# [Sun 16th Oct 2011] Class Struggle Anarchism Today (Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 4PG)



## The Black Hand (Sep 11, 2011)

*Sunday 16th October*


*Class Struggle Anarchism Today*

*Venue*: Barkollo, 22 Leazes Park Road, Strawberry Terrace, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 4PG Map
*Time*: 16.00 – 18.00
There will be two presentations during this session. Firstly, Trevor Bark will present a paper on “The Broad Anarchist Tradition”. The so called Marxist parties and the left are failing. The rise of general intellect enabled by technology makes ‘organic intellectuals’ who are free thinking activists drawn to autonomous praxis and not the orthodox Trotskyist &/or Leninist representational and hierarchical practices.
So, this paper will examine the heritage of Anarchism, which identifies ‘the broad anarchist tradition’ (B.A.T). For the BAT is a current and historical response to weaknesses with Marx’s account of working-class praxis, to counter representative politics, and providing a basis for virtuous resistance to capitalism and liberalism.
However, the BAT is not anti Marxist, as it overlaps with certain types of open Marxism, more libertarian and Autonomous varities.
Followed by Ben Franks presenting on “The Direct Action Ethic”. Direct action is heavily associated with radical political traditions, and anarchism in particular. This presentation aims to identify the particular characteristics which distinguish direct action from other types of political behaviour (such as civil disobedience, constitutional and symbolic action) and assess the strengths and weaknesses of direct action, and by doing so explore the particular connection between anarchism and direct action.
With plenty of time for questions and lively discussion.
Benjamin Franks is the author of Rebel Alliances: The means and ends of contemporary British anarchisms (AK Press, 2006) and co-editor of Anarchism and Moral Philosophy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).


----------



## JHE (Sep 11, 2011)

Is Dr Barking BATty?


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 19, 2011)

Is JHE?


----------



## JHE (Sep 19, 2011)

No, I'm NATty.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 20, 2011)

Reveiw of Benjie's book Rebel Alliances: The means and ends of contemporary British anarchisms



> Ben Franks book is not only a contribution to the recent history of the class struggle anarchist movement, it draws out the progressive elements and theorises them at a higher level. The analysis
> of Direct action will be particularly useful for a long time in countering 'do-nothing' or 'reactionary' Marxists - such as those found in small sects or the SWP. For too long the anarchist movement has allowed itself to be portrayed as being composed of thugs by the left, 'all mindless action - no programme', this book is one important reply to such treatment.
> 
> Franks fairly treats all sides of the movement, and doesn't slag anybody off. Class War come out of it the best IMHO,
> ...


----------



## love detective (Sep 20, 2011)

i read it a good few years ago - and to be fair it's not a bad book (at least i didn't think it was at the time)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

Too prefigurative for me.


----------



## love detective (Sep 20, 2011)

here all week


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Too prefigurative for me.



Not for the beginner. There is an entry course on the history and politics of the credit crunch that might be more suitable


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 20, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> The rise of general intellect enabled by technology makes ‘organic intellectuals’ who are free thinking activists drawn to autonomous praxis and not the orthodox Trotskyist &/or Leninist representational and hierarchical practices.


could you expand on this 'rise of general intellect'?


----------



## The Black Hand (Sep 27, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> could you expand on this 'rise of general intellect'?


Yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 27, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Yes.


go on then


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 3, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> go on then


You'll just have to attend the meeting.

I am hearing very positive things in terms of numbers attending btw. It promises to be the largest _*public anarchist meeting*_ (not counting bookfairs or conferences) in Newcastle and the North east for some time, since Projectile associated events, and certainly the largest in the town centre for an awful long time (i can't put a date on that).


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> You'll just have to attend the meeting.
> 
> I am hearing very positive things in terms of numbers attending btw. It promises to be the largest _*public anarchist meeting*_ (not counting bookfairs or conferences) in Newcastle and the North east for some time, since Projectile associated events, and certainly the largest in the town centre for an awful long time (i can't put a date on that).


i'll take that as 'actually i can't' then. a bit like when i asked you about great marxism a couple of years ago - i'm still awaiting a reply to that.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll take that as 'actually i can't' then. a bit like when i asked you about great marxism a couple of years ago - i'm still awaiting a reply to that.


Comedian, I am just choosing what I do. I do not jump to your tune Pickman as you should know by now. What do you want to know about Marxism btw? (i forgot what you wanted oh so easily) I've started and contributed to lots of threads on Marxism.

For the uninitiated this board is full of people with personal and political grudges. Its a shame that Pickman could not avoid having YET ANOTHER AND TOTALLY UNPRODUCTIVE DIG. Why don't you do something useful ffs?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Comedian, I am just choosing what I do. I do not jump to your tune Pickman as you should know by now. What do you want to know about Marxism btw? (i forgot what you wanted oh so easily) I've started and contributed to lots of threads on Marxism.
> 
> For the uninitiated this board is full of people with personal and political grudges. Its a shame that Pickman could not avoid having YET ANOTHER AND TOTALLY UNPRODUCTIVE DIG. Why don't you do something useful ffs?


tbh

you pride yourself on your mastery of ideas. i didn't ask you about this intellect bit to have another dig. i wanted to know what you meant. your inability / unwillingness to explain did, i admit, provoke me. why don't you explain what you meant by 'the rise of the general intellect'? surely it's not that hard and in the time you've spent stonewalling you could have done it easy.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 4, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh
> 
> you pride yourself on your mastery of ideas. i didn't ask you about this intellect bit to have another dig. i wanted to know what you meant. your inability / unwillingness to explain did, i admit, provoke me. why don't you explain what you meant by 'the rise of the general intellect'? surely it's not that hard and in the time you've spent stonewalling you could have done it easy.



