# Where are the black anarchists?



## sacx (Jun 10, 2005)

Was going to throw this up on enrager/libcom but I'm logged in here.

So, then, where are they?


----------



## Stavrogin (Jun 10, 2005)

I know lots and lots of black anarchists... most aren't involved in any kind of 'struggle', 'movement' etc.   -  there are many different reasons for that... why are there so many white anarachists who don't actually do/take part in anything as well?  ... those are better questions..


----------



## majorleague (Jun 10, 2005)

sacx said:
			
		

> Was going to throw this up on enrager/libcom but I'm logged in here.
> 
> So, then, where are they?
> :


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

Well, Anarchist People of Colour would be a good place to start your search (that's the US though- http://www.illegalvoices.org/).

In the UK- given that there are incredibly low levels of politicisation, it isn't that suprising that there are so few anarchists. We are generally male, and have generally come to anarchism through reading rather than struggle (anyone disagree with that? with fuck all struggle it isn't exactly suprising). The culture that this group therefore imprints on the politics must have something to do with the lower levels of black and women anarchists.


----------



## knopf (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Well, Anarchist People of Colour would be a good place to start your search (that's the US though- http://www.illegalvoices.org/).
> 
> In the UK- given that there are incredibly low levels of politicisation, it isn't that suprising that there are so few anarchists. We are generally male, and have generally come to anarchism through reading rather than struggle (anyone disagree with that? with fuck all struggle it isn't exactly suprising). The culture that this group therefore imprints on the politics must have something to do with the lower levels of black and women anarchists.



Generally agree, although I came to anarchism by meeting anarchists rather than by reading books. They did lend me some books later on though.   . The old DAM (precursor of SolFed) did have a black member or 2 in South London, I think -- in fact we're currently pursuing a grievance for one of them with a well-known liberal supermarket.


----------



## Stevil (Jun 10, 2005)

There is always ther Awarness League in Nigeria, affiliated to the IWA but I presume you mean in the UK. 
By the way Krops I'm not sure what you meant about coming to anarchism through reading rather than struggle. A few of us older ones in SolFed came through trade union militancy rather than 'reading'. In my case the reading just confirmed what I was already feeling and gave it a context.


----------



## Sorry. (Jun 10, 2005)

Stevil said:
			
		

> There is always ther Awarness League in Nigeria, affiliated to the IWA but I presume you mean in the UK.



Are the IWA still in contact with the Awareness League? Last I heard you weren't able to get a reply from them.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 10, 2005)

I once heard about a 'Black Autonomous Collective' in America...are they still around?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 10, 2005)

There's hundreds of those little groups matt. But i think you're on about the Black AutonomY Collective ?


----------



## mk12 (Jun 10, 2005)

Yeah, I think they are/were based in Seattle.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 10, 2005)

No idea if they're still going. These little groups tend to come and go very quickly.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

Yes, I know Stevil- what i mean is that the majority of those active at the moment seem to have arrived at anarchist positions without having been through struggle. It is a general trend i've noticed. It is a bad thing, but not that suprising. As you say, it is mostly 'older ones' who have had experiences of struggle, and have developed politics thorugh that. Most of the younger people have yet to experience significant industrial militancy.


----------



## rednblack (Jun 10, 2005)

where's all the working class anarchists?


----------



## knopf (Jun 10, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> where's all the working class anarchists?



 

Everyone in South London SolFed is a horny-handed son (or indeed daughter) of toil.


----------



## Sorry. (Jun 10, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> where's all the working class anarchists?



there's at least 3 on this thread ...


----------



## rednblack (Jun 10, 2005)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> there's at least 3 on this thread ...



me, butchers, and stevil?


----------



## Sorry. (Jun 10, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> me, butchers, and stevil?



Kroppers, myself and mattkidd


----------



## rednblack (Jun 10, 2005)

well maybe mattkidd...


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

so excited i posted it twice


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

What does "middle class" mean anyway?


Fuck radical class analysis, lets all use bourgeois sociological class definitions!


----------



## sacx (Jun 10, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> where's all the working class anarchists?



Another good question 

It was reading about a recent eviction in Birmingham that made me ask the question. It seems to be a question at least one of the participants was asking, in a round about way. Eviction report here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/312893.html


----------



## Stevil (Jun 10, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> where's all the working class anarchists?



In SolFed


----------



## knopf (Jun 10, 2005)

Stevil said:
			
		

> In SolFed



Ooooohhh..... cheeky.

He's right, though.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> What does "middle class" mean anyway?
> 
> 
> Fuck radical class analysis, lets all use bourgeois sociological class definitions!





We're all working class now?

An interesting variation on a well-worn notion.

Is 'radical class analysis' carried out by those within a notionally working class 'movement' who are not really a part of the working class and not from working class backgrounds but wish to be, and therefore seek to expand the catagory to make it seem as wide and inclusive as possible?


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

I ahve tried to discuss this a few times now.

If you mean "class" as in the relationship of someone to capital, then there are two classes.

If you use the definitions of class used by capitalism- sociological definitions that talk about 'culture' and patterns of consumption- then there are three (or four?).

It seems odd to me that some otherwise 'radical' types cleave to the definitions used by capital.

I'm culturally middle class- schooled in local private grammar school my mum worked in, went to uni, work in a non-manual job. I'm economically working class- I do not have acces to any productive capital, and am a waged labourer.


----------



## rednblack (Jun 10, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Is 'radical class analysis' carried out by those within a notionally working class 'movement' who are not really a part of the working class and not from working class backgrounds but wish to be, and therefore seek to expand the catagory to make it seem as wide and inclusive as possible?



i thin that's about the size of it


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I ahve tried to discuss this a few times now.
> 
> If you mean "class" as in the relationship of someone to capital, then there are two classes.
> 
> ...





Wasn't talking about you in particular.  But, far from having tried to discuss this before, you attacked my 'unscientific' definition of working class in thread on the protest board and then bailed out of the discussion after a few vaguely 'sociological'-sounding sentences. 

And while the definition you give here might be correct in purely economic terms (relation to capital), it isn't how the vast majority of people see it.  Is it?  If it was, things would probably be a lot easier for those who adhere to radical politics.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

I'm ignoring the snidey first bit- not interested

What use is it to judge the value of ideas by what most people think?


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I'm ignoring the snidey first bit- not interested
> 
> What use is it to judge the value of ideas by what most people think?





Why is it snidey?  You didn't even give a clear definition of what you mean on that particular thread, let alone put forward a convincing argument.  

Don't understand your last sentence.


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 10, 2005)

There are a number of Black anarchist I know working hard on many projects (I can only talk about London) I’m not sure they would describe themselves as anarchist but it would define their politics.

But if you look at the % of white people in the UK that are Anarchist I think you’d find that they would be a similar % amounts Blacks and ethnics.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Why is it snidey?  You didn't even give a clear definition of what you mean on that particular thread, let alone put forward a convincing argument.


