User loginAnarchist LibraryAnarchist Events
|
Middle Class Is Anyone With An Ipod
What troubles me is the decision of what constitutes one as middleclass. There seems to be a general contempt for anyone who has a mortgage, yet a fetishization of anyone who sweats while they work. Defining those who have a 401k, a mortgage and a family as the petit-bourgeoisie becomes precarious when people realize that unionized autoworkers, welders, coal miners, refinery workers and the like make damn good money. Their fingers are on the pulse and levers of production and their hands are what keeps capitalism churning. Is this the mythical working class of the Marxist stripe? The workers, who once conscious, will seize those very levers and bring the state to a screeching halt? (this is not to reflect my opinion of the hollow concept of consciousness raising, but merely pointing to the mystical image of your average community college certified 22 year old welder) And how about the poor? Do they fit into this revitalized analysis? They work service jobs and various other forms of unsteady employment. Even if they went on a classic general strike, occupying their workplaces, all that would be achieved is temporarily halting the service and hospitality industry. They have no bargaining chips like organized essential labor. The levers they hold in their hands are simply to, what is the equivalent of, the electric rear view mirrors of your car. Even if the motor stopped you could just roll down the window and move it with your hands, it just might click a little bit. So the question remains. If your definition of working class is based on the relationship to production then it must be said that what many people have been calling middle class is, in fact, the working class. If your definition has a salary cap then it must be said that those who work the lower eschalon service jobs do not have the capacity to halt production, which would mean that your perception of revolution must either A) Not come from the working class seizing the means of production, lets face it, 12 baristas taking over Starbucks is useless. B) Come from middleclass as well as working class essential proletarians seizing the means of production. This brings an important question to the Marxist influence on the pro-revolutionary perspective of the United States. This country has ,after all, done a remarkable job of tying it’s populace to production. With this being evident it can be said that the method of contemporary capitalism is production. I think this is why the Marxist analysis has come back into our discussions so much more, especially with a current economic crisis perpetuated by the contemporary modes of exploitation that has become known as capitalism. This is of course why pro-revolution communists have been so apt in their recent writings such as Call, Nihilist Communism and other works. The methodology insists upon the blockade, the very notion of halting capital, even just for a moment. This was not put forth to insist upon an answer to any of the questions, they are not rhetorical. I would consider this a push for a real discussion that can be had. I would like to insist that those involved in the discussion stay away from simplistic, overly militant dogma of “destroying everything” or endless rioting and the like. The riot is not a revolutionary form, this does not detract from its credits as essential but merely antagonizes debate to leave the simplistic rhetoric of the current “insurrectionary milieu” to the wayside. Let’s critically discuss. |
PollNews commentsRecent blog posts
SearchCheck out the monthly Anarchist News Digest. |
This is why essentialist
This is why essentialist categories (like middle class, working class, proletariet, etc. are always problematic.
So, do insurrectionaries want to halt production or take it over?
but what is an
but what is an insurrectionary? is it a methodology or an identity?
and as i stated, insurrection is inherent in anarchism, so the identity is a moot point.
the middle class, working class, proletariat categories are not really identities but relationships to production
author
This is why marxist class
This is why marxist class analysis (and by extension anarchism's traditional bastardized analysis) is laughed at by a lot of the people it is meant to somehow appeal to. In the post-fordist paradigm this anarchist creation of a hierarchy of the oppressed drawing lines around race and consumer toys is about as narrow minded as a lot of the right wing populism on the other side (and far more alienating to someone without a university education). No one is interested in being told they are a prole, or that a certain commodity they have bought to distract themselves from how bad they are being fucked makes them class enemy. A lot of "working class" people and oppressed people of color would tell anarchists to fuck off for their narrow assumptions and probably not be interested in being inducted into their reverse hierarchy of more-oppressed-than-though essentialization of working class helplessness. If anything turned working people off from the left it was the sense that it wanted people to stay poor and struggling forever so that they would be there to champion them and use their cause as a banner. It's pretty sound reasoning given the history of state-socialism. Sadly anarchists do the exact same thing: trying to fight for people who's conditions help to prove their point rather than having the balls to come out and say that they are fighting for themselves and their own ideals.
