resistance and activism?

[Thora_v1]

yes but the event is still inside the marketplace of capitalism...from the rent of the building..to the cost of printing the books....regardless of how well intentioned it is not outside.

But we can't do anything outside capitalism, can we? Even squatting/skipping etc relies on capitalism to parasite off.

 

[Pickman's model]

Icepicks right here. Why continue to lie to ourselves. I suspect on some levels its to justify the roles we have chosen to play. Being honest about the state of the 'movement' (real or imaginary) shouldnt be seen as doom-mongering, but should surely be embrassed if you want to see that 'mass movement' you talk about. How will you navigate towards that goal if you defend the activity that keeps its numbers sparce? The anarchist movement has not grown in number despite 200 years of activity...why?

being honest about the state of the movement means recognising that it isn't as large as it could be but also that it is nowhere near as fucked as icepick would make it out.

yeh, it's not in the state i'd like it to be in, but it's slowly getting there.

 

[dirtycrustie]

But we can't do anything outside capitalism, can we? Even squatting/skipping etc relies on capitalism to parasite off.

then if we agree..how do we begin to engage in capitalisms downfall...isnt that the point of this thread...bineater

 

[LLETSA]

Next stop oblivion!

yeh, it's not in the state i'd like it to be in, but it's slowly getting there.

Getting where?

 

[Pickman's model]

yes but the event is still inside the marketplace of capitalism...from the rent of the building..to the cost of printing the books....regardless of how well intentioned it is not outside.

for the fucking price of the hall it had better be inside!

 

[dirtycrustie]

for the fucking price of the hall it had better be inside!

I meant 'outside' the totality of capitalism..not in a park.

 

[Drunken Miss Ho]

yes but the event is still inside the marketplace of capitalism...from the rent of the building..to the cost of printing the books....regardless of how well intentioned it is not outside.

But why does this actually matter?

 

[dirtycrustie]

But why does this actually matter?

read the begininig of the thread..

 

[Drunken Miss Ho]

I meant in real terms.

 

[dirtycrustie]

read the begininig of the thread..

going to pub...if anybody is interested in persueing any of these ideas...i.e rejection of dialectics, activist identities, etc..please pm me.x

 

[LLETSA]

We are winning, you are losing....

well, there were 1,500 people at the ruc's launch meeting, all of whom were presumably already members or joined shortly after. at the last ruc conference, 2,800 members were represented. in between times, we were told that the ruc were gaining 30 or 300 members a week, some ridiculous number anyway. the numbers simply don't add up, unless many hundreds left the ruc, forced out like flimsier or out of a growing horrified realisation that the ruc were as wanky an organisation as its namesake. although it will be interesting to see just how many people are represented at this year's ruc fiesta, i would be surprised if it were much above 3,000. the campaign to get a million pounds for last year's euro elections fell flat and - again - i feel that the accounts which finally emerge from the ruc's "little castlereagh" in brick lane will show a party in the doldrums rather than a party on the up & up.

My dad could twat your dad dead easy!

Do you think that part of what even other anarchists in the thread have stated is your distorted perspective with regard to the state of anarchism could be that you seem to define anarchism solely on the basis of putting one over on the Trots?

It isn't real, you know.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ask yourself something about the tone of your post. Jesus, talk about defensive. Can't help wondering why.

It was a reasonable enough question, and one that should concern yourself, as an anarchist, more than most.

Why mention the IWCA? I didn't.

If the Anarchist Bookfair is the main indicator of a growing anarchist movement then that says a lot, in actual fact. It says nothing, however, about the anarchist movement's ability to attract working class people, which is what I asked you about.

There might be 'thousands and thousands of Wombles in the UK' or there might not; that's the trouble: they're so difficult to count while they're underground, overground and wombling free. Anyway, I've heard that the whole shebang could go tits up when Uncle Bulgaria kicks it, which can't be that far off now. Rest assured, however, that I have never met a single working class person who has ever mentioned the Wombles (the ones you're on about). This would indicate that they've never even heard of them. Which press reports claim that there's thousands of them, by the way?

You are the one that said 'fun and play' is the way forward, and yet you can't give me a single example off the top of your head? Still, it must be one hell of a burden when you've got dozens and dozens of other threads to attend to in the cause of anarchy every single day.

there are a large number of reasons why working class people don't flock to anarchist groups. partly it's because a lot of people have never met any anarchists and also because a lot of people dislike politicks. there is the influence of the popular media to be countered and also the unfamilarity of a lot of anarchists with the working class. of course, many working class people may not feel that anarchism is the solution to their problems. when, on occasion, i have suggested to other members of the anarchist movement that it might be an idea to look at several areas of london which would not be unfriendly to anarchist ideas, the reason nothing's subsequently been done about it is that a lot of anarchists are lazy. so, there are any number of reasons why the wider working class isn't beating a path to the af or cw or sol fed or whateveranarchistgroup door.

why mention the iwca? why not?

if you had been following the media with the same assiduity with which you bore others into submission, you'd have noticed the stories run last year before the european summit in dublin, and i believe similar stories were printed in the run-up to the g8.

i would have you might have come across the antics of the clowns at the g8 summit, or the playful nature of the mayday action in hackney this year. but maybe you don't follow such things.