 _I_ asked _you_ for a definition of words _you_ were using. Not the other way round.


> Don't understand your last sentence.


 It was in response to this:


> And while the definition you give here might be correct in purely economic terms (relation to capital), it isn't how the vast majority of people see it. Is it?


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Jun 10, 2005)

what has anarchism got to do with colour?


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> _I_ asked _you_ for a definition of words _you_ were using. Not the other way round.
> It was in response to this:





Are you referring to that other thread?  If so, what's the point of asking for my definition without giving your's?  After all, it isn't as if you didn't make it clear you disagreed with me. 

I find it hard to believe that you don't think that people's perceptions have a bearing on reality.


----------



## kasheem (Jun 10, 2005)

Yeah I wonder. So what if there are no black anarchists?

But anyway I'll try to give some reasons. One thing is maybe the reason there aren't more black anarchists because 'radicalised' blacks tend to turn to nationalism and ethnocentrism. They turn to that kind of politics more than whites anyway. So the space for 'radical' or 'left' politics is reduced. Smaller slice of the pie. 

I think also that the socio-economic status of many blacks has an impact on the politics. More blacks are unpriveleged and working or underclass than whites. Anarchism tends to attract people from comfortable sectors of society (I'm saying on average, I know there are working class a's) who can afford to speculate about the kind of things anarchists speculate about. Read a lot of books for example such as Kroptokin says of himself. 

Working class people are more attracted to pragmatic solutions and politics and find it easier to fit into a 'movement'. Middle class people are more egocentric and don't fit into groups as easily. So more working class (and on average more blacks) will turn towards Labour, marxist groups or other 'problem solving' (eg community) kind of groups with no official ideology.

Same thing with Asians probably. The religion side (for Pakistanis etc) reduces the political opportunity for lefty type stuff, and also being on average more working / underclass have less time for politics and the kind of politics that (stereotypically) involves lots of discussion, reading texts by obscure people etc.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Are you referring to that other thread?  If so, what's the point of asking for my definition without giving your's?  After all, it isn't as if you didn't make it clear you disagreed with me.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that you don't think that people's perceptions have a bearing on reality.


 You are pretty fucking tedious sometimes. 
I said nothing about "reality", I said the "value of ideas"


> What use is it to judge the value of ideas by what most people think?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I ahve tried to discuss this a few times now.
> 
> If you mean "class" as in the relationship of someone to capital, then there are two classes.
> 
> ...



What's your accent like?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 10, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> There are a number of Black anarchist I know working hard on many projects (I can only talk about London) I’m not sure they would describe themselves as anarchist but it would define their politics.
> 
> But if you look at the % of white people in the UK that are Anarchist I think you’d find that they would be a similar % amounts Blacks and ethnics.



Are these people unconscious of their anarchist politics or are they so ashamed they don't want to own up to being anarchists? Also what are ethnics?


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> What's your accent like?


 

I'm from blackpool but don't have a regional accent


----------



## Ryazan (Jun 10, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> What's your accent like?



What is yours like?


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 10, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Are these people unconscious of their anarchist politics or are they so ashamed they don't want to own up to being anarchists? Also what are ethnics?


Neither, placing people in little boxes with a name on it is not something that goes on everywhere, most people I Know just get on with whatever project they are involved in and couldn’t give a shit about labels.

It is what you do not what you call yourself that defines a persons politics’ not some label that very few people would agree what it meant. 

You would need to explain what you mean by “Anarchist” if you want a fuller answer as I have met many people who discribe themselves as Anarchists and they were very different indeviduals.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> You are pretty fucking tedious sometimes.
> I said nothing about "reality", I said the "value of ideas"





It has been my experience that many lefties and anarchists tend to get a bit petulant and/or impatient with anybody who disagrees with them about something.  You do nothing to convince me that you don't share their fundamental intolerance (although I know a lot of anarchists are keen on getting as many 'working class' "fuckings" into their vocabulary as possible, as well as adopting a 'working class' confrontational stance.)

However, to get back to the subject, as I said above, your definition might be technically correct in an economic sense.  It counts for very little in actual fact though.  Cultural factors still count for very much - as do people's perceptions of themselves or others, however unfortunate or otherwise this might be. 

For example, in my mid-twenties I went from being a manual worker to doing a degree at university. There, the majority of students on my course recognised me for something they were not, and that was working class.  Upon getting to know about some of them, most of them came from a background where their relationship to capital was, technically speaking, the same as mine and my parents (all of us manual workers, while the parents of most of the students were salaried professionals.)  Yet their experiences, in terms of what kind of neighbourhoods they lived in, schools attended, places visited on holiday, purchasing power etc etc) were a world away from my own at their age.  We saw each other quite differently: they were middle class and I was working class, to put it bluntly, and this applies even though probably almost all of us ended up in waged employment. 

Significantly, they differed with me quite strongly when it came to political views.  The odd (sometimes very odd....) middle class leftie aside, they knew what side their bread was buttered on.  Even under the most ideal conditions for radical change- conditions of the type that could drag large numbers of the middle class leftwards - many of these people would inevitably, and for cultural reasons, see themselves as being 'on the other side of the barricades.'  They identify, whether you like it or not, with capital, not labour. (As would many working class people no doubt - but that is a different, if related, discussion.)


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

Well, that is just it, Lletsa (again, i'm ignoring the snidey shit at the beginning)- all you are essentially saying is that there are groups of workers who identify with capital. Yes, and?


I think that it is very related. The cultural forms that surround these people are what pressure them to identify with capital, and against their interests as part of a class- the class of waged labourers (whatever the content of that labour is). There are backwards cultural forms in the part of this class that you call working class, are there not?

what separates these in a meaningful way?

I don't have an answer- I am inclined to agree that there are three classes (this thread on libcom goes into it a bit), but haven't figured out whether this is something real or not.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 10, 2005)

Please don't hotlink to messageboards which ban some members from here from having their say.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 10, 2005)

don't tell me what to do, babylon


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Well, that is just it, Lletsa (again, i'm ignoring the snidey shit at the beginning)- all you are essentially saying is that there are groups of workers who identify with capital. Yes, and?
> 
> 
> I think that it is very related. The cultural forms that surround these people are what pressure them to identify with capital, and against their interests as part of a class- the class of waged labourers (whatever the content of that labour is). There are backwards cultural forms in the part of this class that you call working class, are there not?
> ...





No it is not all I'm saying.  I don't know how you can read what I've posted above and think that this is the case.  However, I can't go into it now as I've got to rush off to catch a train.


----------



## kasheem (Jun 10, 2005)

Can't middle class people 'over-ride' their environment? You make class sound very mechanistic, almost genetic.


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 10, 2005)

I would have thought that most Anarchist work with-in their own local community and I would therefore expect “Black” anarchist to do the same, so unless you live or work closely with the “Black” community you may never meet one, but as most anarchist don’t wear a badge saying I’m an anarchist how would you know?