It's only a complete
It's only a complete misreading of Marxist class analysis that has these problems. The Marxist analysis is that there are essentially two categories: Capitalists and Working class. It's not a failure of Marxist analysis that separates out a separate section of middle class, it's post-Marxist analysis. It's extremely odd to me that these problems should be attributed to Marx, as it's a lot more attributable to what has become a common Anarchist class analysis.
For a reasonable look at class, community and exclusion:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/andrewnflood/class-community-exclusion-definition
Rowan Duffy
Any one who says Marx is a
Any one who says Marx is a fuckwit, well,,,the sensitivities of the humanity before mass commodification and exploitation of labour to benefit the feudal royal class, was there anyone else game enough, like Stirner, to attack the global mindset?
"The global mindset" this is the victim of the "MODERN TABOO" . They wish for us to comply blindly.
I just lost the game
I just lost the game
read Armed Joy. It
read Armed Joy. It addresses that issue quite nicely.
According to Marx there were only two class catagories: ruling class and working class. The middle class is a recent invention attempting to join a segment of the working class the constant counter-revolution of the rich.
You are only a capitalist if you live off your capital without depleting it.
If someone is extracting a surplus of value from you then you are working class. Even if you are currently unemployed, you are still working class.
Part of our work as anarchists is to smack some sense into the "middle class." Someone has remind them that a house and a car are not the same as freedom. If we can bring them into any struggle for justice they will quickly see how powerless they are and either become escapists or join the revolution.
The people I have seen make the best attempt to explain anarchist visions of the economy is the Institute for Anarchist Studies.
I remember Dead Pres has a
I remember Dead Pres has a song where someone is speaking about "the white man has a car, why can't I have a car" and how people of colour are always trying to assimilate to white culture. That kinda touches on the subject.
But it also seems that they are more concerned about race than class, there's a video for "Hell Yeah" which is for the most part an awesome song, until they talk about robbing white pizza delivery drivers, which, really? Come on. That might get you some quick cash, but it sure as hell ain't revolutionary. Not to mention some white pizza delivery drivers listen to Dead Pres.
i want a car
i want a car
Dead prez ain't anarchist.
Dead prez ain't anarchist. They're straight Black Nationalists out to make money and push that agenda. Like don't get me wrong, shit's tight, but still. Don't go to them for your political analysis. And the sample from Malcolm is legit, it speaks to the desires we have that create the middle class, that we can somehow gain power by becoming further invested in a system designed to take powert from us.
No but really, I want a car.
No but really, I want a car. And a house.
That's good ,,some
That's good ,,some definining commentary,,I always refer to the most apparent and defining aspect of class catagorisation.For instance, I believe a worker can accumulate material assets while being a Machiavellian pawn of the capitalist system, and then cunningly strike, having attained a state of self-sufficiency, declare themselves as outlaws, having used the exploiting natural tendencies that were used initially against oneself,,,,the endless back breaking labour, the rent and impositions,,,,but then to work only for oneself,freelancing acquired skills,cash in hand and avoiding state tax.How simple can anarchist economy get?
HAHAHA FUCK YOU! My current
HAHAHA FUCK YOU!
My current ipod is one i FUCKING FIXED AFTER IT WAS THROWN AWAY!
did you read the title and
did you read the title and skip to clicking add comment?
Isn't that what you're
Isn't that what you're supposed to do on here?
I bought my I-pod NEW son!
I bought my I-pod NEW son! and im prole as fuck! say something!