 

[Drunken Miss Ho]

Ok, going back to the first post - There are many valid criticisms of activism. What we should be looking at is do they work? Do they get us from A to B? Activism is of course very much flawed, but this is not always to do with it being co-opted or recuperated.

It is impossible for us to fully transcend capitalism while that capitalist society still goes on around us, and historically movements which try to do so - hippy communes, "free spaces" etc - have got us nowhere and only created seperatism. Class conflict is inherent in class society.

In concrete terms, sometimes in struggle we may have to make use of reformist unions, this or that liberal law and so on. The question is not "is this transcending capitalism?" but "Is this going to be effective in achieving our aims?"

 

[Pickman's model]

My dad could twat your dad dead easy!

Do you think that part of what even other anarchists in the thread have stated is your distorted perspective with regard to the state of anarchism could be that you seem to define anarchism solely on the basis of putting one over on the Trots?

It isn't real, you know.

did you ever stop to think that my reply to mattkidd12 was perhaps tongue in cheek?

 

[blamblam]

is that from yr vantage point at work?

Ha ha that's just great.

You're slagging me off for having a job. I love the anarchist movement.

I won't reply to all of your post pickmans cos it seems like we both have irreconcilably different ideas, but as for this: "the diversity and vibrancy of the movement" - come on. You can't even believe that, surely.

Not that I'm agreeing with LLETSA by the way, I think his crude idea about how to judge the "success" of "anarchism" is by how many "working class" people talk about one group or another (how well would the IWCA fare by that mark??). For me the only thing that's important is the strength of the class to organise itself in its own interest. That we can defend past gains, and eventually win new ones. I think that the best way for the working class to win concrete improvements to our lives is using anarchist/lib communist ideas - of grassroots, directly democratic organisation, and direct action. So the success of "anarchism" for me isn't whether this national federation or that manages to pass the 50-members mark, whether we win a couple of other clowns or "networkers", but just by our ability to solve our own problems collectively, as a class.



(NB There is obviously a correlation between general working class militancy and the size of class struggle anarchist organisations - like Spain, Italy, France, Sweden etc.)

 

[Pickman's model]

You're slagging me off for having a job. I love the anarchist movement.

yr vantage point at work, as opposed to yr previous vantage point from a better viewing position in whitechapel.

 

[Pickman's model]

So the success of "anarchism" for me isn't whether this national federation or that manages to pass the 50-members mark, whether we win a couple of other clowns or "networkers", but just by our ability to solve our own problems collectively, as a class.

is there either rhyme or reason to that sentence?

 

[Thora_v1]

is there either rhyme or reason to that sentence?

I think I understood it

 

[Pickman's model]

I think I understood it

could you please explain it for us thickies to whom it makes no sense, whatsoever?

 

[Thora_v1]

could you please explain it for us thickies to whom it makes no sense, whatsoever?

I thought he was saying that the indicators of the health of the anarcho scene (I don't think you can really accuse it of being a movement) - size of groups, "vibrancy" of demos etc. - isn't really an indication of the success of anarchism as he defines it; "our ability to solve our own problems collectively, as a class".

 

[Pickman's model]

I thought he was saying that the indicators of the health of the anarcho scene (I don't think you can really accuse it of being a movement) - size of groups, "vibrancy" of demos etc. - isn't really an indication of the success of anarchism as he defines it; "our ability to solve our own problems collectively, as a class".

i thought he was saying that as well, at first.

 

[Thora_v1]

i thought he was saying that as well, at first.

At first - so what do you think he's saying now? And where's the man himself to put us straight?

 

[Pickman's model]

At first - so what do you think he's saying now? And where's the man himself to put us straight?

the main problem i can see is that anarchists are a tiny minority of the working - & even of the middle - class. so how we can somehow solve the problems of the class, presumably for the class, & how that relates to anarchism as we know & love it, seems problematick to say the least.

& where is he? reconsidering?

 

[montevideo]

Ask yourself something about the tone of your post. Jesus, talk about defensive. Can't help wondering why.

It was a reasonable enough question, and one that should concern yourself, as an anarchist, more than most.

Why mention the IWCA? I didn't.

If the Anarchist Bookfair is the main indicator of a growing anarchist movement then that says a lot, in actual fact. It says nothing, however, about the anarchist movement's ability to attract working class people, which is what I asked you about.