I do not jump to your tune, you should know that by now. If you know there's no point in asking so you''re wasting time as I suspected. DO something useful.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2011)

Look, explain the idea of the general intellect, it's not a particularly complex concept (cue -_ you do it then_). if you don't then you're just using buzzwords and phrases that you do not understand.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Look, explain the idea of the general intellect, it's not a particularly complex concept (cue -_ you do it then_). if you don't then you're just using buzzwords and phrases that you do not understand.


Oh boo hoo, I'm playing a little violin with a long sad tune for you. You do not get cooperation either for such petulent posts - you know I'm 'my own man so why you waste time too I do not know. You must be jealous of me


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2011)

Ok, buzzwords and the use of it is.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 4, 2011)

Well you're the one wasting time, I do not want to be typing this tbh, anybody with the slightest bit of integrity can find out already easily enough, and that is if they do not know already.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Well you're the one wasting time, I do not want to be typing this tbh, anybody with the slightest bit of integrity can find out already easily enough, and that is if they do not know already.


i've not asked you to dance to a bloody tune, for a change i wanted to find out what you thought. you've certainly helped with that, as your protestations say more about your (in)ability to explain the subject than you might like.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i've not asked you to dance to a bloody tune, for a change i wanted to find out what you thought. you've certainly helped with that, as your protestations say more about your (in)ability to explain the subject than you might like.


No Pickman, they say more about your unwillingness to listen. no means No you know


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> No Pickman, they say more about your unwillingness to listen. no means No you know


in this case you've fucked yourself more than i've fucked you.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> in this case you've fucked yourself more than i've fucked you.


No Pickman, you're like a dog with a bone, I'm not interested in having a debate with you, I haven't been for a long time. You know this, for whatever petty reason (with petty support from Butch) you're prolonging your angst. I am 'above you and all this', what you say really does not concern me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> No Pickman, you're like a dog with a bone, I'm not interested in having a debate with you, I haven't been for a long time. You know this, for whatever petty reason (with petty support from Butch) you're prolonging your angst. I am 'above you and all this', what you say really does not concern me.


you're not above me, you can't even define a term you've used yourself. you're a dog without a bone.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 5, 2011)

> The rise of general intellect enabled by technology makes ‘organic intellectuals’ who are free thinking activists drawn to autonomous praxis and not the orthodox Trotskyist &/or Leninist representational and hierarchical practices.



I can't make the seminar, but I'm interested in this sentence. It's a new (to me) way of applying the term "organic intellectual", whom I had always thought of as those who stated the rationale of the ruling class, as an integral part of that class rather than from an ivory tower. Here, they're cast as "free thinking activists", who have, what? - partly assumed the means of production in themselves because of technology/general knowledge about technology/access to technology?

Don't want to leap into a spat between others, but can you expand on that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I can't make the seminar, but I'm interested in this sentence. It's a new (to me) way of applying the term "organic intellectual", whom I had always thought of as those who stated the rationale of the ruling class, as an integral part of that class rather than from an ivory tower. Here, they're cast as "free thinking activists", who have, what? - partly assumed the means of production in themselves because of technology/general knowledge about technology/access to technology?
> 
> Don't want to leap into a spat between others, but can you expand on that?


i asked him to expand on something and he went off on one. good luck!


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I can't make the seminar, but I'm interested in this sentence.
> 
> It's a new (to me) way of applying the term "organic intellectual",
> 
> ...



Hi Danny, I've broken what you have written up into manageable chunks. The bit marked (A) I think is unclear. Are you saying Organic intellectuals state the rationale of the ruling class as a part of the ruling class ("as an integral part of _that_ class")? rather than from an ivory tower.

I think you mean that organic intellectuals are part of the the working classes who state the rationale of the ruling class, though I could be wrong. Please do clarify.

For me 'organic intellectuals' are self educated (self made practical political activists who learn from constant attempts to promote the class struggle in open minded and experimental ways), and the ideas develop naturally from the real conditions experienced within the class struggle and the balance of forces relating to any particular class struggle arena. These real conditions are not confined within narrow party political (Marxist or anarchist) ways of seeing and ideology, thus 'organic intellectuals' do not adopt an ideological programme and try to fit it constantly to the real terrain of class warfare that develops in front of people.

These people with an ideology do not play a full role, they always try to parasite their cult ('Marxist or 'anarchist') onto the unfolding class struggle, their engagement with any group or union etc is always half hearted and secondary to the cult, when _*the class struggle itself should be primary*_. Rather the conditions are allowed to generate the suitable organisational form for our epoch.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> I think you mean that organic intellectuals are part of the the working classes who state the rationale of the ruling class, though I could be wrong. Please do clarify.


perhaps as well as looking at the post you could try to read it. danny clearly says that he had always thought organic intellectuals were 'those who stated the rationale of the ruling class, as an integral part of that class rather than from an ivory tower'. - people who state the rationale of the ruling class as an integral part of that class, ie the ruling class. they are people from the ruling class who expound the rationale of the ruling class. they are ruling class. is this so very difficult to comprehend?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Hi Danny, I've broken what you have written up into manageable chunks. The bit marked (A) I think is unclear. Are you saying Organic intellectuals state the rationale of the ruling class as a part of the ruling class ("as an integral part of _that_ class")? rather than from an ivory tower.
> 
> I think you mean that organic intellectuals are part of the the working classes who state the rationale of the ruling class, though I could be wrong. Please do clarify.
> 
> ...