-Insurrectionary Dishwashers union
You are dysfunctional,you
You are dysfunctional,you have no genius,or autonomy,you cannot crawl under a car and fix it because the physics and technology is a mystery,yet you are a slave to state technology,but have not mastered or conquered it!!You should strive to acquire the imagination to construct a poetic social design,or else you will be fated to remain an unimaginative philistine.Enjoy your sheepish mediocrity,you will never realise the glory of self-sufficient nihilism,,I want you to strive and endue the pain and bleeding,I want you to evolve please,,:)
This was for HAHA FUCK YOU
This was for HAHA FUCK YOU Ipod 2nd hand blah blah etc
i have a hard time imagining
i have a hard time imagining any sort of class analysis useful but to explain why in this context it is important to ignore it i think i'll draw a type of preface:
i say it is extremely important that the animals that call themselves baristas stop fighting. stop participating. cripple any and every cog they can. i say just as important as the ones sweating handing over the fruits of their labor. or the exclusive right to produce fruit (their factories etc.)
maybe its not that simple. i think it is.
"i have a hard time
"i have a hard time imagining any sort of class analysis useful..."
I can't believe this is an "anarchist" website.
your class is a composite of
your class is a composite of the decisions you make, certain decisions are fucked. certain bouts of discussion about what class significance has to do with theory are fucked. waste of fucking time.
I'd love to critically
I'd love to critically discuss, what is "anon"'s email?
It's so great to see this article. Whenever I bring up privilege in current working class relations, people just ignore me.
The overwhelming reliance on
The overwhelming reliance on class analysis (or any pidgeon-holed "identity" analysis for that matter) to bring about revolution is a dead end. And this reliance is one of fundamental faults of the American academic/intellectual managers of anarchist movement, from Chomsky & Zinn to the IAS & Znutters.
Care to propose a better
Care to propose a better avenue? Also, I think it should be abundantly clear at this point that (at least according to Marx) "working class" is not an identity. It's a relationship to the mode of production.
just fucking read Kapital
just fucking read Kapital already, and this shit will clear up.
or, start checking libcom for analyses of kapital.
@news: stories of struggle
libcom: analyses of capital
we/you: put them together.
I need to read Karl Marx to
I need to read Karl Marx to know that I'm being exploited HURR DURR
Did you click the link?
Did you click the link?
"A) Not come from the
"A) Not come from the working class seizing the means of production, lets face it, 12 baristas taking over Starbucks is useless."
This really pisses me off. You miss the whole point of union organizing in any work place, especially under the banner of a revolutionary union (in this case, the IWW). The point is this: you empower your co-workers in this sort of organizing, and that is the most important thing.
It always amazes me when anarchists think that people are going to change their minds and become anti-capitalist because, you know, one day they will decide to read Das Kapital from cover to cover, or that they will come across one of our posters on the street put up right next to ones that say "The end of the world is in 2012, come and discuss!" and somehow decide to become "anarchist". Or better yet, they will see a black bloc and instantly drop everything in their hands and proclaim that they are revolutionary.
No.
People in our communities will only start becoming involved in grassroots struggles when they are involved in it somehow, at the *personal* level. This is what organizing a workplace does, it involves people who you interact with 1-on-1, because interacting with a living, breathing human being who is pissed off just as much as they are and is willing to fight to change conditions is a much more effective way of creating more fighters in this world than a bloody poster or one of the many ineffectual, dumb-shit demonstrations that so many anarchists fetishize, or ANOTHER cursed workshop. Quality over quantity please.
You disrespect grassroots struggles greatly when you talk shit about people who decide to fight, regardless of how small in number they are, because that is what we need, *sorely* need, because mostly I see anarchists as students, academics, bullshitters, jokers, and flakes, and a revolutionary movement doesn't need another one of those, it needs more fighters, and people decide to fight when they have a reason to fight, and getting them involved in seeing and creating alternatives to this system, even if all it is is the workplace they are in, gives them reason to fight.
Oh, and just for your information, the working class doesn't give a flying fuck about Marx.
"Oh, and just for your
"Oh, and just for your information, the working class doesn't give a flying fuck about Marx."