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> don't tell me what to do, babylon





Er, don't try and patronise black people.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 10, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> don't tell me what to do, babylon



fucking coon 'ave some of that!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 10, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> What is yours like?



London -ish I have been living in Manchester for 18 years now , and you?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 10, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> Neither, placing people in little boxes with a name on it is not something that goes on everywhere, most people I Know just get on with whatever project they are involved in and couldn’t give a shit about labels.
> 
> It is what you do not what you call yourself that defines a persons politics’ not some label that very few people would agree what it meant.
> 
> You would need to explain what you mean by “Anarchist” if you want a fuller answer as I have met many people who discribe themselves as Anarchists and they were very different indeviduals.



Couldn't make head or tail of your middle sentence .

What are ethnics ?


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 10, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Couldn't make head or tail of your middle sentence .
> 
> What are ethnics ?


It is what someone does not what they call themselves that defines their politics’ 

In the context which I have used the word Ethnics in this thread (post No 30) I think it is clear what I mean; someone who is not white or considered black. I am using it as a generic term for all others groups.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 10, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> It is what someone does not what they call themselves that defines their politics’
> 
> In the context which I have used the word Ethnics in this thread (post No 30) I think it is clear what I mean; someone who is not white or considered black. I am using it as a generic term for all others groups.



Don't disagree.

Crap use of the word.Might have escaped you but the far right and racists like to use the word as well.


----------



## blamblam (Jun 10, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> We're all working class now?
> 
> An interesting variation on a well-worn notion.
> 
> Is 'radical class analysis' carried out by those within a notionally working class 'movement' who are not really a part of the working class and not from working class backgrounds but wish to be, and therefore seek to expand the catagory to make it seem as wide and inclusive as possible?


Whereas you want to make it as narrow and exclusive as possible? And thus the middle class bigger?

I find that a bit weird... I mean if you use the sociological definitions then yeah the middle class is the majority of the population now, so if you think the working class should run society you'll be arguing for minority rule no? Which is a bit weird...

And it does seem to contrast with you saying this on another thread:



			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> In reality the definition I gave above is not the same as capital's definition - what capital does, and has been doing for some time now, is to deny even the existence of a working class. Those who wish to restrict the working class to manual labour surely only aid those who wish to perpetuate the myth that everybody else is middle class?


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 10, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Don't disagree.
> 
> Crap use of the word.Might have escaped you but the far right and racists like to use the word as well.


What word would you have used?

It seems to me to be the correct word for my intension, I'm not going to have my English dictated to be by some nazi.

eth·nic    
adj. 

Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. 
Being a member of a particular ethnic group, especially belonging to a national group by heritage or culture but residing outside its national boundaries: ethnic Hungarians living in northern Serbia. 
Of, relating to, or distinctive of members of such a group: ethnic restaurants; ethnic art. 
Relating to a people not Christian or Jewish; heathen. 

n. 
A member of a particular ethnic group, especially one who maintains the language or customs of the group.


----------



## catch (Jun 10, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> I would have thought that most Anarchist work with-in their own local community and I would therefore expect “Black” anarchist to do the same, so unless you live or work closely with the “Black” community you may never meet one, but as most anarchist don’t wear a badge saying I’m an anarchist how would you know?



Eh? 90% of the anarchists/libcomists I know live in Hackney. MAny of them work in their local community. A high percentage of people in Hackney are black. Most neighbourhoods are very integrated. I don't know any black anarchists/libcomists.


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 10, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Eh? 90% of the anarchists/libcomists I know live in Hackney. MAny of them work in their local community. A high percentage of people in Hackney are black. Most neighbourhoods are very integrated. I don't know any black anarchists/libcomists.


You know the politics’ of all the black people in Hackney? How many Predominately Black projects are you involved in?

I am happy to pm you with the names of a number of projects where you would meet people whose politics’ could easily come under the umbrella of Anarchism, but the politics’ would come after the objective in the people I know.


----------



## ernestolynch (Jun 11, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Eh? 90% of the anarchists/libcomists I know live in Hackney. MAny of them work in their local community. A high percentage of people in Hackney are black. Most neighbourhoods are very integrated. I don't know any black anarchists/libcomists.



How many of these people are born and bred in Hackney, and how many are students passing through?


----------



## catch (Jun 11, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> I would have thought that most Anarchist work with-in their own local community and I would therefore expect “Black” anarchist to do the same, so unless you live or work closely with the “Black” community you may never meet one, but as most anarchist don’t wear a badge saying I’m an anarchist how would you know?



This is what you originally said. I'm not a hyper-activist by any means, so don't claim to know all of the people in Hackney, I simply pointed out that as someone living and working in my local community, which has a high proportion of black people, I'd not come across any black anarchists. That's my experience, no judgement implied in that.

I work at my local sixth form college, 90% of the students are 'BME' (their statistics for OFSTED), and I'm the only white person in my department, it's only 10 minutes up the road so I very much consider it a part of my local community, I don't determine community by ethnicity like you seem to.

With Hackney Independent, I've gone and done surveys/newsletter drops, and recently canvassing around Haggerston and Hoxton, there are a large number of black (and Turkish, Vietnamese, etc.) people opening their doors, but that's not reflected in the make-up of HI. I'd be interested in discussing why that happens, most of HI are male as well, but I don't think cajoling me for not being involved in a number of "Predominantly Black" projects is very helpful is it? As a white person, I reckon it'd be fairly patronising for me to go out looking for them to get involved with depending on the circumstances.

I'm not saying that black people aren't active in libertarian communist politics, but white people working in their local communities, which include plenty of BME people, aren't necessarily finding them.  I'd be very interested in hearing about the projects though


----------



## catch (Jun 11, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> How many of these people are born and bred in Hackney, and how many are students passing through?



I don't know about born and bred, but most of the people in HI have lived here for some time, I've not been a student since 2001 fwiw. I've lived in Hackney for four years, although I'm moving a mile east to Walthamstow in a month - can't afford to rent a similar place in Hackney it seems. How long have you lived in Sutton (or wherever it is)? Or are you just passing through?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 11, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> What word would you have used?
> 
> It seems to me to be the correct word for my intension, I'm not going to have my English dictated to be by some nazi.
> 
> ...



Iam not going to get all PC about your language .If you want to defend the use of the word 'ethnics'  fine .You could have used the phrase ethnic minorities, no whites , blacks and asians. etc I am just pointing out the this is the term the far right use.You might want to say that you are reclaiming it from the far right , if you are then have a go at the word nigger as well.


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 11, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Er, don't try and patronise black people.


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 11, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Iam not going to get all PC about your language .If you want to defend the use of the word 'ethnics'  fine .You could have used the phrase ethnic minorities, no whites , blacks and asians. etc I am just pointing out the this is the term the far right use.You might want to say that you are reclaiming it from the far right , if you are then have a go at the word nigger as well.