 
By trying to limit organic intellectuals to the side of the working class, you seem to be coming very close to the adoption of an ideological faith (if not programme) that stands before and above the 'real terrain of class warfare'; where have you vanished the organic intellectuals of the bourgeoisie to?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> These people with an ideology do not play a full role, they always try to parasite their cult ('Marxist or 'anarchist') onto the unfolding class struggle, their engagement with any group or union etc is always half hearted and secondary to the cult, when _*the class struggle itself should be primary*_. Rather the conditions are allowed to generate the suitable organisational form for our epoch.


could you give a couple of examples from your great experience where you have been involved with organisations which allowed the conditions to dictate their most suitable organisational form, and how that worked?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2011)

This is the problem with buzzwords and phrases - their full significance/utility is never brought out. Organic intellectuals meant also those members of the ruling class who construct it's ideology, its self-justification - they developed alongside and within the birth of those classes. The form an _organic_ part of it. the term simply cannot be turned around and used to mean 'great people that i like - people like in fact me'. That is to ignore half of the original meaning. You can make an anti-ideology case without piggy backing on buzzwords.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Go away Pickman I'm talking to Danny.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> I think you mean that organic intellectuals are part of the the working classes who state the rationale of the ruling class, though I could be wrong. Please do clarify.


Hi.  No, I mean they're part of the ruling class.  (It's from Gramsci, and has his characteristic use of "organic": representing the class to which they belong.  Thus, a party or organisation is in "organic crisis" if it no longer represents the class it was formed to represent.  And so on).  That's why I was confused by its use as referring to activists, and wondered if you had coupled it with the "rise of general intellect" to take into account those who moved Marx's term (from the Grundisse, I think) on to mean that workers had begun to appropriate part of the means of production through access to technology.  I wondered if you were referring to an ambiguity therefore about their class position...


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is the problem with buzzwords and phrases - their full significance/utility is never brought out. Organic intellectuals meant also those members of the ruling class who construct it's ideology, its self-justification - they developed alongside and within the birth of those classes. The form an _organic_ part of it. the term simply cannot be turned around and used to mean 'great people that i like - people like in fact me'. That is to ignore half of the original meaning. You can make an anti-ideology case without piggy backing on buzzwords.



IS that so Butch, is that really the way Gramsci meant it to be used.

I agree that 'organic intellectuals' could develop organically within the pro capitalist camp with authoritarian perspectives, for capital rules by force and law (Poulantzas), but my use is deliberately different. It is organic intellectuals who develop, as I believe Gramsci meant with the philiosophy of praxis creating organic intellectuals on our side, the anarchist & Marxist anti capitalists (even if they do not use those terms exactly).


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> IS that so Butch, is that really the way Gramsci meant it to be used.
> 
> I agree that 'organic intellectuals' could develop organically within the pro capitalist camp with authoritarian perspectives, for capital rules by force and law (Poulantzas), but my use is deliberately different. It is organic intellectuals who develop, as I believe Gramsci meant with the philiosophy of praxis creating organic intellectuals on our side, the anarchist & Marxist anti capitalists (even if they do not use those terms exactly).


Yes it is, it's exactly how he used it. His argument hinged on the necessity of _creating_ the same in the other blocs. His analysis was based on their prior development of organic intellectuals within the bourgeoisie - the whole thing rested on their existence. Which is why you can't just turn the thing on its head and say that it means those nice people that you like. And you certainly can't use it to make an anti-ideology case, as developing and articulating an ideology is precisely what gramsci wanted  w/c organic intellectuals to do. A counter-ideology that could be put at the head of the class blocs he argued for.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Hi. No, I mean they're part of the ruling class. (It's from Gramsci, and has his characteristic use of "organic": representing the class to which they belong. Thus, a party or organisation is in "organic crisis" if it no longer represents the class it was formed to represent. And so on). That's why I was confused by its use as referring to activists, and wondered if you had coupled it with the "rise of general intellect" to take into account those who moved Marx's term (from the Grundisse, I think) on to mean that workers had begun to appropriate part of the means of production through access to technology. I wondered if you were referring to an ambiguity therefore about their class position...



Hi, I see your point though my use was different and more green I was using organic to mean 'naturally growing', and I agree that organisations such as the Labour party are in organic crisis (your meaning).

Your later points are indicative of a very large debate including but not limited to; formal and real subsumption, affective labour, the impacts of technology on the labour process, self employment, homeworking, the socialised/social worker and so on. I also agree that 'reality' is not a given, there are realities and different experiences, which make it all more complicated and echoing your point, allows a substantial blurring of boundaries and roles.


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Hi, I see your point though my use was different and more green I was using organic to mean 'naturally growing'


 aka 'people I like'. Even me, who's never really read Gramsci, immediately thinks of the Italian communist movement's use of this term when I read it. So I think by re-defining it for your private use you're probably misleading or confusing many people.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it is, it's exactly how he used it. His argument hinged on the necessity of _creating_ the same in the other blocs. His analysis was based on their prior development of organic intellectuals within the bourgeoisie - the whole thing rested on their existence. Which is why you can't just turn the thing on its head and say that it means those nice people that you like. And you certainly can't use it to make an anti-ideology case, as developing and articulating an ideology is precisely what gramsci wanted w/c organic intellectuals to do. A counter-ideology that could be put at the head of the class blocs he argued for.



Butch, Gramscis' argument were his attempts to think through the crisis before him, it worked as part of the totality you describe.