The working class isn't an interest group. My mother's working class and she gives a flying fuck about the European aristocracy, Elizabethan Britain, and all that dorky nonsense.
So stfu with that, "I know what billions of people are thinking 24/7", mystifying, half-assed rhetoric politicos drop all the time when they get temper tantrums. I'm sure there are countless working class people all over the world who have some sort of interest in Marx or another 19th century historical figure. He's fairly well known at this point.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I didn't know that one could
I didn't know that one could pay their bills by using Das Kapital books for currency.
I also didn't know that Marx was how so many people decided to fight in so many revolutions and insurrections over so many decades (I'm sure during the 1700's Paris Commune people had some sort of time machine in order to consult with Marx, or see his face for inspiration or something).
How about this. Next time you see a disaffected member of your community who doesn't know what to do, take out a big red flag with Marx's face imprinted on it and wave it in their face, I'm sure it won't take them long to start euphorically screaming revolutionary slogans.
I don't know about you but people generally put importance on things that happen in their lives on a day-to-day basis, and trust me, Marx isn't on the fucking agenda.
"I don't know about you but
"I don't know about you but people generally put importance on things that happen in their lives on a day-to-day basis..."
Yes, I'm well aware of this. And yet, my unemployed father who is frantically trying to find work still finds the time to have me over for dinner every other weekend. People have to have more than just bare survival and the banality of the day-to-day, pay check-to-pay check basis. This is why my mother is fascinated with the things she's learning at her night courses in community college, European history, as well as her time spent in a baptist choir. Some have their son over for dinner, some sing gospel and take an interest in history, some go to plays with their new girlfriends, some save money to go on frequent vacations, some go on message boards and make incompetent comments because their politics doesn't allow them to see beyond their own rhetoric, and some read Marx. Save your frustrated ideological proclamations for someone who's foolish enough to waver before them. I've never read a thing by Marx. I don't plan on doing it anytime soon.
Get over your temper tantrum. And the Paris Commune was in 1871; Marx was still alive at the time it happened.
just bare survival may be
just bare survival may be the reason your dad keeps you close. its not wrong i think to find that level of importance in our loved ones. i think its beautiful
The point I'm trying to make
The point I'm trying to make is that working class people aren't zombies (if they can help it). They have brains and all of the faculties included in such an organ that would drive someone to pick up and read a book or watch a documentary about a German theorist who lived a century and a half ago. It would be ridiculous to presume that they aren't capable of or have no interest in using those faculties because they're subject to alienated, exploited processes of labor and property rights among other undesirable institutions which effectively dehumanize them to the point of having no social value beyond being units of labor power.
hi, I think that by
hi,
I think that by "empower" you mean to create a feeling of powerful-ness? But what do you think this means to a Starbucks barista, who in reality, has very very very little power in the economy? What can you translate this feeling into?
This is basic socialist
This is basic socialist theory, we all, as individuals, have very very little power in the economy, but when we fight together we can create change.
The society we live in at the moment does a pretty good job of making people feel powerless and hopeless. We should be reversing that.
where is it that we can
where is it that we can fight together?
go blow yourself up?
go blow yourself up?
wow, you have really shown
wow, you have really shown your ability to critically discuss. *sigh*
to some extent the idea of
to some extent the idea of the "working class" (or the bourgeoisie) as a "relationship TO PRODUCTION" is no longer as salient. especially for the so-called middle class the most important relationship is not to productive capital but to finance capital. true, obviously, they have to work to pay the mortgage/car loan/credit card debt/atm overdraft charge. but who do many workers hate most today? who is extracting a larger share of the fruits of their labor power? it's the jolly banker.
this has become more evident in the university occupations as middle class students realize their fees are causing them to have to borrow more and those same fees are being used as collateral so the "university" can go further in to bond-age.
