Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Middle Classes Shall Rise up and Revolt!

Tom A said:
Try telling that to people who grew up in the former Eastern Bloc.
I think they would agree with nightbreed's statement.

One of the problems with the eastern block was that the managers (party officials) were not accountable to the workers (general population). In actual fact, the average worker had very little control over the means of production.
 
George Bernard Shaw observed that the population is/was divided into "those who move objects on or near the surface of the earth, and those who supervise the above".
 
kyser_soze said:
JG Ballard wrote a book about this recently - a bunch of m/c terrorists who lived at Chelsea Wharf or something.

Millenium People. It was OK, but not one of his better efforts - but then I haven't liked anything as much as Vermillion Sands and The Atrocity Exhibition.

In a way, pretty much all of Ballard's stuff is about this, I reckon.
 
laptop said:
George Bernard Shaw observed that the population is/was divided into "those who move objects on or near the surface of the earth, and those who supervise the above".
thinker.jpg
 
nightbreed said:
Ok maybe manager is the wrong word. How about organiser?
Work still has to be organised even in a socialist society. The issue is accountability.
You're conflating the organisation of production with having a managerial class (whatever you want to call it) who control the means of production.

There's no reason production couldn't be organised by federations of directly democratic workers' councils.
 
kyser_soze said:
Hmmm, ever put this into practice in a real life work situation IB?
Not personally, no.

Spain '36, Hungary '56 and France '68 are interesting examples of how it might work though :)
 
All those examples are of limited environments, which did not involve infrastructure critical decisions or management, and were all small populations which are easy to administer. Got any evidence that scaling it up to meet the needs of a population of 60 million would work?
 
kyser_soze said:
All those examples are of limited environments, which did not involve infrastructure critical decisions or management, and were all small populations which are easy to administer. Got any evidence that scaling it up to meet the needs of a population of 60 million would work?
And more to the point, ensure that the forces of fascism and/or Stalinism don't just undo their good work? This is something that gets me about anarchists who always go "oh, but look at us during the Spanish Civil War". The fact was, they still were on the losing side. Sad but true.
 
Tom A said:
And more to the point, ensure that the forces of fascism and/or Stalinism don't just undo their good work? This is something that gets me about anarchists who always go "oh, but look at us during the Spanish Civil War". The fact was, they still were on the losing side. Sad but true.

Well, the anarchist take on that is that they lost when they decided to abandon anarchist principles and collaborate with the liberals, trottists and other authoritarians. In any case, look at something like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Was that wrong purely because they lost?
 
Fruitloop said:
Well, the anarchist take on that is that they lost when they decided to abandon anarchist principles and trust the trottists and other authoritarians. In any case, look at something like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Was that wrong purely because they lost?
Not saying it was "wrong", just that it ultimately didn't work, but yes, that isn't a reason not to struggle.
 
Well yeah. I mean, Franco was supported by the fascists in Italy and Germany, the anarchists were betrayed by supposed allies left right and center and the liberal western powers stood by and did nothing, so I think the fact that they lost has more to do with the historical situation than some inherent flaw in anarchist methodology. Without the collectivization of agriculture and the war industry etc I don't think their would have been much of a war at all - victory would have been handed more or less straight to Franco with all the disaster and suffering for ordinary people which that ultimately entailed.
 
Even if the anarchists were "sold out" by the Trots and Stalinists, staying in a small clique whilst keeping out those deemed not anarchist enough isn't going to get anywhere fast, in order to have a lasting effect you are going to have to engage with those who don't necessarily share your views. I certinaly doubt that most of the working class have ever heard of Bakunin, Proudhon, or Kropotkin, just to name a few who have inspired what we refer to today as "anarchism", you will be lucky to find anyone who knows anything about Marx other than that he was famous for something.

Besides, on a local level, I know some fairly decent kind of people who are Trots, who I would happily work with, whilst not becoming uncritical of their beliefs.
 
becky p said:
Without Middle Class people this country would collapse. And very few are spoilt,they work hard and commute to work on crowded roads and a public transport system that is falling apart.

I think niksativa is right. People on the Left should embrace middle class values.;)
There's truth in that - 'middle class' people are often alienated workers as much as proles - its this recreation of class brackets into income brackets thats to blame.

kyser_soze said:
All those examples [of workers feds] are of limited environments, which did not involve infrastructure critical decisions or management, and were all small populations which are easy to administer. Got any evidence that scaling it up to meet the needs of a population of 60 million would work?
The fact that all attemtps to achieve this have been squashed by the barrel of the gun suggests that 'the powers that be' are scared that it would work. Its not a case of "scaling it up", as much as starting at the bottom and building from the base: "scaling it up" suggests a top down imposition. Start at the bottom and lets see how far we get.

Without going off into the Utopian sunset, I think it is enough to agree what the ultimate goal would be and work towards it, rather than centrally plan every step of the path going forward a hundred years. No need to give up before you start becasue it might never work - better to work towards it, moving the goal posts as you go.

Also. what if transitionally the UK became a nation of federal units (as many nationalist parties are proposing), reducing areas into smaller units - would that make it less top heavy?