That doesn't stop anybody using ideas and making the case for the development of the capacity of the anti capitalist opposition today by encouraging activists to think through their experiences and perhaps understand the processes they have engaged in. Theory is a guide to action, it has an educative role, and if it works on its own terms it has worked as it was meant to. You do not have to stay faithful to a formula constructed in different economic conditions in a culturally different place to stay faithful with intent.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2011)

But you cannot just appropriate terms  - esp ones still in usage - and use them to mean something totally different. All you need to do is stop chucking in buzzwords - define your own ideas clearly.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> IS that so Butch, is that really the way Gramsci meant it to be used.
> 
> I agree that *'organic intellectuals' could develop organically within the pro capitalist camp* with authoritarian perspectives, for capital rules by force and law (Poulantzas), but my use is deliberately different. It is organic intellectuals who develop, as I believe Gramsci meant with the philiosophy of praxis creating organic intellectuals on our side, the anarchist & Marxist anti capitalists (even if they do not use those terms exactly).



For Gramsci it is not 'could develop'  but do neccessarily develop:

Every social group coming into existence on the original terrain of an essential function in the world of economic production, creates together with itself, organically, one or more strata of intellectuals which give it homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields...​Gramsci A.  (1971) *Prison Notebooks: Selection London*: Lawrence and Wishart p.5​
If you want to try and promote your very truncated (and ideologically forced?) notion of organic intellectuals, then you should really explain:

why Gramsci's understanding isn't up to the job?
what makes your approach better?
Louis MacNeice


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> aka 'people I like'. Even me, who's never really read Gramsci, immediately thinks of the Italian communist movement's use of this term when I read it. So I think by re-defining it for your private use you're probably misleading or confusing many people.



I didn't redefine it, it already has that meaning. I was just using it in a different way.

Anyway, take this as an experiment in political development, an open experiment which I have described, I am hoping to engage people who do not have the baggage (language) and practices (established meanings) of the defeated left (not that I am saying you are defeated Random). We'll see what happens and I'll let you know.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Hi, I see your point though my use was different and more green I was using organic to mean 'naturally growing', and I agree that organisations such as the Labour party are in organic crisis (your meaning).
> 
> Your later points are indicative of a very large debate including but not limited to; formal and real subsumption, affective labour, the impacts of technology on the labour process, self employment, homeworking, the socialised/social worker and so on. I also agree that 'reality' is not a given, there are realities and different experiences, which make it all more complicated and echoing your point, allows a substantial blurring of boundaries and roles.


Right, OK, thanks.  I do think there's mileage in the coupling of the Gramscian use of "organic intellectual" with the recent developments on the idea of the "rise of general intellect", which I suppose is what piqued my interest.  If individuals have begun to embody themselves, through the rise of general intellect, parts of the means of production, how much is their activism therefore revolutionary, and how much does it become an internalisation of the manufacture of consent?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> I didn't redefine it, it already has that meaning. I was just using it in a different way.
> 
> Anyway, take this as an experiment in political development, an open experiment which I have described, *I am hoping to engage people who do not have the baggage (language) and practices (established meanings) of the defeated left* (not that I am saying you are defeated Random). We'll see what happens and I'll let you know.



Translated as 'I only want to talk to people who won't recognise the unacknowledged and unjustified liberties I'm taking with Gramsci'; I can understand why you'd want to do that, but it is neither open nor experimental.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> I didn't redefine it, it already has that meaning. I was just using it in a different way.


 It already has what meaning? People already use it to describe artificial-pesticide-free intellectuals? Where? I've never heard of it, and I've been involved with the greeny organic movement for a while.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> But you cannot just appropriate terms - esp ones still in usage - and use them to mean something totally different. All you need to do is stop chucking in buzzwords - define your own ideas clearly.



I think that that term only has the resonance you give it in certain circles, and that it does not have the meaning you are ascribing to the vast majority of people in the UK. DO you accept this? (i think so).

Therefore, the test is whether it works in practice, the praxis can then conclude whether your definition was the one most appropriate to any new political activists, or whether the use I was attempting to give made sense to people better. Of course, any 'old political axe to grind hacks' who turn up are not the ones who matter to this experiment, the only ones who do are the ones are new or relatively new to politics as this is the constituency that is being engaged with a language relevant to the 'time of now'.


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I do think there's mileage in the coupling of the Gramscian use of "organic intellectual" with the recent developments on the idea of the "rise of general intellect",


 Hang on, is BH doing that? I thought he'd just said he wasn't referring to Gramsci's definition at all?


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> It already has what meaning? People already use it to describe artificial-pesticide-free intellectuals? Where? I've never heard of it, and I've been involved with the greeny organic movement for a while.


Freely growing my friend, its a bit of a libertarian and romantic concept tbs but its one I like.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> Hang on, is BH doing that? I thought he'd just said he wasn't referring to Gramsci's definition at all?


It is being done Random, certainly capitalism is getting more capable and so is the opposition.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> Hang on, is BH doing that? I thought he'd just said he wasn't referring to Gramsci's definition at all?


No, it turn out he isn't, but I initially thought he was.  And if he was, then the coupling of the two ideas (organic intellectual, and the way that Marx's idea of general intellect has been developed recently), then it could lead to some novel developments I hadn't thought of, upon which I began to riff.  I thought TBH's talk might be about those possible ideas, which is why I asked him to expand.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> I think that that term only has the resonance you give it in certain circles, and that it does not have the meaning you are ascribing to the vast majority of people in the UK. DO you accept this? (i think so).
> 
> Therefore, the test is whether it works in practice, the praxis can then conclude whether your definition was the one most appropriate to any new political activists, or whether the use I was attempting to give made sense to people better. Of course, any 'old political axe to grind hacks' who turn up are not the ones who matter to this experiment, the only ones who do are the ones are new or relatively new to politics as this is the constituency that is being engaged with a language relevant to the 'time of now'.


i.e you got caught out  You really wouldn't want the same level of scrutiny of your other 'uses' would you?