I'm not defending it I’m using it in the context it is meant, English is my second language and when I looked for a word that would encompass all groups not in the black or white camp the word ethnic seems to meet the needs, in the context I used the word it was correct, just for the record I would consider myself to come under the category of "Ethnic"


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 11, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> This is what you originally said. I'm not a hyper-activist by any means, so don't claim to know all of the people in Hackney, I simply pointed out that as someone living and working in my local community, which has a high proportion of black people, I'd not come across any black anarchists. That's my experience, no judgement implied in that.
> 
> I work at my local sixth form college, 90% of the students are 'BME' (their statistics for OFSTED), and I'm the only white person in my department, it's only 10 minutes up the road so I very much consider it a part of my local community, I don't determine community by ethnicity like you seem to.
> 
> ...



From the little I know about Hackney Independent it is a mainly white male group isn’t it? Maybe that’s your answer.

Have you considered how relevant your group is to local people if it doesn’t have a representative collection of people on it, maybe it is seen by some as more white people telling the others what is good for them? I don’t know 

This is not a critic of Hackney Independent it could be any group.


----------



## catch (Jun 11, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> From the little I know about Hackney Independent it is a mainly white male group isn’t it? Maybe that’s your answer.
> 
> Have you considered how relevant your group is to local people if it doesn’t have a representative collection of people on it, maybe it is seen by some as more white people telling the others what is good for them? I don’t know
> 
> This is not a critic of Hackney Independent it could be any group.



Yes it is mainly white men, I said as much in my post, although not exclusively. But a "Predominantly Black" group isn't necessarily more representative is it? It might not have any muslims or jewish people in it for a start... As to "more white people..." I fucking hope not, and HI isn't a bunch of preaching lefties in the haranguing sense.

I'm neither the longest serving member of HI nor the most active, so I'll try to talk generally if possible. I'd be very worried if a local group was going 'round looking for Turkish, Nigerian and Black British members to make it more representative, it'd suggest swappie style tokenism.

On the same note, it's an important discussion as to why people don't get involved in this kind of politics, although most local groups we're talking about here are small - 5-20 people, so there's plenty of white people not involved either, most answers I think apply to any individual. TBH I think any organisation with 5-20 people would have a hard time being "representative" regardless of effort or their reasons for it.

I've seen a couple of big Turkish Stalinist meetings in Hackney, it may well be that Turkish activists gravitate to those organisations. I'm not going to go 'round leafletting Stalinist meetings of several hundred any time soon though.

To be honest, pretty much the only visible West African organisations I've come across in Hackney have been evangelical churches, not exactly a hotbed of libertarian socialism, and again not organisations I'm that interested in getting involved in. If you're happy to post/pm the names of those groups in Hackney I'd be interested in hearing about them.


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 11, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Yes it is mainly white men, I said as much in my post, although not exclusively. But a "Predominantly Black" group isn't necessarily more representative is it? It might not have any muslims or jewish people in it for a start... As to "more white people..." I fucking hope not, and HI isn't a bunch of preaching lefties in the haranguing sense.
> 
> I'm neither the longest serving member of HI nor the most active, so I'll try to talk generally if possible. I'd be very worried if a local group was going 'round looking for Turkish, Nigerian and Black British members to make it more representative, it'd suggest swappie style tokenism.
> 
> ...




I don’t know about Hackney the people I know all work on project in the Brixton/oval area.

I assume they work on predominantly “black” projects as there are plenty of white people fighting for other things.

Personally, I don’t think that there is a great deal of difference between the problems facing working class people be they black or white but as this thread was asking about Black’s I addressed my points to that.

I also know a number of female Anarchist, females make up about 52% of the population I suspect they are also out numbers but white male Anarchist about 100 to 1.

I don’t want to get into detail about the Hackney Independent I only mentioned it because of what you said about its make up, I have no idea what they do in there community.


----------



## SeniorSbagliato (Jun 11, 2005)

kasheem said:
			
		

> Can't middle class people 'over-ride' their environment? You make class sound very mechanistic, almost genetic.



I'm sure they can but their psycological schemas will keep telling them that Capital is good because it has been the source of their comfort and really one shouldn't bite the hand that feeds. So when the chips are down they are always more likely so side with Capital, shurely that's one of the reasons the middle class was expanded, muddies the class politics water too.


----------



## catch (Jun 11, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> I don’t know about Hackney the people I know all work on project in the Brixton/oval area.



Oops, I thought you meant in Hackney, but now see that your post didn't actually say that. Fair enough!


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 11, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Oops, I thought you meant in Hackney, but now see that your post didn't actually say that. Fair enough!


No problem
I think it is an interesting subject and I will make a point of asking a couple of black guys I know to see what they say.


----------



## kasheem (Jun 11, 2005)

> Iam not going to get all PC about your language .If you want to defend the use of the word 'ethnics' fine .You could have used the phrase ethnic minorities, no whites , blacks and asians. etc I am just pointing out the this is the term the far right use.You might want to say that you are reclaiming it from the far right , if you are then have a go at the word nigger as well.



Except for the fact that ethnics use the word ethnics to refer to themselves...


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 12, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

>





I hate pissing about with those smiley things.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 12, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Whereas you want to make it as narrow and exclusive as possible? And thus the middle class bigger?
> 
> I find that a bit weird... I mean if you use the sociological definitions then yeah the middle class is the majority of the population now, so if you think the working class should run society you'll be arguing for minority rule no? Which is a bit weird...
> 
> And it does seem to contrast with you saying this on another thread:





I've already said that, in strictly economic terms, I think that Kropotkin is correct. However, economic determinism (however you try to disguise it) always results in an over-simplification of life, as most people do not react to the world purely in terms of their economic status - although the latter does obviously have a decisive bearing on many situations. 

And anyway-where do I say that I wish to restrict the definition of the working class to those who perform manual labour?

I don't accept that the loose definition that I gave in the thread on the other board-which I presume is what you're referring to- is making the category of working class 'as narrow and exclusive as possible.'  For a start, I don't think that those who work in highly-paid professions, run their own businesses, or are in very well-paid middle and top management positions etc etc are the majority of the population.  Nowhere near it, in fact. They are, quite definitely, the middle class though, and in more than just economic terms - and would consider themselves to be so. Those who work in the routine jobs to be found in retail and other services, manufacturing, are unemployed, etc etc and live in the inner-cities, modest suburbs and council estates (and what has succeeded them) easily outnumber them, and most do, if recent polls are to be believed, rightly regard themselves as working class. 

There is an intermediate grouping which is also quite large, consisting of the not so highly-paid professionals - of which teachers are the most often cited examples on boards like this (wonder why....) While most of these people by no means have the kind of salaries that comfortably makes them a part of the middle class, their outlook is usually nonetheless middle class.  Before somebody points to the increasing numbers of people from working class backgrounds who become teachers, it is my experience that most of these come to cultivate the middle class attitudes of their contemporaries at university and so on. This is the case for other people in this intermediate grouping to one degree or another, sometimes depending on the profession.  Furthermore, it must be remembered that an individual's politics are not necessarily a reflection of the class they belong to. 

