Anachist movement

[SpookyFrank]

Your argument would be valid if the reason I advocate a class analysis is so that I can verbally argue the working class round to my point of view. I don't.

Might one ask why you do advocate a class analysis? Or why you would choose to describe an analysis of political and economic power structures as a 'class analysis'? IMO power structures have little to do with class, because they have little to do with people. The world is ruled by self-perpetuating doctrines for which we humans can at best act as temporary avatars. Our principles dictate that the biggest bastard will always make the most money, the biggest liar will always win the election and the person with the least moral scruples will have the most material success. A particular individual might come up with some new and exciting ideas for adhering to and profiting the core doctrines of society, but they remain the servant of those doctrines. If we rise up and kill the entire ruling class, a new ruling class will appear to take their place. What we have to do is destroy the mechanisms of power by removing the justification for them. This means demonstrating in one form or another that power is always destructive, and that humans can easily live without it.

 

[Blagsta]

I understand exactly what you mean, although I'd argue that 'in this context' actually means 'in my opinion'. There are many differing opinions on the subject, which is why if you mean 'economic organisation' then that's what you should say. Otherwise we end up with a silly argument like this. Semantics will be the death of this revolution I swear

Take me for example, I have no money, no resources and no influence over anything. And yet pretty much anyone who met me would consider me middle class; because of the way I talk, where I come from etc. Now in this situaton I can either explain at length to people how they've got the whole thing wrong and I'm actually one of the dontrodden peons because of my material circumstances, and how most of what they think they know about class is a load of bollocks; or I can try and convince them to come and petrol bomb some banks with me. I know which I'd prefer.

You're conflating social class and economic class. Two distinct things.

 

[Blagsta]

Might one ask why you do advocate a class analysis? Or why you would choose to describe an analysis of political and economic power structures as a 'class analysis'? IMO power structures have little to do with class, because they have little to do with people. The world is ruled by self-perpetuating doctrines for which we humans can at best act as temporary avatars. Our principles dictate that the biggest bastard will always make the most money, the biggest liar will always win the election and the person with the least moral scruples will have the most material success. A particular individual might come up with some new and exciting ideas for adhering to and profiting the core doctrines of society, but they remain the servant of those doctrines. If we rise up and kill the entire ruling class, a new ruling class will appear to take their place. What we have to do is destroy the mechanisms of power by removing the justification for them. This means demonstrating in one form or another that power is always destructive, and that humans can easily live without it.

Where did these "self-perpetuating doctrines" come from? You appear to be describing them as having some kind of existence apart from human social relationships.

 

[Brainaddict]

You're conflating social class and economic class. Two distinct things.

Where did these "self-perpetuating doctrines" come from? You appear to be describing them as having some kind of existence apart from human social relationships.

One problem I've always had with class analysis is the idea that 'objective' definitions are possible, useful or necessary in politics. Either 'objective' definitions of class fail to describe the complexities of the real world, or they describe it just fine on paper, but are unusable in real life because words used in ordinary conversation tend to gather their own meanings and so cannot remain objective. Myself I think it's a bit of both. But this is the kind of talk that made all the politics posters on here hate me, so I'll stop now

 

[Shevek]

I am a bit of an 'armchair' anarchist. I need to actually get off my arse and do something constructive. I believe that workplace organisation is key to developing an anarchist consciousness. We need to take over and grow the trades unions. Anarcho-Syndicalism is the way to go!

 

[SpookyFrank]

Where did these "self-perpetuating doctrines" come from? You appear to be describing them as having some kind of existence apart from human social relationships.

They are the things that govern human relationships. I see power as operating on a simillar principle to natural selection, just as living things are governed by the rule that those best able to survive will be most likely to have their characteristics outlive them, humans in mass society are governed by the rule that the most unscrupulous bastard will get the most influence. This isn't dependant upon the actions of any particular person or group of people, it's just the way the whole thing works. To gain power you must first want to gain power, and in order to want to gain power you have to be, on some level, a wrong 'un. Power will adapt and change as its human avatars come and go, but the only master the idea of power ever truly serves is the idea itself.