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Freely growing my friend, its a bit of a libertarian and romantic concept tbs but its one I like.


So where else is this term, meaning free-range intellectuals, used, apart from by you?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> No, it turn out he isn't, but I initially thought he was. And if he was, then the coupling of the two ideas (organic intellectual, and the way that Marx's idea of general intellect has been developed recently), then it could lead to some novel developments I hadn't thought of, upon which I began to riff. I thought TBH's talk might be about those possible ideas, which is why I asked him to expand.


Mate, the italians had thought through all that in the mid 60s.

(Not sure what your understanding of the term general intellect means tbh)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> So where else is this term, meaning free-range intellectuals, used, apart from by you?


If he's using it in that way then it's the opposite of what Gramsci wrote. That would be wjhat he characterised ad the tradional intellectual - one who imagined themselves to be free-floating and not of a class.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Translated as 'I only want to talk to people who won't recognise the unacknowledged and unjustified liberties I'm taking with Gramsci'; I can understand why you'd want to do that, but it is neither open nor experimental.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



That is a negative reading Louis. I say I am articulating the time of now for those not trapped within the confines of 'left speak' as articulated on this thread. It is experimental and open, its a public meeting and on the web, it couldn't get more fekking experimental.

Tell you what, lets have all the negative goons on this thread (ie Pickman) (second thoughts, & maybe Butch too) organise a well attended public meeting, advertise it on the web, and see what people have to say about their ideas. Rather than tossing off endlessly for no apparent reason on U75.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> i.e you got caught out  You really wouldn't want the same level of scrutiny of your other 'uses' would you?


??? Whatever, I don't feel caught out btw, its a construction I was and I am still happy with.


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> That is a negative reading Louis. I say I am articulating the time of now for those not trapped within the confines of 'left speak' as articulated on this thread. It is experimental and open, its a public meeting and on the web, it couldn't get more fekking experimental.


 I appreciate what your trying to do, BH, but I don't think you're making any friends by coining new buzz-phrases like 'the time of now' and using them over and over as though you think people will know what they mean. Is 'the time of now' a direct translation from a German term, or something?


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If he's using it in that way then it's the opposite of what Gramsci wrote. That would be wjhat he characterised ad the tradional intellectual - one who imagined themselves to be free-floating and not of a class.


That construction doesn't follow or work absolutely Butch, thats you just 'sounding off' (again) with wishful thinking.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> I appreciate what your trying to do, BH, but I don't think you're making any friends by coining new buzz-phrases like 'the time of now' and using them over and over as though you think people will know what they mean. Is 'the time of now' a direct translation from a German term, or something?


He's not trying to do that though - what he's  actually doing is constructing an ah-hoc defence now he's been caught out.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> Hang on, is BH doing that? I thought he'd just said he wasn't referring to Gramsci's definition at all?



TBH seems to want his cake and eat it; on the one hand in post 36 he invokes the ghost of Gramsci only miniutes later to dismiss the 'language' which is a crucial part of Gramsci's legacy; having employed a well know (if not well understood by himself) piece of language, he now seems to be flailing around a bit to provide cover for his ignorance. It's not a good way to enage in constructive debate or to learn; for my part I tend to favour a modest 'oh sorry I didn't know that...I'll keep it in mind'.

For what it's worth I'd have thought the term 'working class intellectual' or even 'pro-working class intellectual' would suit TBH's actual understanding and leave him free of the problems encountered when trying to impose a new meaning on an extant concept.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Mate, the italians had thought through all that in the mid 60s.
> 
> (Not sure what your understanding of the term general intellect means tbh)


Really?  OK, that's how up-to-date I am.  

General Intellect in the Grundisse, I had understood as society's use of technology and skills in production.  If you then take the way that this manifests itself in individuals, being part of the workforce, that means they have partly appropriated the means of production in-so-far-as they themselves represent a part of General Intellect.  With current access to IT, this effect will have widened.

So, in the 60s that was put together with the notion of the "organic intellectual", was it?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Really? OK, that's how up-to-date I am.
> 
> General Intellect in the Grundisse, I had understood as society's use of technology and skills in production. If you then take the way that this manifests itself in individuals, being part of the workforce, that means they have partly appropriated the means of production in-so-far-as they themselves represent a part of General Intellect. With current access to IT, this effect will have widened.
> 
> So, in the 60s that was put together with the notion of the "organic intellectual", was it?


the argument (crudel put for now) went that fordism had produced the social factory and with it a mass vanguard, the class as vanguard and that within it it carried all the characteristics of mass intellect - the intellectuals function had developed into a class characteristic. And this is largely where the use of general intellect today derives from.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Freely growing my friend, its a bit of a libertarian and romantic concept tbs but its one I like.



Growing free of what TBH?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

Who else uses this definition of "freely growing" intellectuals, BH?


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> I appreciate what your trying to do, BH, but I don't think you're making any friends by coining new buzz-phrases like 'the time of now' and using them over and over as though you think people will know what they mean. Is 'the time of now' a direct translation from a German term, or something?



 Jetztzeit - is a term I have used for around 5 years, I have written about it in several places, published it in Mayday magazine etc 
*The time of now*; We do not live in some timeless and perpetual present of oppression and struggle against it, but in _the time of now_ [Jetztzeit], a time of particular and fleeting possibilities and the ambiguously obscure history that brought them - us - into existence.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> the argument (crudel put for now) went that fordism had produced the social factory and with it a mass vanguard, the class as vanguard and that within it it carried all the characteristics of mass intellect - the intellectuals function had developed into a class characteristic. And this is largely where the use of general intellect today derives from.