The picture is further complicated by the fact that there are people in manual jobs who may actually be more highly-paid than teachers, social workers, health professionals etc etc who remain, in their outlooks firmly working class, as can, even, people from working class backgrounds who are self-employed. 

In short, cultural factors inevitably have a bearing on class.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 12, 2005)

kasheem said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that ethnics use the word ethnics to refer to themselves...





And 'reds' to themselves....


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 13, 2005)

kasheem said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that ethnics use the word ethnics to refer to themselves...



Fact or your own view? What are ethnics kasheem or are you another one who has to look in a dictionary because English isn't your first language?


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

Lletsa- that was the most reasonable post I have seen yu make- I don't disagree with any of it.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Lletsa- that was the most reasonable post I have seen yu make- I don't disagree with any of it.





I'm really quite a reasonable kinda guy.


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 13, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Fact or your own view? What are ethnics kasheem or are you another one who has to look in a dictionary because English isn't your first language?


Just out of interest how many languages do you speak and how many can you write it?
What do you mean by "another one who has to look in a dictionary ………….”
 I'd have thought it was a good thing that people with English as a 2nd language do use a dictionary and spell checker it’s a shame so many British don’t as it make some posts impossible for people to read and understand when they spell words wrong, this is the Internet not some English club

Edited to say having read this post back it sounds/reads "angry" and isn't meant to be taken that way.


----------



## Kidda (Jun 13, 2005)

sacx said:
			
		

> Another good question
> 
> It was reading about a recent eviction in Birmingham that made me ask the question. It seems to be a question at least one of the participants was asking, in a round about way. Eviction report here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/312893.html



PLENTY of working class anarchists involved in that and the Social Centre beforehand


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jun 13, 2005)

LLETSA your definitions of class, outside the economic definitions, still seem very vague. The “quite large” section of people from the “intermediate” section for instance, I would say are working class, and a lot of them don’t meet the stereotypes you present. My mum for example is from a totally working class background (both economic and cultural) and became a primary school teacher. For a start she didn’t even go to uni but teacher training college (as many teachers do), but is still, in every sense of the word, working class. I imagine there are many other teachers from similar circumstances. Because if you say that the large majority of the “intermediate” section are middle class that is taking a large section out of the workers movement.

What about white collar workers like me who work in the council  (and other office workers) and now days make up a huge section of the work force. Where does that section fit in?

Many people who are part of the working class don't necessarily see it that way, but does that mean they aren't part of the working class? Also many people who see themselves as part of the working class (like my grandad who is an out and out lumpen), aren't in any real political sense or collective sense, so what does that mean?

I think the last poll I saw done said that way over 70% of people saw themselves as working class though.



> I don't accept that the loose definition that I gave in the thread on the other board-which I presume is what you're referring to- is making the category of working class 'as narrow and exclusive as possible.' For a start, I don't think that those who work in highly-paid professions, run their own businesses, or are in very well-paid middle and top management positions etc etc are the majority of the population. Nowhere near it, in fact. They are, quite definitely, the middle class though, and in more than just economic terms - and would consider themselves to be so. Those who work in the routine jobs to be found in retail and other services, manufacturing, are unemployed, etc etc and live in the inner-cities, modest suburbs and council estates (and what has succeeded them) easily outnumber them, and most do, if recent polls are to be believed, rightly regard themselves as working class.



Marx dealt with these kind of issues but in more definite way. The petty bourgeois, lumpen proletariat, labour aristocracy, professional caste etc all describe the layers you mention but in meaningful terms.

In reality there is a lot of flux. A lot of my mates at school who became self-employed have become the most anti-working class reactionaries I know, and I should think the impact of being part of the “petty bourgeoisie” that removes you from the working class has a lot to do with it. Indeed they are worse in their outlook than most “middle class” people I’ve met. But they'd still all see themselves as working class.

So do you agree with the kind of definitions that I’ve listed that Marx talks about or do you have different definitions that have any concrete meaning?

PS Epicurus for whatever reason you’re using it, the word “ethnics” is associated with the far-right. If you don’t want people to get the wrong idea then it’s probably best you use another term.

PPS Chuck how is the work down the docks going? Where does the kind of night shifts you do fit in to the class analyis? Petty bourgeois?


----------



## sacx (Jun 13, 2005)

Kidda said:
			
		

> PLENTY of working class anarchists involved in that and the Social Centre beforehand



Wasn't suggesting otherwise Kidda


----------



## Kidda (Jun 13, 2005)

sacx said:
			
		

> Wasn't suggesting otherwise Kidda



Good or id knock ya out


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jun 13, 2005)

Quite a few people in my work play Sudoku, a worrying middle class trend if you ask me.....


----------



## Kidda (Jun 13, 2005)

we went to do some anti bnp leafleting in a very working class area of brum before the election and bumped into a load of kids who'd just been playing hurling   what are they doing to our youngsters nowadays, it were games of Bulldog and cops n robbers were i was that age


----------



## sacx (Jun 13, 2005)

Kidda said:
			
		

> Good or id knock ya out





Shame about the eviction. Hope you find somewhere else soon mate.


----------



## Kidda (Jun 13, 2005)

sacx said:
			
		

> Shame about the eviction. Hope you find somewhere else soon mate.



ah space is space innit 

everyones safe  

we'll pop up again soon, thats for sure


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jun 13, 2005)

I remember "British Bulldog".....classic game.....

Death Can, now there was a brutal game, as was Tunnel of Death......


----------



## blamblam (Jun 13, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Lletsa- that was the most reasonable post I have seen yu make- I don't disagree with any of it.


If you don't disagree with any of it, could you outline the differences between a working and middle class "outlook"?

Is the assumption that within these groups outlooks are homogenous, with no variation between differenct (sub)cultures/races, etc.?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 13, 2005)

Epicurus said:
			
		

> Just out of interest how many languages do you speak and how many can you write it?
> What do you mean by "another one who has to look in a dictionary ………….”
> I'd have thought it was a good thing that people with English as a 2nd language do use a dictionary and spell checker it’s a shame so many British don’t as it make some posts impossible for people to read and understand when they spell words wrong, this is the Internet not some English club
> 
> Edited to say having read this post back it sounds/reads "angry" and isn't meant to be taken that way.



Stop wingeing.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> If you don't disagree with any of it, could you outline the differences between a working and middle class "outlook"?
> 
> Is the assumption that within these groups outlooks are homogenous, with no variation between differenct (sub)cultures/races, etc.?


 I agree with it because he is just describing the world as it is- it wasn't a political post and had little to do with class as I understand it.

Those in top management positions and owners of small businesses are middle class.
These people have middle class outlook (undefined)
Those below them also have a middle class outlook (undefined) whilst not having the income to sustain the lifestyle comfortably.

Each individual's politics are influenced by, but semi-autonomous from their class.



