France - The faschist problem of Europe

[exeexe]

Wow i never thought that France was the most right wing country in Europe until i saw this. We are always told Greece has the most right wing population but just take a look at this.

France is so fascist but no one talks about it, why? Look they have union membership below 10%!!!

http://i61.tinypic.com/24mhr47.jpg
And this is the original websource of the picture: (page 7)
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/unions-oecd-2011-11.pdf

Edit: or we are told Angela Merkel has nazi tendencies because she brought poverty to southern European countries, (i know this is using the word nazi wrongly) but what if the real culprit has to be found among French politicans?

[Rosa Partizan]

hm? I guess everyone started talking about this when Front National gained 25% of total votes. You even don't need that picture above to know that there's a massive right-wing sentiment in this country.

[exeexe]

hen Front National gained 25% of total votes

Well if there are 46.555.253 total voting people in france and if National Front got 4.712.461 votes that means FN only got 10,1% of the votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_%28France%29

[Rosa Partizan]

Well if there are 46.555.253 total voting people in france and if National Front got 4.712.461 votes that means FN only got 10,1% of the votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_%28France%29

have you ever seen an election where EVERYONE that is allowed to vote is actually voting? I was talking about only the people that went voting, and then it's 25%. When almost 5 Million people vote for a nationalist party, this is significant enough and needs no further proof there's a huge shift to the right going on.

[exeexe]

have you ever seen an election where EVERYONE that is allowed to vote is actually voting? I was talking about only the people that went voting, and then it's 25%. When almost 5 Million people vote for a nationalist party, this is significant enough and needs no further proof there's a huge shift to the right going on.
No but for revolutionaries like you and me the number of people voting is insignificant to the number of people who can vote.

In times of revolution action speaks louder than votes. And people who refuse to vote may not refuse to take actions.

Also the reason why Front National got 10% of the votes in the European election is because they are against EU and wants to pull France out of EU. Not because the French people as a whole wants to have a strong right wing reactionary political party making the rules of the country.

The point however that i was trying to make with this thread is even a weak fascist movement could take over the country since there is no basis for real resistance in the country.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As regrettable as the low percentage of unionised labour in France is, it does not indicate fascism. You can't simply call anything you dislike "fascist", it makes the term meaningless.

I think the pogroms carried out by the French police against the Arabs in the sixties, and the current harassment of Roma, are more worrying than the percentage of people voting for the FN. But not even these make France fascist - they make it a standard bourgeois democracy.

[Rosa Partizan]

No but for revolutionaries like you and me the number of people voting is insignificant to the number of people who can vote.

In times of revolution action speaks louder than votes. And people who refuse to vote may not refuse to take actions.

Also the reason why Front National got 10% of the votes in the European election is because they are against EU and wants to pull France out of EU. Not because the French people as a whole wants to have a strong right wing reactionary political party making the rules of the country.

The point however that i was trying to make with this thread is even a weak fascist movement could take over the country since there is no basis for real resistance in the country.

you - kind of - nailed it. A huge amount of people isn't NOT voting because of revolutionary reasons, but because of "I don't care". I highly doubt that in France many non-voters would be willing to start a revolution. As for the reasons they got so many votes - blatant populism. We all know that Islam is a very popular "marketing" issue for right-wing parties. Marine Le Pen used this and instrumentalized it. Those parties love to play with people's fears to get votes and France has always been a country with a certain, let's say, consciousness of national pride, culture, language etc.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm sorry, but what the fuck does this union membership rate have to do with anything aside from... union membership? If we were to go by that as something that can be extrapolated to fascism, isn't the U.S. the MOOOOOST FASCISTTTT OF ALL!!!11(with as many further exclamation point as the irrelevant point deserves to make it more true-).

Sweden has a high membership for a number of reasons, including that Union membership was often automatic at certain jobs, as well as a strong culture of unionisation. This doesn't make the Swedish fascists any less strong, however; indeed, many of the professional academic unions are explicitly "right-wing" these days. Union membership and union coverage only reflects the direction the state chose to go in - it's worth noting that they have presumably all declined further since these 2008 numbers, and that they in turn are a decline sine earlier numbers in at least most of the listed countries.

[exeexe]

I'm sorry, but what the fuck does this union membership rate have to do with anything aside from... union membership? If we were to go by that as something that can be extrapolated to fascism, isn't the U.S. the MOOOOOST FASCISTTTT OF ALL!!!11(with as many further exclamation point as the irrelevant point deserves to make it more true-).