Ah, yes, I was up-to-speed with that.

No, I was meaning that if there was an internal class contradiction about being both a worker and an embodiment of the means of production, would your role as an activist be that of a revolutionary activist (representing the working class) or as a representative of the owners of the means of production (which you, as an individual, would partly be); would there be ambiguity in a) your class, b) the effect of your activism (making you an "organic intellectual" - ie, a representative of the owning class)?

It's not a fully thought-out idea, and it might be rubbish, it's just what I thought TBH was talking about...


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He's not trying to do that though - what he's actually doing is constructing an ah-hoc defence now he's been caught out.


??? Whatever, I've answered this b4, I do not feel caught out, I do what I do and I do not really care what the fekwits on U75 say. Even trying to avoid bickering leads to bickering, this is not a good way to do politics at all, the spats, the ner ner ner nonsense. It belongs in the playground, the playground left is what this thread epitomises. Rather the proof is in the pudding, praxis.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Jetztzeit - is a term I have used for around 5 years, I have written about it in several places, published it in Mayday magazine etc
> *The time of now*; We do not live in some timeless and perpetual present of oppression and struggle against it, but in _the time of now_ [Jetztzeit], a time of particular and fleeting possibilities and the ambiguously obscure history that brought them - us - into existence.


I.e you're misusing Walter Benjamin as well


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> TBH seems to want his cake and eat it; on the one hand in post 36 he invokes the ghost of Gramsci only miniutes later to dismiss the 'language' which is a crucial part of Gramsci's legacy; having employed a well know (if not well understood by himself) piece of language, he now seems to be flailing around a bit to provide cover for his ignorance. It's not a good way to enage in constructive debate or to learn; for my part I tend to favour a modest 'oh sorry I didn't know that...I'll keep it in mind'.
> 
> For what it's worth I'd have thought the term 'working class intellectual' or even 'pro-working class intellectual' would suit TBH's actual understanding and leave him free of the problems encountered when trying to impose a new meaning on an extant concept.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



There is no contradiction Louis, I am happy that the meaning I meant was the one I intended to use, its a just a way of articulating the time of now (all this is consistent with my previous writing). This is not a lecture on Gramsci and certainly I am not looking to diss Gramsci at all.

I am dissing the cobweb left on U75 and which is why Butchers attempts at intellectual oneupmanship with his undisguised glee are meaningless & irritating, they have nothing to do with class struggle and are thus pathetic. They impress noone but himself.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I.e you're misusing Walter Benjamin as well


Orly. Whatever.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Growing free of what TBH?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


The bullshitters and shite left on U75 (and elsewhere).


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> There is no contradiction Louis, I am happy that the meaning I meant was the one I intended to use, its a just a way of articulating the time of now (all this is consistent with my previous writing).


 Who else uses this meaning of the term?


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> Who else uses this meaning of the term?


I haven't checked, what is being attempted does not rely on previous use of the term. My assesment is that previous use is irrelevant in mass consciousness and activism today, it's only the 'cobweb' left who get excited about what 'Gramsci really meant' etc, and I am not targetting them.


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> I haven't checked, what is being attempted does not rely on previous use of the term.


 Then why did you say that this wasn't a term invented by you, and that it already meant free-growing intellectual?



> My assesment is that previous use is irrelevant in mass consciousness and activism today, it's only the 'cobweb' left who get excited about what 'Gramsci really meant' etc, and I am not targetting them.


 But you yourself are using terms with baggage from the left - like organic intellectual and that German one you mentioned before. Why are you allowed to be steeped in lefty theory, but you want to interact with new people, with no lefty baggage?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> *I haven't checked*, what is being attempted does not rely on previous use of the term. My assesment is that previous use is irrelevant in mass consciousness and activism today, *it's only the 'cobweb' left who get excited about what 'Gramsci really meant'* etc, and I am not targetting them.



Firstly, you 'haven't checked' but you are confidently stating that, 'It [people employing your use of organic intellectual] is being done Random'; some 'checking out' would be evidence that you are taking yourself and your readers seriously.

Secondly, either you're placing yourself within the 'cobweb' left, or you are ignoring what you previously posted:

It is organic intellectuals who develop, *as I believe Gramsci meant* with the philosophy of praxis creating organic intellectuals on our side, the anarchist & Marxist anti capitalists (even if they do not use those terms exactly).​
Consistency and honesty in your arguments would display a degree of respect for those arguments and others engaging with them, which is currently lacking.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> A) Then why did you say that this wasn't a term invented by you, and that it already meant free-growing intellectual?
> 
> B) But you yourself are using terms with baggage from the left - like organic intellectual and that German one you mentioned before. Why are you allowed to be steeped in lefty theory, but you want to interact with new people, with no lefty baggage?



A) I really do not know, I have not accessed the entire knowledge of the human race, nobody can. That was the use I gave it, i think organic already means freely growing, it is the construct I meant it to be.

B) Sounds like a great idea to me, to distance yourself from the petty and failed left


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> A) I really do not know, I have not accessed the entire knowledge of the human race, nobody can. That was the use I gave it, i think organic already means freely growing, it is the construct I meant it to be.


 I asked you why, since 'organic intellectual' already had a specific meaning, why you were privately redefining it. You said it already has this meaning. Now it turns out you know it doesn't already has this meaning.

You say that you want to drop all the baggage of the left, yet you, just one lefty, is privately creating all sorts of obscure jargon for your own use; an entire hive of buzz-words swarming out. This is not the way to connect with people. Maybe you're really just writing stuff for your own private amusement?