It's just a striaght-up description of advertising sociological categories isn't it? And they evolved that class categorisation as it fits their requirements and maximises the marketing of commodities.

an ad-man would disagree with class-struggle class analysis as well


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jun 13, 2005)

> Those in top management positions and owners of small businesses are middle class.



I don't know if I'd agree with this. It's too fluffy. I think the definitions of the professional caste and petty bourgeois are better in describing top management and small business owners.

Also if you say a middle class outlook is undefined it is utterly meaningless and tells us nothing.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

so what's there to disagree with?


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jun 13, 2005)

The whole term middle class!


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> The whole term middle class!



I think the problem here is that it is being seen as a class, in the same way that 'capitalist' and 'working' are seen as classes. It isn't a class in that sense- it is just a description of layers within the working class. Seen that way you can't really disagree with what Lletsa wrote.


----------



## Epicurus (Jun 13, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Stop wingeing.


 

*kropotkin*: Just for my own understanding can I ask? When you say “Those in top management positions and owners of small businesses are middle class”, is that only small businesses that have employees or would you include self-employed individuals with a small business; or would it then depend on what type of business it was?



Edit: Maybe reading another one of your posts I’ve found the answer to my question, is it that middleclass people are really working class, it is just they who think mof themselves as middle class.

Like just two classes the boss class and the working class.

Boss class people who own the means of production ect……….


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

yeah- and I was paraphrasing Lletsa anyway


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jun 13, 2005)

> It isn't a class in that sense- it is just a description of layers within the working class. Seen that way you can't really disagree with what Lletsa wrote.



But what layers? The descriptions LLETSA gave don't really tell you anything.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> LLETSA your definitions of class, outside the economic definitions, still seem very vague. The “quite large” section of people from the “intermediate” section for instance, I would say are working class, and a lot of them don’t meet the stereotypes you present. My mum for example is from a totally working class background (both economic and cultural) and became a primary school teacher. For a start she didn’t even go to uni but teacher training college (as many teachers do), but is still, in every sense of the word, working class. I imagine there are many other teachers from similar circumstances. Because if you say that the large majority of the “intermediate” section are middle class that is taking a large section out of the workers movement.
> 
> What about white collar workers like me who work in the council  (and other office workers) and now days make up a huge section of the work force. Where does that section fit in?
> 
> ...





I never said all teachers are middle class.  I said that, in my experience, most teachers are middle class, including those from working class backgrounds. Interestingly, you seem to conflate the working class with 'the workers' movement.'  They are not the same thing.  I assume you mean the labour movement, from which teachers are not excluded, for the simple fact that they are members of trade unions affiliated to the TUC - a major component of the labour movement. No other middle class member of a TUC-affiliated trade union is excluded from the labour movement either, for that matter. It doesn't make them working class though.

What about white collar workers like you?  I've already said that what can be broadly termed service workers are part of the working class. Possibly a majority of working class people work in the service sector nowadays.

Are working class people who don't see themselves as working class a part of the working class?  Yes.  I never said anything to suggest that they were not. 

I've already pointed out that in recent polls a majority of those asked saw themselves as belonging to the working class; you are simply repeating this. 

I do defer to Marx however; I would imagine that he used more 'meaningful terms' throughout his work than me, you and most other people using internet forums (even Kroptkin.) 

In your comments about working class self-employed people you seem to be  confusing being working class with being a socialist, just as you confuse the working class with the 'workers' movement'.  The two don't necessarily go together. I also agree that there is 'a lot of flux.'  Never claimed otherwise.

Yes, I suppose Marx's terms still have a great deal of relevance.  But I don't see that I wrote anything that suggests that I don't think so.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Is the assumption that within these groups outlooks are homogenous, with no variation between differenct (sub)cultures/races, etc.?





No.

In actual fact, the ones who are simplifying are those who seek to reduce a complex society to a class of capitalists and a class of those subservient to them.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I remember "British Bulldog".....classic game.....
> 
> Death Can, now there was a brutal game, as was Tunnel of Death......





Was it this brutalised working class upbringing that left you itching to see some action in Iraq?


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I agree with it because he is just describing the world as it is- it wasn't a political post and had little to do with class as I understand it.
> 
> Those in top management positions and owners of small businesses are middle class.
> These people have middle class outlook (undefined)
> ...





Where do I say that that 'those below top mangement have a middle class outlook'?  All of them?  I say nothing of the kind.

Nor did I say that 'those below top management do not have the income to comfortably sustain a middle class lifestyle.' 

You cannot "define" a middle class outlook any more than you can "define" a working class one.  But perhaps you have spent insufficient time among working class people (as opposed to political activists who happen to come from the working class) to recognise when you are in the presence of middle class, as opposed to working class people.  Or maybe not, says LLETSA as he sees Kropotkin, Icepick and Cockney opening their stable doors and saddling up their high horses.   

Do you deny that people's social backgrounds or social status have a bearing on their political views? 

Why don't you ever define your "class struggle analysis"?


----------



## blamblam (Jun 13, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> You cannot "define" a middle class outlook any more than you can "define" a working class one.  But perhaps you have spent insufficient time among working class people (as opposed to political activists who happen to come from the working class) to recognise when you are in the presence of middle class, as opposed to working class people.  Or maybe not, says LLETSA as he sees Kropotkin, Icepick and Cockney opening their stable doors and saddling up their high horses.
> 
> Do you deny that people's social backgrounds or social status have a bearing on their political views?


I know who in my head I categorise socially as "middle class" and working class, and I do it by accent. My family are entirely sociologically working class (manual workers) and I have spent a lot of time in their company, thanks.

My friends, girlfriends and co-workers are generally middle class. From anecdotal personal stuff and generally I can't see that the middle/working class divide has any more relatedness to political views/outlook as other things such as religion, race, subculture (goth/townie/grunger etc.) or geographical location. In fact I think it generally has less.



> Why don't you ever define your "class struggle analysis"?


If you asked, I'd define it as this:
The working class consists of all the people in society who can not get by without selling our time and energy to a boss - by working. I.e. if we do not make large amounts of money from property holdings or owning a business we have to be wage labourers, or in some places in the world rely on state welfare or crime. 

The capitalist class consists of those individuals who do not have to work (though they generally do) since they draw enough income from property such as land, housing or businesses/stocks and shares.

The class struggle lies in this: bosses want workers to work the longest hours for the least pay, workers want to work the shortest hours for the most pay. A struggle results which manifests itself in a myriad of different ways.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> If you asked, I'd define it as this:
> The working class consists of all the people in society who can not get by without selling our time and energy to a boss - by working. I.e. if we do not make large amounts of money from property holdings or owning a business we have to be wage labourers, or in some places in the world rely on state welfare or crime.
> 
> The capitalist class consists of those individuals who do not have to work (though they generally do) since they draw enough income from property such as land, housing or businesses/stocks and shares.
> ...





It was Kropotkin that I was asking to define his 'class struggle analysis', but I appreciate your having a stab in his absence. I will, in the meantime, wait with bated breath for him to post up another link to the Gallery of Obscure Gurus and Ignored Prophets. 

