Submitted by PragmaticPaul in Anarchism

From the article

"The myriad of leftist groups and publications today might serve as affinity groups – for education and analysis, for cultural events and a sense of community. But vehicles for class struggle they are not. If you want social change, then bond with your co-workers and neighbors; that’s where it begins. It is time that the entire left realizes what anarchists have always understood.

We need a united class, not a united left, to push the class struggle forward."

−5

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

Considering what historically happens when anarchists merge with the left, I'd heavily advise against it. But if they wish to be fed into a meatgrinder, that's on them.

11

roanoke9 wrote

Anti-left, anti-right, anti-center. Chaotic enigma temporary affinity groups anyone?

14

Fool wrote

As long as it includes a random affinity generator.

🧋

I guess I have affinity with bubble tea now.

6

Fool wrote

My comrades turned out to be a bunch of slippery characters. I stopped for a drink, and they deserted me.

0

anarresinfoshop wrote

"The political left usually claims that solutions to the crisis are within the left. By contrast, Rasmus Hästbacka points to class unions, independent of the left. Hästbacka is a member of the Swedish syndicalist union SAC. The article draws from his forthcoming book....'We need a united class, not a united left, to push the class struggle forward'"

The whole article is critiquing the question posed in the title. Did you read the article, or just the title?

5

roanoke9 wrote

I read the title and the blurb. Since you insisted, I slogged through half of the article. My comment on the title and blurb stand uncorrected.

My comment on the article: meh, workerism.

6

anarresinfoshop wrote

I wasn't replying to you, actually, I was talking to the person you also replied to. They were seeming to take the article as if it was saying the title as its thesis and defending that idea, rather than an antithesis to critique. Which, is foolish, because it isn't good to make low effort comments about things you didn't read. But you kind of just jumped in here lol

Anyway, I have to say that as a worker, your comment strikes me as dismissive and hostile, which is shitty, and I feel unwarranted. If it's "workerist" to advocate for workers' self-organization...and, this is even more frustrating an implication in my opinion, if it's workerist to critique the bourgeois political left unity discourse represented in the question posed in the title, by advocating for that workers' self-organization, among and alongside other praxes...well, then I'm workerist I guess. An anti-work workerist, too, so riddle that? lol...

I think strongly, that workers need to be able to talk about work and workers' issues, without self identified anarchists using some ideological jargon to talk down to workers, saying, "your discourse, actions, and sociality are unimportant, and in fact, I'm only going to give it the credit of a low effort 'meh.'"

I mean, it would similarly rub me the wrong way, for example...let's say, to have an article about abortion rights in the context of women's feminist organizing, which happens to focus on cis women and their efforts, to be given a "meh, cis feminism" response. It's not only that it's kind of an unhelpful critique, which offers nothing in particular to improve what is being critiqued, but it's also the fact that, as a transgender woman, I feel it's straight out unhelpful to drive a discursive wedge between feminist organizing and trans organizing in that way, and does a disservice to both efforts, and as a consequence, has negative effects you could say, on both aspects of my existence/reality/identity. It's not that I don't see why someone might have that reply; I do, and that's kind of why it's so frustrating, because it doesn't offer anything to resolve the dialectic which is opened up by the initial article/post. Instead, it deepens that dialectic, and leaves it unresolved. In turn, this leaves people with a deepened sense of divisive side-choosing, rather than seeing things intersectionally...and my opinion is, well, what purpose does that serve? So, regardless of opinion...why say that, if the consequence of the discourse is so undesirable to the outcome that is wanted by those taking part in that discourse?

Since the vast majority of people are workers (whether paid or not), an anarchist/anti-work discourse which is alienating and silencing to such a vast grouping of people, can only do itself and its goals a tremendous disservice.

Perhaps you do not have any interest in workers' issues as discussed in the article... but is it really necessary to voice that distaste while offering nothing to improve it with? And in fact, after admitting to not even reading the article...?

Because, in that case, it seems to me that the comment you made is also "meh". So why make it? At the risk of speaking out of turn myself... sometimes, it is just better to listen, and wait to have something to say, or disengage from the conversation if you don't have the patience for that...rather than speak over others.

3

roanoke9 wrote

I got a bit flippant because I thought you were replying to me and took it wrong. I reacted workerism because I sincerely feel that a mass movement worker takeover of production is outdated idea that I would maybe have supported if it were 1850. Global environment being what it is, the only thing I support is to tear production down and because of how power works, even "worker" power, they will not voluntarily move to massive degrowth even were they to succeed. Imo it also maintains class divide of worker versus nonworker (elderly, infirm, disabled, children, etc).

Meh, denoted that I am exhausted with making this distinction, and don't get interested or excited by tired old antiquated strategies. I can engage with and spend more time on something if warranted because it stretches my conceptions or challenges me, or at least points to something I have thought about but not articulated (Zerzan's piece about abolishing art was like that).

I refrain from commenting quite a bit, less so on raddle than anywhere else, though. I almost always skip over guardian posts for example because they are so slow on the uptake I feel like I'm reading my own opinions from 1989.

If an article has something that grabs me, intrigues me, really gets my mind going, then I will give it attention and more well thought out reply. If it doesn't and makes me react : meh, then that is what I will say.

I'm not sure how I am talking over others, exactly.

You called me out, fair enough, I'm not calling for you to be banned, or blocking you, or systematically downvoting all your posts. But I don't feel duty bound to follow some code of conduct like always read whole articles when the blurb basically gave me the gist of it, which after reading into article, and my opinion did not change, I felt my shortcut worked in this case. Clickbait is a thing, so maybe my practice stems from a defense against that, i don't know.

5

roanoke9 wrote

If you cited an article about including both paid and unpaid workers in that definition, that would be different and set it apart from what I was low effort criticizing as workerism. Anti work workerist is interesting. I suppose I am anti-work, hardcore degrowth so it is not like either of us is simping for the bourgoise. Your reply right here was better than the article to me and made me think more. And, now, with all this text engagement, the article is sure to get more attention.

3

tprk wrote

no. next question

9

PragmaticPaul OP wrote

The next question: Is the "dual anarcho thing" wise? I.e. that anarchists belong to a specific platformist/especifismo organisation AND mass unions.

0

roanoke9 wrote (edited )

Anti-authoritarian unity if anything. Big if, because unity may very well be a gateway to authoritarianism. The very existence of class definitely is. And classless anti-authoritarianism is getting pretty close to: can everyone just be anarchist already? It's nice to have dreams. Democracy fetishists don't think they are authoritarians but I think they are, so that goes back to unity itself being a false hope.

7