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Firstly, you 'haven't checked' but you are confidently stating that, 'It [people employing your use of organic intellectual] is being done Random'; some 'checking out' would be evidence that you are taking yourself and your readers seriously.
> 
> Secondly, either you're placing yourself within the 'cobweb' left, or you are ignoring what you previously posted:
> 
> ...



Just cos I know something of politics/theory/history doesn't mean I cannot see the limitations of the left. I do not want to be with the petty left that can engage in pointless debates like this thread tbh, its been a waste of time sadly. you are right, I do not have respect for the petty pointscoring posters on U75, they do NOTHING. The lefty political wasteland out there is mirrored on U75. I DO have respect for the genuine posters on U75, and those genuinely thinking about political progress, my assessment is that the poisoned atmosphere on U75, as I have said before, is counter to said political progress.

The political respect, consistency and ideas are created in praxis within the different groups and individuals I work with, who are far more practical and not bitter, unlike some saddos around here.

 I fully expect the meeting to be very pleasant without the nonsense experienced on this thread, and I will report on whether the 'organic intellectuals' recognised themselves


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> A) I asked you why, since 'organic intellectual' already had a specific meaning, why you were privately redefining it. You said it already has this meaning. Now it turns out you know it doesn't already has this meaning.
> 
> B) You say that you want to drop all the baggage of the left, yet you, just one lefty, is privately creating all sorts of obscure jargon for your own use; an entire hive of buzz-words swarming out. This is not the way to connect with people. Maybe you're really just writing stuff for your own private amusement?



A) I think its a term that people are capable of recognising and may have purchase on experience. We will see.

B) That's one negative reading of what you think I do. Alternatively, I try to find the concepts that best interpret social reality and help get us out of the organic crisis of the left.


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> A) I think its a term that people are capable of recognising and may have purchase on experience. We will see.


 You seem to be happy to completely back-track on what you said to me before, about the term already existing. It makes me doubt your sincerity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Jetztzeit - is a term I have used for around 5 years, I have written about it in several places, published it in Mayday magazine etc
> *The time of now*; We do not live in some timeless and perpetual present of oppression and struggle against it, but in _the time of now_ [Jetztzeit], a time of particular and fleeting possibilities and the ambiguously obscure history that brought them - us - into existence.



Bear in mind that like many German phrases that get used in political and philosophical contexts, _jetztzeit_ doesn't only mean "the time of now", it *can* also mean "the present" and depending on the context of the sentence it is used in, "contemporary" or "contemporaneous".

Personally, _jetztzeit_ is a bit too "Son of Frankfurt" for me. YMMV.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I.e you're misusing Walter Benjamin as well



Is that possible?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> Then why did you say that this wasn't a term invented by you, and that it already meant free-growing intellectual?
> 
> But you yourself are using terms with baggage from the left - like organic intellectual and that German one you mentioned before. Why are you allowed to be steeped in lefty theory, but you want to interact with new people, with no lefty baggage?



As with many "new approaches" to branches of politics and ideology (and to other belief systems), terminology often gets appropriated and "re-invented" as something different to the original widely-known meaning. I expect that TBH sees his usage of such terminology not as the use of "lefty" words, but of freshly-minted "re-inventions" of those words. The fact that this allows him to "blow off" anyone questioning his theses with a blithe "no, that wasn't what I meant, I meant [add definion/justification here]" is merely an added bonus for him.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> this allows him to "blow off" anyone questioning his theses



It's a magnanimous response,  and one to be applauded.


----------



## Random (Oct 5, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> It's a magnanimous response, and one to be applauded.


Whose, TBH? I don't see where anyone has been magnaminous on this thread.


----------



## the brown hand (Oct 5, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> *Sunday 16th October*
> 
> *Class Struggle Anarchism Today*
> 
> ...


 
I know BJ, hes a cool dude. Anarchism is at a juxtaposition in terms of a moral consensus the rhetoric of class just aint happenin !

A new approach is needed, the direct approach with a hint of chic for the mood of the mo.

The autonomous praxis is the way forward in terms of challenging the traditional masculine hierarchical  Apparatchik of the left.


----------



## love detective (Oct 5, 2011)

Beyond Prosaic Debate – the Aetiology of this Problem


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 5, 2011)

Random said:


> Whose, TBH? I don't see where anyone has been magnaminous on this thread.


I'd call blowing off critics _fairly_ magnanimous...


----------



## Random (Oct 6, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I'd call blowing off critics _fairly_ magnanimous...


Once again, Danny, I underestimate the depths of your wit!


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 6, 2011)

To be fair, _depths_, in this case, is the appropriate word.


----------



## Athos (Oct 6, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> I didn't redefine it, it already has that meaning. I was just using it in a different way.
> 
> Anyway, take this as an experiment in political development, an open experiment which I have described, I am hoping to engage people who do not have the baggage (language) and practices (established meanings) of the defeated left (not that I am saying you are defeated Random). We'll see what happens and I'll let you know.


Sorry, but that's a complete cop out.


----------



## Athos (Oct 6, 2011)

And a shame because the thread's gone off on a tangent - about your definition of that word - whereas if you'd clearly set out what you meant, people might have engaged more with the content of your idea.


----------



## Random (Oct 6, 2011)

Athos said:


> And a shame because the thread's gone off on a tangent - about your definition of that word - whereas if you'd clearly set out what you meant, people might have engaged more with the content of your idea.