But do you think that the class struggle manifests itself only in the workplace? And how do you think that you (not you personally) are ever going to get those who work for a living (which defines them as working class in your eyes) in jobs which give them a very nice lifestyle indeed under capitalism to make common cause with those that do not?  Because the vast majority of them, as history proves, never will.  They see their interests as lying with the capitalists, not the working class (funnily enough, this type of person usually has no difficulty in identifying working class people.) And any economic downturn will, as we have seen before, only make most of them rush to the employers' side and batten down the hatches. 

While all of them work for an employer, there are no revolutionary surgeons, merchant bankers, barristers, etc etc, and there never will be.  They don't even want to know the likes of you or me.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

What about Chris Pallis (AKA Maurice Brinton, theorist of Solidarity) who died last month? He was a neurosurgeon, was he not?

Which "Gallery of Obscure Gurus and Ignored Prophets" are you referring to, by the way?

And I thought you were scathing of people who get extremely defensive when asked simple questions about their politics?


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> I don't know if I'd agree with this. It's too fluffy. I think the definitions of the professional caste and petty bourgeois are better in describing top management and small business owners.





Having had to approach one of the managers at work last week, the smug, self-satisfaction on his face mildly annoyed me. But not as much as when he sneered, 'Just look at you LLETSA, you're a disgrace-you'll obviously never make it into the high echelons of the professional caste like me.'  

Reflecting on this harsh judgement, I called in at the local offie on the way home, with ideas of cheering myself up with a few cans. I was interested to hear the owner telling one of his staff that he was in line for the local Chamber of Commerce's Petty Bourgeois Person of the Year Award. 

Then I woke up.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

*One anarchist brain surgeon doth not a revolution make....*




			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> What about Chris Pallis (AKA Maurice Brinton, theorist of Solidarity) who died last month? He was a neurosurgeon, was he not?
> 
> Which "Gallery of Obscure Gurus and Ignored Prophets" are you referring to, by the way?
> 
> And I thought you were scathing of people who get extremely defensive when asked simple questions about their politics?





Scathing?  Me? Never!

The man you refer to might have been a great guy and an extremely clever person.  However, I challenge you to find any other neurosurgeons in that or any other anarchist microgroup. Not to mention merchant bankers or barristers.  

I wouldn't say that I was being defensive. After all, I am defending what I say and taking the trouble to explain it, while others prefer to spout the jargon without ever seeking to clarify their meaning....

Still looking for the links to the Sacred Texts?


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

sorry, what do you want me to answer? I only saw vague open-ended questions that had clearly already been answered elsewhere on the thread. Is there something you genuinely want to know about what I think? If there is- go ahead and ask and i'll do my best to answer.

Pall



> there are no revolutionary surgeons





> What about Chris Pallis (AKA Maurice Brinton, theorist of Solidarity) who died last month? He was a neurosurgeon, was he not?





> I challenge you to find any other neurosurgeons in that or any other anarchist microgroup.



such honesty! Solidarity were libertarian marxists, by the way. You should read some of their stuff- it was really very good (www.endpage.org carries some here)


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> sorry, what do you want me to answer? I only saw vague open-ended questions that had clearly already been answered elsewhere on the thread. Is there something you genuinely want to know about what I think? If there is- go ahead and ask and i'll do my best to answer.
> 
> Pall
> 
> ...





I knew that it wouldn't be long before I got a link!

You have been asked a number of times, however, to define your 'class struggle analysis' of the issue of class.  And can you really not hear the questioning inflection in my voice when it pours forth scepticism about the idea of merchant bankers and the like making common cause with supermarket shelf stackers?


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

I defined it as 'class struggle' class analysis because I couldn't (and still can't) see any difference between the ad-man class analysis used to market goods and perform focus groupings for political policies and what you have said.

I broadly agree with icepick, for what it's worth.

Would you prefer I didn't link to anything again? Do you dislike underlined text?


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I defined it as 'class struggle' class analysis because I couldn't (and still can't) see any difference between the ad-man class analysis used to market goods and perform focus groupings for political policies and what you have said.
> 
> I broadly agree with icepick, for what it's worth.
> 
> Would you prefer I didn't link to anything again? Do you dislike underlined text?




So you broadly agree with Icepick. Yet you never pick up on any of the difficulties contained in your capitalists-versus-the-rest universe that are pointed out. Like in the last few posts, for example.  Can the mere citing of the example of one libertarian Marxist neurosurgeon really be considered an answer to the assertion that, nine times out of ten, highly-paid professional people will always side with capital? 

I am not bothered at all about how many links you post up.  It does make me speculate, though, on how doing this, for some people, often substitutes for having to explain what they think 'on the hoof,' if you like. I've noticed on here that some Trots also do it.  It all helps to fuel the idea that what is most important in their politics, for some, is the theory, and that this theory is only safe in the hands of The Masters.  As well as the suspicion that Anarchism and Leninist Marxism is, for some, a crutch.  A kind of substitute religion, in fact.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

and there we go again. bye lletsa.

I'm not going to engage any further on this with you, partly because you are a prick, and partly because you don't enter into these things honestly.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

*Toys, Kropotkin, of, pram, out, throws*




			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> and there we go again. bye lletsa.
> 
> I'm not going to engage any further on this with you, partly because you are a prick, and partly because you don't enter into these things honestly.





You have just spent nearly half of a thread misquoting me (in the guise of 'paraphrasing'), or telling downright lies about what I've said.  And I 'don't enter into these things honestly'? 

Bye then.  You've actually moved mountains there to convince me of your point of view.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

I'm not throwing anything out of my pram, Lletsa. And I like the hyperbole there, "half a thread" indeed!


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I'm not throwing anything out of my pram, Lletsa. And I like the hyperbole there, "half a thread" indeed!




Oh yes you are!


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

oh no i'm not


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> oh no i'm not





Are.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

aren't


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 13, 2005)

.

And let that be an end to this sorry pantomime


----------



## sacx (Jun 13, 2005)

@ this thread.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 13, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> .
> 
> And let that be an end to this sorry pantomime





You're one to talk: how do you perform surgery on a 'brian'?

And will just any brian do or do you have to advertise for one?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 14, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Was it this brutalised working class upbringing that left you itching to see some action in Iraq?


  Have Workers Power ditched the long rifle tactic or are they still directing the workers defence squads in Iraq?


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 14, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Have Workers Power ditched the long rifle tactic or are they still directing the workers defence squads in Iraq?





Dunno, but I don't think the imperialists really know what they've got coming to them.


----------



## 888 (Jun 14, 2005)

kasheem said:
			
		

> Working class people are more attracted to pragmatic solutions and politics and find it easier to fit into a 'movement'. Middle class people are more egocentric and don't fit into groups as easily.



Also, Virgos often have a penchant for over-organisation while Capricorns prefer small, close knit groups.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 14, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Dunno, but I don't think the imperialists really know what they've got coming to them.