Anyhow, I've managed to find the original MoD piece -:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5CB29DC4-9B4A-4DFD-B363-3282BE255CE7/0/strat_trends_23jan07.pdf

The key source of middle class angst is:
The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite.
Radicalising the 'grey vote' will/should become key in future revolutionary propaganda!

There are lots of interesting things in that MoD thing - paints a picture of the world on a knife edge.
 
Tom A said:
Even if the anarchists were "sold out" by the Trots and Stalinists, staying in a small clique whilst keeping out those deemed not anarchist enough isn't going to get anywhere fast, in order to have a lasting effect you are going to have to engage with those who don't necessarily share your views. I certinaly doubt that most of the working class have ever heard of Bakunin, Proudhon, or Kropotkin, just to name a few who have inspired what we refer to today as "anarchism", you will be lucky to find anyone who knows anything about Marx other than that he was famous for something.

Besides, on a local level, I know some fairly decent kind of people who are Trots, who I would happily work with, whilst not becoming uncritical of their beliefs.

Well, it's a question of situation. For example I would happily work with avowed liberals like No2ID, because in the short term we share the same goals and to be honest there isn't any particularly useful anarchist perspective that the campaign desperately needs - the liberal response is about as likely to succeed as any other, so why waste effort.

The collectivization in and around Barcelona and elsewhere wasn't a 'small clique' however, it was a genuine and remarkeable social revolution. The question that had to be faced, though, was whether it was capable of defeating fascism on its own (given the immense military and financial backing that Franco had from neighbouring fascist states, and the non-intervention of the liberal western powers), and IMO the decision to collaborate with the liberals, trots etc was in this specific situation a disastrous tactical error that ultimately led to the total defeat of the revolution.

I'm no expert on this I have to confess - if you want to read up on the whole thing then you could do worse that start here
 
Its not a case of "scaling it up", as much as starting at the bottom and building from the base: "scaling it up" suggests a top down imposition. Start at the bottom and lets see how far we get.

Ermm no, 'scaling up' is the process where you take something that works on a small scale and attempt to take the same methods up to a much wider scale - something you'd need to do. While your ideas about breaking the country down into smaller and smaller administrative units would be a start (and one I agree with - I reckon the optimum population of any large group is around the 3-10 million mark, any bigger and it becomes unmanageable)

What you don't address, and not a single person has ever addressed, is even some imagined ideas on how you'd manage infrastructure nationally - how many people was Barcelona? You're talking about taking that process up to a population of 60 million people, who are going to be wanting light, heating and food, many of whom won't be able to organise themselves or bring any useful skills to the social pot, let alone help getting involved in self organising groups...and that's before you even start on the political squabbling, backstabbing etc that you'd get.

All the while, people are still going to want to be fed, they will still want warmth, they'll still want hospitals, and TVs...
 
kyser_soze said:
What you don't address, and not a single person has ever addressed, is even some imagined ideas on how you'd manage infrastructure nationally - how many people was Barcelona? You're talking about taking that process up to a population of 60 million people, who are going to be wanting light, heating and food, many of whom won't be able to organise themselves or bring any useful skills to the social pot, let alone help getting involved in self organising groups...and that's before you even start on the political squabbling, backstabbing etc that you'd get.


I think you do it by breaking things down into smaller units and then co-ordinating them. Just like capitalism does. :confused:

In any case, how many things need to be truly national anyway? You seem to be stuck with the idea that everything that is provided by the state must be the size of that state, but the idea is to move beyond the idea of a state anyway. I mean, NZ is a third of the size of London population-wise, but occupies an area larger than Great Britain, and yet they have hospitals, and warmth and TVs and all that shit - and in general there's a better standard of living for the majority than there is here, I would say.
 
mean, NZ is a third of the size of London population-wise, but occupies an area larger than Great Britain, and yet they have hospitals, and warmth and TVs and all that shit - and in general there's a better standard of living for the majority than there is here, I would say.

Yup, and the total population of NZ is about 1/3 that of the Greater London area (you'll also know that for many NZers stuff like gas, electric, water etc are done on an individual or local area basis since it's not practical to plumb in to the main grids), so you're talking about considerably less need.

Things that might need to be national...

transport infrastructure planning
resources distribution
communication infrastructure

The Spanish example simply cannot be compared to the challenges that would face an advanced, post industrial society. For example, when talking about food, all the resource back in the 30s were provided locally - the UK sources much of it's food from overseas, and doesn't have the arable land capacity to supply it's own population. So you'll either have 00s of local organisations, or tens of regional ones, sourcing produce from overeseas (don't forget, at present food distribution is concentrated in about 10-15 companies in the UK, split between retailers and 'trade' suppliers (catering etc)) as well as locally - huge duplication of effort just on the ordering alone, let alone developing the most efficient distribution methods.

I'm not opposed to anarchism - in fact I think it WOULD be better, I just think that there would be a 6-24 month window to make it work to the point that people were adequately fed, housed and tended to and if the anarchist model was NOT delivering those things to 'the masses' you'd have a counter-revolution on your hands.
 