 

[SpookyFrank]

One problem I've always had with class analysis is the idea that 'objective' definitions are possible, useful or necessary in politics. Either 'objective' definitions of class fail to describe the complexities of the real world, or they describe it just fine on paper, but are unusable in real life because words used in ordinary conversation tend to gather their own meanings and so cannot remain objective. Myself I think it's a bit of both. But this is the kind of talk that made all the politics posters on here hate me, so I'll stop now

^This.

You're conflating social class and economic class. Two distinct things.

So why do you keep using the word 'class' without either qualifier? Don't you see where the confusion comes from when you just talk about class all the time without defining what you mean? Don't you see how this thread would have been so much more interesting if nobody had said the word class at all, and we could have stuck to less ambiguous and loaded terms?

 

[TopCat]

^This.

So why do you keep using the word 'class' without either qualifier? Don't you see where the confusion comes from when you just talk about class all the time without defining what you mean? Don't you see how this thread would have been so much more interesting if nobody had said the word class at all, and we could have stuck to less ambiguous and loaded terms?

What tosh. The thread is interesting and Class is totally relevant. I find that those who dismiss class as relevant come from a privileged background or are just stupid.

 

[Brainaddict]

I am a bit of an 'armchair' anarchist. I need to actually get off my arse and do something constructive. I believe that workplace organisation is key to developing an anarchist consciousness. We need to take over and grow the trades unions. Anarcho-Syndicalism is the way to go!

I think workplace organisation is important, but I'd be bothered if it was *the* main centre of political organisation. My reservation is that workplace-based organisation would risk placing a disproportionate amount of importance on work and production. Which is fine in a society trying to pull itself out of poverty, but in a society like ours it is a dangerous path.

 

[Blagsta]

One problem I've always had with class analysis is the idea that 'objective' definitions are possible, useful or necessary in politics. Either 'objective' definitions of class fail to describe the complexities of the real world, or they describe it just fine on paper, but are unusable in real life because words used in ordinary conversation tend to gather their own meanings and so cannot remain objective. Myself I think it's a bit of both. But this is the kind of talk that made all the politics posters on here hate me, so I'll stop now

I'm not sure if you could describe a class analysis as "objective". How you percieve it depends on where you sit economically.

 

[Blagsta]

They are the things that govern human relationships. I see power as operating on a simillar principle to natural selection, just as living things are governed by the rule that those best able to survive will be most likely to have their characteristics outlive them, humans in mass society are governed by the rule that the most unscrupulous bastard will get the most influence. This isn't dependant upon the actions of any particular person or group of people, it's just the way the whole thing works. To gain power you must first want to gain power, and in order to want to gain power you have to be, on some level, a wrong 'un. Power will adapt and change as its human avatars come and go, but the only master the idea of power ever truly serves is the idea itself.

So yours is an argument based on an abstracted notion of human nature?

 

[Blagsta]

^This.

So why do you keep using the word 'class' without either qualifier? Don't you see where the confusion comes from when you just talk about class all the time without defining what you mean? Don't you see how this thread would have been so much more interesting if nobody had said the word class at all, and we could have stuck to less ambiguous and loaded terms?

Because it's usually obvious from the context what is meant. The term "class" is the historical term, to change it after nearly 200 years useage, because you find it confusing, would be a little silly!

 

[In Bloom]

One problem I've always had with class analysis is the idea that 'objective' definitions are possible, useful or necessary in politics.

So your problem is that you don't really understand it?

Class analysis is not a matter of "objectivity", if anything, it is highly subjective, since its signifigance is entirely contingent on your social and economic position.

 

[Shevek]

I think workplace organisation is important, but I'd be bothered if it was *the* main centre of political organisation. My reservation is that workplace-based organisation would risk placing a disproportionate amount of importance on work and production. Which is fine in a society trying to pull itself out of poverty, but in a society like ours it is a dangerous path.