> When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less


 I don't know what TBH is up to, but in general it seems that lucid communication (at least, on u75) is not one of his strong points.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 6, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Go away Pickman I'm talking to Danny.


you're not talking, you're wittering. you can't comprehend what you read, as i've shown above.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Ah, yes, I was up-to-speed with that.
> 
> No, I was meaning that if there was an internal class contradiction about being both a worker and an embodiment of the means of production, would your role as an activist be that of a revolutionary activist (representing the working class) or as a representative of the owners of the means of production (which you, as an individual, would partly be); would there be ambiguity in a) your class, b) the effect of your activism (making you an "organic intellectual" - ie, a representative of the owning class)?
> 
> It's not a fully thought-out idea, and it might be rubbish, it's just what I thought TBH was talking about...


You may well be interested in this just translated essay from Wu-Ming (despite the naff as anything title):

Fetishism of Digital Commodities and Hidden Exploitation




> Of course, the kind of “work” described above is not comparable for toil and exploitation to the labour mentioned in the early paragraphs. In addition, Facebook users do not form a social class. The point is that we must always consider both the toil at the base of hardware production and the continuous, predatory embezzlement of collective intelligence taking place on the internet. As I wrote above, they are two “co-existent levels”. The production of value depends on both activities, and they should be pictured and analysed together.





> Are you one of the 700-and-something million Facebook users? Well, it means that you produce contents for the network every day: any kind of contents, including emotions and relations. You are part of Facebook’s general intellect. To put it short, Facebook exists and works thanks to all the people like you. What is Facebook if not a mass of collective intelligence that is not produced by Zuckerberg & Company, but by users?


----------



## sunnysidedown (Oct 11, 2011)

Timed to coincide perfectly with Newcastle's match against Spurs - expect long cues in the surrounding boozers.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 12, 2011)

There has been a modest revival in support for Gramsci amongst Spurs supporters ever since Harry brought in Adeboyer.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 13, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> You'll just have to attend the meeting.
> 
> I am hearing very positive things in terms of numbers attending btw. It promises to be the largest _*public anarchist meeting*_ (not counting bookfairs or conferences) in Newcastle and the North east for some time, since Projectile associated events, and certainly the largest in the town centre for an awful long time (i can't put a date on that).



Solfed had about 50 people at a meeting in the city centre a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 14, 2011)

Spanky, call me doubtful but that is not the report I had, the one I had said approx half that (plus/minus a couple).


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You may well be interested in this just translated essay from Wu-Ming (despite the naff as anything title):
> 
> Fetishism of Digital Commodities and Hidden Exploitation


Cheers, that looks interesting.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 14, 2011)

The Black Hand said:


> Spanky, call me doubtful but that is not the report I had, the one I had said approx half that (plus/minus a couple).



Well 40 at the least then.


----------



## krink (Oct 17, 2011)

I went and it was really good. About 50 people there, good speakers and Ben Franks was quite entertaining having to deal with the noise from the sportsdirect.com stadium just across the road when newcastle scored! My only gripe was it wasn't long enough.

Few of us went down to the local Occupy! event afterwards but I didn't stay long as it was all a bit hippies-with-guitars-maan for me.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 17, 2011)

krink said:


> I went and it was really good. About 50 people there, good speakers and Ben Franks was quite entertaining having to deal with the noise from the sportsdirect.com stadium just across the road when newcastle scored! My only gripe was it wasn't long enough.
> 
> Few of us went down to the local Occupy! event afterwards but I didn't stay long as it was all a bit hippies-with-guitars-maan for me.



I cannot fault these comments, it was a very good event, 'packed to the rafters' is a good description (that means all seats taken, people standing and sitting on the floor too). The chair (not me) said 50-60 attended. Thanks to Newcastle Philosophy Society for enabling such a positive event, which was supported by North East Anarchists  http://neanarchists.com/ Lots of love all round


----------



## Random (Oct 17, 2011)

Good to hear


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 17, 2011)

Similar turnout to the Solfed event then, nice one.


----------



## The Black Hand (Oct 17, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Similar turnout to the Solfed event then, nice one.


In your dreams Spanky - you bin outdun.

Sol Fed have no presence in Newcastle at all either (certainly none on the actions in the past week inc sparks).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Ah, yes, I was up-to-speed with that.
> 
> No, I was meaning that if there was an internal class contradiction about being both a worker and an embodiment of the means of production, would your role as an activist be that of a revolutionary activist (representing the working class) or as a representative of the owners of the means of production (which you, as an individual, would partly be); would there be ambiguity in a) your class, b) the effect of your activism (making you an "organic intellectual" - ie, a representative of the owning class)?
> 
> It's not a fully thought-out idea, and it might be rubbish, it's just what I thought TBH was talking about...


Very interesting thoughts on this and related stuff here danny:

The Revolt of the Salaried Bourgeoisie - Slavoj Žižek



> The possibility of the privatisation of the general intellect was something Marx never envisaged in his writings about capitalism (largely because he overlooked its social dimension). Yet this is at the core of today’s struggles over intellectual property: as the role of the general intellect – based on collective knowledge and social co-operation – has increased in post-industrial capitalism, so wealth accumulates out of all proportion to the labour expended in its production. The result is not, as Marx seems to have expected, the self-dissolution of capitalism, but the gradual transformation of the profit generated by the exploitation of labour into rent appropriated through the privatisation of knowledge.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Very interesting thoughts on this and related stuff here danny:
> 
> The Revolt of the Salaried Bourgeoisie - Slavoj Žižek


Cheers.  I'll have a look at that, although I'm not at fan of Zizek, to say the least.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Cheers. I'll have a look at that, although I'm not at fan of Zizek, to say the least.


 Me neither generally, this is good though.


----------