But that re-localisation of agriculture is desirable, because the present situation is unsustainable, so I see that as a bonus not a problem. There is a problem with the arable land in the UK, but this kind of thing can be tackled with urban gardening like the Cuban hydroponicos (sp?).

One thing that I think is misunderstood about the concept of a revolution is that you can have a more or less immediate social revolution, but more gradualism in terms of structural and organisational changes.

From that article I linked to:

Although the revolution didn't go as far in the cities as it did in the country, many achievements are worth noting. It was in Catalonia, the industrial heartland and stronghold of the CNT, that most was gained. In Barcelona over 3,000 enterprises were collectivised. All the public services, not only in Catalonia but throughout the Republican zone, were taken over and run by committees of workers.

To give some idea of the extent of the collectivisation here is a list provided by one observer (Burnett Bolloten, The Grand Camouflage by no means an anarchist book). He says "railways, traincars and buses, taxicabs and shipping, electric light and power companies, gasworks and waterworks, engineering and automobile assembly plants, mines and cement works, textile mills and paper factories, electrical and chemical concerns, glass bottle factories and perfumeries, food processing plants and breweries were confiscated and controlled by workmens's (sic) committees, either term possessing for the owners almost equal significance". He goes on "motion picture theatres and legitimate theatres, newspapers and printing, shops, department stores and hotels, de-lux restaurants and bars were likewise sequestered".

This shows clearly that the portrayal of anarchism as being something to do with quaint small workshops is untrue. Large factories, some of them employing thousands of workers, were taken over and run by workers' committees.

Often the workplaces were siezed because the owners had fled or had stopped production to sabotage the revolution. But the workers did not stop with these workplaces all major places of work were taken over. Some were run and controlled by the workers. In others "control committees" were established to ensure that production was maintained (these existed to exercise a power of veto on the decisions of the boss in cases where the workers had not taken over the power of management).
 
But that re-localisation of agriculture is desirable, because the present situation is unsustainable,

Too much of an issue to go into detail here, but the UK cannot grow enough food to sustain it's currentl population; to grow many of the foods we import (such as tomatos) is actually less sustainable in the UK than importing them from abroad...and that's just one thing!

I'm also interested in the preceeding social situation - at the moment even if the government and capitalists all just fucked off I reckon society would be in utterly deep shit because people are so used to the state dealing with shit (and of course the ever present fact that if things get fucked up and go wrong in an anarchy, there's no one to blame for fucking it up, only ourselves!)
 
In Bloom said:
I should fucking hope not. A "revolution" that ends with a group of managers who control the economy is just a bloody, brutal civil war.
Name me one revolution that wasn't some form of bloody and brutal civil war.
 
Why would an anarchist state not be able to import things from abroad?

The capitalists at my place of work are almost completely notional. In fact we just swapped one group for another group and the only thing that changed was the sign in Reception.

The Govt is a different matter - govt functions would have to be collectivised in the same way that other workplaces would, but I don't see why it would be more difficult to collectivise a hospital than it would a factory. In fact:

For the first time in Spain many workers had the benefit of a health service - organised by the CNT Federation of Health Workers. The Federation consisted of 40,000 health workers - nurses, doctors, administrators and orderlies. Once again the major success was in Catalonia where it ensured that all of the 2.5 million inhabitants had adequate health care.
 
kyser_soze said:
Too much of an issue to go into detail here, but the UK cannot grow enough food to sustain it's currentl population; to grow many of the foods we import (such as tomatos) is actually less sustainable in the UK than importing them from abroad...and that's just one thing!
Not so convinced by that. We overproduce lots of land intensive products that we don't need. And we import lots of food mainly because we are no longer accustomed to what food grows at what time of year.

I don't think that a re-localisation of agriculture means an end to importing food. I just think it means adjusting 80% of our food economy.
 
Fruitloop said:
One thing that I think is misunderstood about the concept of a revolution is that you can have a more or less immediate social revolution, but more gradualism in terms of structural and organisational changes.
The uk imports most goods, and of course oil, not just food. And a social revolution will almost immediately make exporters outside the uk doubt whether they will get paid for goods, so the disruption will be immediate, even if everyone tries to carry on as normal :(
 
treelover said:
Middle classes of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your two homes including that very nice pied de terre in Tuscany, your rover 1.5, your 42inch plasma screen, your little darlings public school fees, your bi-annual ticket for Glasto, and your other one for the big chill, your Alexander McQueen summer dress and that chic little number you bought in Paris on your third short hop that year....
not really the middle class that though is it? How many public schools are there in the UK?

(edit: probs not more than 50, its not an exact fiugure as its not an exact term. But proper public schools are a fraction of the 2,500 plus private schools in the UK)
 
samk said:
The uk imports most goods, and of course oil, not just food. And a social revolution will almost immediately make exporters outside the uk doubt whether they will get paid for goods, so the disruption will be immediate, even if everyone tries to carry on as normal :(

Pay them in advance.
 
Back
Top Bottom