So what would you recommend? some kind of lifestyle revolution? Im not against this. I am open to new ideas. I think you are probably right that we live in a rich society so production and consumption does not need to be emphasised but work is still the main arena where people spend their waking hours so it is a realm of society which need to be liberated. I am not sure how it would work.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What tosh. The thread is interesting and Class is totally relevant. I find that those who dismiss class as relevant come from a privileged background or are just stupid.

Freudian slip?

 

[SpookyFrank]

So yours is an argument based on an abstracted notion of human nature?

Not really no, I'd say it has more to do with the effects of human relationships on human nature. Human nature is not a discrete thing. The phrase 'power corrupts' is not a statement about human nature so much as a statement about the effect a certain type of relationship has on an individual's nature, which by implication is malleable. To say that power is part of 'human nature' is to suggest that nothing can be done to destroy it.

 

[TopCat]

Freudian slip?

No....

 

[Blagsta]

Not really no, I'd say it has more to do with the effects of human relationships on human nature. Human nature is not a discrete thing. The phrase 'power corrupts' is not a statement about human nature so much as a statement about the effect a certain type of relationship has on an individual's nature, which by implication is malleable. To say that power is part of 'human nature' is to suggest that nothing can be done to destroy it.

You're arguing in circles. Human nature cannot be seperated from relationships, it is formed by them. So where do these "self perpetuating
doctrines" come from?

 

[Shevek]

why are we arguing about semantics rather than defining what a modern anarchist movement would look like??

 

[Blagsta]

You're arguing in circles. Human nature cannot be seperated from relationships, it is formed by them. So where do these "self perpetuating
doctrines" come from?

I also meant to mention that class is basically a social relationship.

 

[bluestreak]

why are we arguing about semantics rather than defining what a modern anarchist movement would look like??

Because we don't really know?

It would be modern, that's for sure. No bleating on about historical stuff and context and the dialetic and all that outmoded beardy fellow stuff. And no feminism either, cos that will put people off. We'll have to just call it "being nice to people". And watch with that class analysis, that can be dodgy territory too.

It would definitely be anarchist, in that it would be rooted in the traditions of anarchist theory and practice; egality, workplace agitation, class analysis, education.

And it would move. None of this sitting around on the internet discussing things, but out in the streets preaching fire. Definitely.

So now what do we do?

 

[SpookyFrank]

You're arguing in circles. Human nature cannot be seperated from relationships, it is formed by them. So where do these "self perpetuating
doctrines" come from?

You cannot have a society on the scale of the one we have today without hierarchy of some description. This has nothing to do with anyone's intentions, it's just a product of the fact that humans are only capable of relating to and empathising with a limited number of people, a number far smaller than the number of people society requires us to co-operate with in some form or other. And once established, hierarchy is self-sustaining and doesn't require any intelligent design, it will just automatically cherry pick from the soup of ideas and personalities humanity provides in order to build new versions of itself. I'm aware that I might not be making much sense but I'm a biologist not a sociologist and I see big simillarities between the evolution of life and the the way the mechanisms of power constantly adapt in ways that are too clever and too quick for any individual to think up or implement.

And guess what class war fans? You can't fight a war without a hierarchy either. Meet the new boss, markedly simillar yet rather more beardy than the old boss.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Because we don't really know?

It would be modern, that's for sure. No bleating on about historical stuff and context and the dialetic and all that outmoded beardy fellow stuff. And no feminism either, cos that will put people off. We'll have to just call it "being nice to people". And watch with that class analysis, that can be dodgy territory too.

It would definitely be anarchist, in that it would be rooted in the traditions of anarchist theory and practice; egality, workplace agitation, class analysis, education.

And it would move. None of this sitting around on the internet discussing things, but out in the streets preaching fire. Definitely.

So now what do we do?

Let's analyse class some more. If we analyse it enough it will surely die of boredom.