i can't see throwing out categories like lower, middle, upper class as these are the social contexts in which people's expectations for themselves get created. but at this moment the focus of revolt should be occupation and dismantling of the, actually, quite feudal like institutions called banks. like the old rentier class, the bankers' income is not derived from production. and like that class, it is now clear that they rely directly on the state for their existence (in the form of protection and bailouts).
take advantage of the justifiable hatred of wall street that exists today; make total destroy the banks; and thus destroy a big part of the basis for the cash nexus between individuals. this is more realistically achieved through hacking along with popular revolt.
captcha: "the figures"
is the importance of a
is the importance of a relationship within the economy best judged by analyzing who "many workers hate most?"
no. but who workers hate
no. but who workers hate most is part of a realistic assessment of what might motivate people to revolt. the ultimate point of understanding the economy is to understand how the alienation inherent in any version of capitalist economy can be turned towards class war.
Many workers hate black
Many workers hate black people. And liberals. And Jews, don't forget the Jews. Oh, and their mother-in-laws.
i guess that's why we would
i guess that's why we would rather have anarchists leading a revolution than kkk. kind of thought that's what this entire website is about. but maybe you missed that part, "anarchist" news.
capthca: "assume knowable" i swear!
"no. but who workers hate
"no. but who workers hate most is part of a realistic assessment of what might motivate people to revolt. the ultimate point of understanding the economy is to understand how the alienation inherent in any version of capitalist economy can be turned towards class war."
"i guess that's why we would rather have anarchists leading a revolution than kkk. kind of thought that's what this entire website is about. but maybe you missed that part, "anarchist" news."
Leading revolutions? Yikes.
There are reactionary elements in society that would also like to destroy this society and replace it with a more violent and oppressive one. This isn't really a good argument.
The riot is of course a
The riot is of course a revolutionary form! When has there ever in the history of mankind been an insurrection without a riot. More so, "destroying everything" means destroying means of production and your fetishized blockading usually only comes about in riot situations.
But how did you arrive at this error?
You're right that you can't define classes by their salary range but, at the same time, you can't define classes by their relation to production in such rigid and static terms. It's important to recognize relationship to property as a way to distinguish the exploited from the exploiters (non-owners from owners) but any finer separations of the social strata into classes must be done only through the valorization of particular class interests. Often, the division of classes into petite-bourgeoisie, intelligensia, peasants, etc only becomes apparent in emergency/crisis situations, insurrection, and civil war. To be annoyingly French like everyone else is today, classes for the most part can only be defined in their becomings.
For example, its less important to define petite-bourgeoisie as small property owners than as the class that piggy backs the bourgeoisie line within the crisis situation. Take a look at Marx's Class Struggle in France, to look at the property holdings of the petit-bourgeoisie in 1848 to define the middle class of today is worthless. But, the way the middle class defend the interests of the bourgeoisie (because they wish to one day become the ruling class) and turn their back on the insurgents is still an instructive way to locate class divisions.
In the same way who cares about defining the proletariat or any class in relation of production because the aim of the revolutionary proletariat is to destroy these relations which means destroying the existing world. The only real question is locating the class that will bring about this total destruction.
"The only real question is
"The only real question is locating the class that will bring about this total destruction."
What do you mean by this? I understand that this is THE historical question for orthodox Marxists, but I am at a loss, personally, as to what one would do supposing one could locate this magical revolutionary subject.
Unify materially, socially,
Unify materially, socially, "ideologically" with the insurgent horde preparing to rid the world of classes.
In 1848, this means not taking up the banner of universal suffrage but instead furthering the insurrection.
In 1991, this means not letting the LA riots devolve into a single issue problem about police brutality but furthering the riots into a full blown insurrection.
When you see the contradictions in society give birth to a group of subjects acting out creative destruction join the partisan party of disorder and prepare for civil war.
All the other babble about class analysis is ideological chatter.
no, this is nothing. all
no, this is nothing. all you are saying is "throw rocks when other people are throwing rocks."
or throw something more
or throw something more deadly, so its something, something a boring internet left communist wouldnt understand, you sit back and critique, we militarize the party