Not.....the new mass party of the working class? Damn I knew I should have  personally called on the so called lefts in the TU leadership  to break with Labour. Now the buggers are setting one up in Iraq. I hope they are calling for  a sliding scale of wages/


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jun 14, 2005)

888 said:
			
		

> Also, Virgos often have a penchant for over-organisation while Capricorns prefer small, close knit groups.



Steady my birthday is on September 12th and I still haven't finalised the time between 10.00 hrs and 10.15 or the colour of the socks I will be  wearing.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 14, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Not.....the new mass party of the working class? Damn I knew I should have  personally called on the so called lefts in the TU leadership  to break with Labour. Now the buggers are setting one up in Iraq. I hope they are calling for  a sliding scale of wages/





They'll only make transitional demands if Trotskyists fight  for a genuine class struggle leadership.  None of this reformist flim flam.  No sell out!


----------



## montevideo (Jun 14, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> If you asked, I'd define it as this:
> The working class consists of all the people in society who can not get by without selling our time and energy to a boss - by working. I.e. if we do not make large amounts of money from property holdings or owning a business we have to be wage labourers, or in some places in the world rely on state welfare or crime.
> 
> The capitalist class consists of those individuals who do not have to work (though they generally do) since they draw enough income from property such as land, housing or businesses/stocks and shares.
> ...



that's very over-simplistic. You should read unfinished business for a bit more depth.

Is this really your analysis of class struggle?


----------



## rednblack (Jun 14, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> that's very over-simplistic. You should read unfinished business for a bit more depth.
> 
> Is this really your analysis of class struggle?



it's the bit where he says about it manifesting in many different ways that is the important bit, it covers a multitude of sins


----------



## montevideo (Jun 14, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> it's the bit where he says about it manifesting in many different ways that is the important bit, it covers a multitude of sins



by that description above i'm a class strugglist through & through. (Although no-where is capitalism itself being challenged by the class struggle. Workers simply want more pay. Does the class struggle end when cpaitalsim grants the shorter hours for the most pay?) Next stop libertarian marxism. I must read more theory.


----------



## rednblack (Jun 14, 2005)

but capitalism cannot grant shorter hours and decent pay to all workers around the world, or even in this country - so a global struggle for liveable hours, pay and i'd add safe comfortable working conditions is anti capitalist


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jun 14, 2005)

> but capitalism cannot grant shorter hours and decent pay to all workers around the world, or even in this country - so a global struggle for liveable hours, pay and i'd add safe comfortable working conditions is anti capitalist



Surely this is only a side show the the CLOWN ARMY and  jester jugglers assocation?

LLETSA leaving aside all the digs/jokes for one minute.

I think there is a meaning to working class and middle class. Even about what you said about being a student. It took me nearly my whole first year at uni to "fit in" and then it was mainly because I found working class mates (I think a fair few people thought I was a "chav"). It's not something you can put your finger on exactly. And if it was like that for me being from a "working class done good" family, it must be a lot harder for others.

All I'm saying is that the term "middle class" has its problems. Firstly it's very fluffy and from that point of view not nearly as good as Marx's terms in analysing society. I accept your jokey comments about Marxist terms not being exactly well know, but that doesn't mean they aren't more useful in seeing what is going on.

The other problem with the word middle class is it is used by the ruling classes to divide and even deny the existance of a sizeable working class.

I actually agree with some of your comments about the make up of things like the G8 protests, I just think you bend the stick too far and also make too many stereotypes. For instance there will be many people from the RMT, FBU, UNISON, CWI etc at the G8 who are in every sense working class. Not nearly enough, granted, but it's still a positive thing IMO and can have a wider knock on effect if things are built out of the G8.


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 14, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> that's very over-simplistic. You should read unfinished business for a bit more depth.
> 
> Is this really your analysis of class struggle?





Kinnel I agree with montevideo.

Have you had to make do with sensible pills during the big Ketamine dry-up?


----------



## montevideo (Jun 14, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Kinnel I agree with montevideo.
> 
> Have you had to make do with sensible pills during the big Ketamine dry-up?



& so far i've pretty much agreed with what you've been saying.

You been reading some dodgy anarchist literature in the toilet?


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 14, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> & so far i've pretty much agreed with what you've been saying.
> 
> You been reading some dodgy anarchist literature in the toilet?





Only old copies of Class War:the best-known publication in the entire world.

According to some....


----------



## LLETSA (Jun 14, 2005)

cockneyrebel said:
			
		

> Surely this is only a side show the the CLOWN ARMY and  jester jugglers assocation?
> 
> LLETSA leaving aside all the digs/jokes for one minute.
> 
> ...





I agree that Marx's terms are useful to analysis, though obviously not for everyday conversation.  However, I don't think that any of what I've said in this thread contradicted them. 

And I don't see that what you say about the ruling class using the term middle class as a tool to divide-and-rule has any relevance to a thread in which I have pointed out that the working class is a majority of society and, if recent polls are to be believed, see themselves as such. 

I never said that the union members that will go to the G8 protest are not working class.  I merely questioned the usefulness of putting all that energy into what is essentially a symbolic protest that only registers with the shrinking, politically active elements of the working class- and these a working class organised in a labour movement that is becoming increasingly irrelevant to those working class people who most need organisation.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jun 14, 2005)

It depends. If the process helps in a political radicalisation of people that are trade union members, and that in turn helps the process in which a rank and file can be built to challenge the TU bureuacracy then I think it could be useful.


----------



## blamblam (Jun 14, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> that's very over-simplistic. You should read unfinished business for a bit more depth.
> 
> Is this really your analysis of class struggle?


Monte - I see that as the basis of where class struggle arisis, and why there will always be struggle under capitalism. 


> by that description above i'm a class strugglist through & through. (Although no-where is capitalism itself being challenged by the class struggle. Workers simply want more pay. Does the class struggle end when cpaitalsim grants the shorter hours for the most pay?)


Of course workers don't simply want more pay - I'm sure you're aware that the capitalist system does not fulfil human dreams and desires sufficiently. But capitalism as a system has a material basis, which is the ownership of most of the means of production (+ survival for the population) by a tiny few, and the exploited wage labour of everyone else.

The class struggle will not end when capital grants workers shorter hours and more pay, if you've noticed it has granted far shorter hours and much more pay, especially in the West. It can never grant hours short enough, or pay high enough - as you well know.

I don't think this is simplistic, since I'm just talking about the material substructure. Class struggle manifests itself in a myriad of different ways, as I said before, including in culture, war, language, school - and every other aspect of life.


----------



## cockneyrebel (Jun 14, 2005)

> The class struggle will not end when capital grants workers shorter hours and more pay, if you've noticed it has granted far shorter hours and much more pay, especially in the West. It can never grant hours short enough, or pay high enough - as you well know.



Well living standards in many non-Western countries have gone down over the last 20 years or so. And many western countries have seen increases in working hours the last few years.


----------

