplaces. In other words it was accurate to talk of a working class, who had seperate interests from the rest of society and, most importantly, were conscious of this fact and acted accordingly. And during the period he was writing about this was even more the case.

The reason I'm not sure if I agree is that there is still a relatively significant minority of workers who are well organised, view themselves as a class apart and their interests as intertwined with those of other workers, and since these workers operate in just about every sector of the economy I'm not sure you can separate the various working classes, or at least it's not as simple as that. But maybe I'm just stretching it a bit because it suits my prejudices, which is why I need to think about it.

See how I've engaged with what he actually said there? When you do that people will accept disagreement. It's the disrespectful and dishonest way you represent the views of others that pisses people off, not the fact that they disagree with you.

And just because the SWP say they want unity, that they want, as you so frequently state, the self-emancipation of the working class, that doesn't mean that they do so in reality. We judge political actors by their actions, not their words. Do you believe that David Cameron really wants what's in the interests of the population of the UK? That the Tories don't want to privatise the NHS? That the Lib Dems and New Labour are progressive and want a more equal society? Of course we don't. So why do you leave your scepticism at the door when it comes to the SWP? And just for the record, I don't believe you when you say you're no longer in the SWP. Your posts on here only make sense if we assume you're still a member, or at least still believe they're the one true faith.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Err... yes we are - I just did. Strangely I got a perfectly reasonable reply. I wonder why that might be...

Obviously we're in a conspiracy, Norm. A conspiracy to undermine rmp3 and the SWP.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Have I ever imposed my thinking on anyone?
Of course I haven't, but that doesn't stop you making out that I have, does it?

never said you had. Did you ever have a sense of humour?
I said something about the working class earlier in the thread, then you arrogantly corrected me saying it should be working classes, didn't you?

have seen your arguments over, and they are not convincing. I prefer the term working-class. Is that okay?

Well done for providing yet another illustration of why you're held in such low esteem by so many posters.

lol, so concerened :"( . people who hate the SWP, don't like SWP member telling the truth. I'm shocked.

 

[ViolentPanda]

never said you had. Did you ever have a sense of humour?

What does "STFU if VP says it classes it is. an nobody is allowed to say otherwise" say, if not that I impose my thinking on others?
Gonna pull the "I was only joking, honest" bullshit again?

I said something about the working class earlier in the thread, then you arrogantly corrected me saying it should be working classes, didn't you?

Did I? I don't believe that I did. I believe that what I actually did was give an explanation of my POV.
Of course, explaining one's POV to a dogmatist might be perceived as an arrogant correction, but hey, not my problem.

have seen your arguments over, and they are not convincing. I prefer the term working-class. Is that okay?

Of course it's okay, you disingenuous little creep.

Please note: No smiley by last sentence. I really do think you're a disingenuous little creep.

 

[TremulousTetra]

What does "STFU if VP says it classes it is. an nobody is allowed to say otherwise" say, if not that I impose my thinking on others?
Gonna pull the "I was only joking, honest" bullshit again?

LOL

Did I? I don't believe that I did. I believe that what I actually did was give an explanation of my POV.
Of course, explaining one's POV to a dogmatist might be perceived as an arrogant correction, but hey, not my problem.

Link it.

Of course it's okay, you disingenuous little creep.

well after your lie's i won't be hurt.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Of course you wouldn't. It's always the other person who shits on the floor, never you.



Go search through your threads of the second half of last year.

So that's a no. liar

SWP is a Vanguard party. Has always been a Vanguard party. It is just that your interpretation of Vanguard, and there interpretation of Vanguard is completely different. Fact. No one, no one could seriously suggest they are not a Vanguard party.

 

[TremulousTetra]

More drivel from an idiot, I see.

It is "unusual" in the context of the post-WW2 welfare state. It's only happened (on a lesser scale) once before in the last almost 70 years.



Why the fuck do you think?
Ah, my mistake. You don't think. You let someone else do that for you.

Quick lesson: Interests are increasingly heterogeneous because there are greater and more diverse forces arrayed that have as their aim the deliberate alienation of members of the working classes from the interests of the working classes. Media saturation makes this far easier than it was even 10 or 20 years ago.

what are the interests of the working class/es? You said the interests were heterogeneous didn't you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

LOL

Laugh out loud all you want. You'll still be as much of a disingenuous little creep after you've finished laughing as you were before.

Link it.

Ask nicely, and I might.

well after your lie's i won't be hurt.

The "lies" that no-one else but you believe exist?
You plum.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So that's a no. liar

No, it's a "go search your threads yourself, I'm not doing it for you".

SWP is a Vanguard party. Has always been a Vanguard party. It is just that your interpretation of Vanguard, and there interpretation of Vanguard is completely different. Fact. No one, no one could seriously suggest they are not a Vanguard party.

Q: How can two interpretations of "vanguard" be "completely different", when they both boil down to relying on the selfsame description?

A: They can't be, and all the nuances of difference in the world don't and can't change that.

 

[TremulousTetra]

He's actually making a perfectly valid point (though one I'm not sure I completely agree with, need to have a think about it) since, for Thompson, class was an historical phenomenon - rather than being defined by the relations of production, it's merely partially determined by it. Class only "happens" when workers act as a class, or "act in class ways" as Thompson would put it. It's a combination of objective and subjective factors, or to use Marxist jargon, class only happens when class consciousness happens.

And the thing about them always having had hetrogenous interests - when Thompson was writing the labour movement was strong. We had large, unionised workplaces. In other words it was accurate to talk of a working class, who had seperate interests from the rest of society and, most importantly, were conscious of this fact and acted accordingly. And during the period he was writing about this was even more the case.

The reason I'm not sure if I agree is that there is still a relatively significant minority of workers who are well organised, view themselves as a class apart and their interests as intertwined with those of other workers, and since these workers operate in just about every sector of the economy I'm not sure you can separate the various working classes, or at least it's not as simple as that. But maybe I'm just stretching it a bit because it suits my prejudices, which is why I need to think about it.

See how I've engaged with what he actually said there? When you do that people will accept disagreement. It's the disrespectful and dishonest way you represent the views of others that pisses people off, not the fact that they disagree with you.

I can't find the quote. Seem to remember earlier in the thread being rebuked for using the term working-class. Don't remember much of an explanation, just a instruction that I shouldn't use the term. if I am wrong, I will apologise. No problem.

And just because the SWP say they want unity, that they want, as you so frequently state, the self-emancipation of the working class, that doesn't mean that they do so in reality. We judge political actors by their actions, not their words. Do you believe that David Cameron really wants what's in the interests of the population of the UK? That the Tories don't want to privatise the NHS? That the Lib Dems and New Labour are progressive and want a more equal society? Of course we don't. So why do you leave your scepticism at the door when it comes to the SWP? And just for the record, I don't believe you when you say you're no longer in the SWP. Your posts on here only make sense if we assume you're still a member, or at least still believe they're the one true faith.

I have never said anything other than I am not a paid-up member, haven't read any of their publications for getting on 10 years besides the odd article here and there, and have virtually no influence from them these days beyond still running www.resistanceMP.org.uk [and even that is rather ramshackle, as I still haven't put up the files four 2011] and going down as a tourist now and again to Marxism.

I want the emancipation of the working class by the working-class. The reason being you cannot create a classless society any other way. I've never met a single member of the SWP who wouldn't agree with that, have you?