There might be 'thousands and thousands of Wombles in the UK' or there might not; that's the trouble: they're so difficult to count while they're underground, overground and wombling free. Anyway, I've heard that the whole shebang could go tits up when Uncle Bulgaria kicks it, which can't be that far off now. Rest assured, however, that I have never met a single working class person who has ever mentioned the Wombles (the ones you're on about). This would indicate that they've never even heard of them. Which press reports claim that there's thousands of them, by the way?

You are the one that said 'fun and play' is the way forward, and yet you can't give me a single example off the top of your head? Still, it must be one hell of a burden when you've got dozens and dozens of other threads to attend to in the cause of anarchy every single day.

which is fair enough, but the working class people who have heard of the wombles or who have come across us have no problems with us at all, indeed the only people who have problems with us are other anarchists, leftists & other disgruntled politicos. And in the real world they do count for shit.

If the question is why aren't more working class people involved in anarchist organisations (as opposed to a method of working) i honestly don't know. But i do know anyone here trying to explain what working class people do & think, only do so by resorting to cliche & stereotype. Plus we could extend it to why working class people aren't attracted to radical politics per se, & take that as our starting point.

The options are obvious, we become the cynical half-breeds of malcontents telling everyone "what we should be doing" (without every putting their heads over the parrapet, in whatever political way they see appropriate) or we actually contribute to the ongoing struggle (in whatever way they see apropriate).

My problem isn't with those with a different political opinion or method (heaven forbid), but with those who have no intention of being involved in anything regardless of their political viewpoint.

 

[Velvetine]

" Do you believe there is an activity that we can engage in politically that cannot be recuperated back by the totality of the state/capitalism?"

Offing the ruling class. every last one of them.

 

[Pickman's model]

" Do you believe there is an activity that we can engage in politically that cannot be recuperated back by the totality of the state/capitalism?"

Offing the ruling class. every last one of them.

good first post!

welcome aboard!

 

[blamblam]

the main problem i can see is that anarchists are a tiny minority of the working - & even of the middle - class. so how we can somehow solve the problems of the class, presumably for the class, & how that relates to anarchism as we know & love it, seems problematick to say the least.

& where is he? reconsidering?

Sorry didn't know you were all hanging around for an answer. I have been, er, otherwise engaged

Anyway Pickman's, I would like to think that you were intelligent enough to understand what I said, as Thora did, and are just saying that in order to be pendantic.

I'm sure you'll already know that I don't think anarchists should solve the problems of the class (most are even incapable of solving their own problems! ), I think that what's important is our class being able to solve problems for itself.

Now for this:

yr vantage point at work, as opposed to yr previous vantage point from a better viewing position in whitechapel.

Firstly I'm not going to get into the game of trying to insult you about what I perceive your personal political activity to be, cos that's pathetic. But let me get this straight - you slag me off for having a job, cos I can't possibly perceive things about the world from my position at work. Now you try to slag me off for being involved in an anarchist publication/building in Whitechapel - both of which you have also helped out with. I was also working while I worked there as well, btw. So maybe I had 2 vantage points?

Please tell me then what is the "vantage point" from which I can see things about the world the Pickman's - or is it somewhere I'm unlikely to ever be, like in front of your computer screen?

 

[Pickman's model]

i would like to think you were intelligent enough to express yrself with clarity.

you've said above that you've essentially severed yr previous close connection with the anarchist movement. yr decision to leave, to remove yrself from the movement, has given you a certain, to my mind negative, slant on anarchism in britain. yr point of view, then, is more than a little biased.

if you want to pretend i'm slagging you off for either yr involvement with freedom or for yr employment, think that if you will.

since yr self-imposed departure from the @ movement, you seem to have adopted an agenda perhaps to justify yr exile, perhaps because you are no longer the victim of the passion you used to have. perhaps for some other reasons... i neither know or greatly care. but since you think the anarchist movement is, in yr words, a waste of time, i wouldn't expect to hear anything good or constructive about british anarchism from you.

 

[revol68]

the fact you care about the anarchist movement says everything i need to know. The anarchist movement means nothing, it's a closed self referencial point. At least those of us who have attempted to stand back and reasess the relationship between the "movement" and class take anarchism seriously enough to want it to be an actual organic response from the proletariat, as opposed a movement of marginalised malcontents who run from activity to activity in blind terror that any lose of momentum would leave them a few seconds to grasp the futility of their activism.

 

[Pickman's model]

the fact you care about the anarchist movement says everything i need to know. The anarchist movement means nothing, it's a closed self referencial point. At least those of us who have attempted to stand back and reasess the relationship between the "movement" and class take anarchism seriously enough to want it to be an actual organic response from the proletariat, as opposed a movement of marginalised malcontents who run from activity to activity in blind terror that any lose of momentum would leave them a few seconds to grasp the futility of their activism.

what does that mean?

what have you & yr mates done in this reassessing break you've taken? what new insights has yr reassessment given you? why are you inactive, and have you any plans for any activity in the future, of any description? & why d'you believe that yr inactivity is in some way revolutionary?