Rofl USA is lost long time ago and will prolly be the last country in the world to adopt socialist policies. Just look at how the wealth is distributed in that country and look at how the American people divides themselves between voting liberal and republican. Like uuuuh the rich are really scared now!!

USA has used violence before and will do so again against organized workers both domestically and abroad.

Also the headline of this topic is The faschist problem of Europe, so USA is not even within the scope of this debate

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Rofl USA is lost long time ago and will prolly be the last country in the world to adopt socialist policies

Unionisation is a socialist policy now? The revolution is at hand in Scandinavia then! Woooh!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Rofl USA is lost long time ago and will prolly be the last country in the world to adopt socialist policies. Just look at how the wealth is distributed in that country and look at how the American people divides themselves between voting liberal and republican. Like uuuuh the rich are really scared now!!

USA has used violence before and will do so again against organized workers both domestically and abroad. so USA is not even within the scope of this debate

Also the headline of this topic is The faschist problem of Europe, so USA is not even within the scope of this debate

And in France, they divide themselves between the "Socialists" and however the Gaullist group is called now, I can't even follow all of the name changes. Sometimes they vote for d'Estaign's old party, mostly out of pity, I'd suppose. Reportedly the French bourgeoisie is seized with an immense fear.

[exeexe]

Unionisation is a socialist policy now? The revolution is at hand in Scandinavia then! Woooh!

Its in decline now. Like in the rest of the world. But thats only because in the past the focus was put on political parties. If we can change peoples mentality and not uphold political parties to some god-given religious status then perhaps..!

Yes unionization is a socialist policy

[exeexe]

Reportedly the French bourgeoisie is seized with an immense fear.
why?

[Tim Cornelis]

Its in decline now. Like in the rest of the world. But thats only because in the past the focus was put on political parties. If we can change peoples mentality and not uphold political parties to some god-given religious status then perhaps..!

Yes unionization is a socialist policy

By definition, trade unions exist to defend the (immediate and narrow) interests of the dispossessed working class (even if it is nominally in certain contexts), and therefore they exist within capitalism. Unionisation can only exist in capitalist society, and is therefore not a socialist policy. Trade unions wouldn't exist in socialism.

[exeexe]

Trade unions exist within capitalism and without capitalism. There is no problem with that statement. Your thought-process is polluted with party politics and you should try to clear your head before you think again.


Revolutionary syndicalism

Main article: Revolutionary syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_syndicalism)
Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/The_hand_that_will_rule_the_world.jpg/180px-The_hand_that_will_rule_the_world.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_hand_that_will_rule_the_world.jpg)

Precursors[show] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#)



Variants[show] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#)



Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics)[show] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#)



Organisations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism#Anarcho-syndicalist_groups)[show] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#)



Leaders[show] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#)



Related subjects[show] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#)



Economics portal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Economics)
Socialism portal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Socialism)
Politics portal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Politics)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg/16px-Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg.png Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Syndicalism)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg/16px-Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg.png Labour economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Labor_economics)



v (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syndicalism_sidebar)
t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Syndicalism_sidebar)
e (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syndicalism_sidebar&action=edit)


Revolutionary syndicalism is a type of economic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system) proposed as a replacement for capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) and an alternative to state socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism), which uses federations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_%28disambiguation%29)[disambiguation needed (http://toolserver.org/%7Edispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page=Libertarian_socialism&editintro=Template:Disambiguation_needed/editintro&client=Template:Dn)] of collectivised trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions) or industrial unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_unions). It is a form of socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) economic corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) that advocates interest aggregation of multiple non-competitive categorised units to negotiate and manage an economy.[193] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#cite_note-193) For adherents, labour unions are the potential means of both overcoming economic aristocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy) and running society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society) fairly in the interest of the majority, through union democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_democracy). Industry in a syndicalist system would be run through co-operative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative_economics) confederations and mutual aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_%28politics%29). Local syndicates would communicate with other syndicates through the Bourse du Travail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourse_du_Travail) (labor exchange) which would manage and transfer commodities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity). Syndicalism is also used to refer to the tactic of bringing about this social arrangement, typically expounded by anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism) and De Leonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Leonism), in which a general strike begins and workers seize their means of production and organise in a federation of trade unionism, such as the CNT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo).[194] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#cite_note-194) Throughout its history, the reformist section of syndicalism has been overshadowed by its revolutionary section, typified by the Confédération Générale du Travail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conf%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_G%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale_du_Trav ail) (CGT) in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), IWW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World), the Federación Anarquista Ibérica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federaci%C3%B3n_Anarquista_Ib%C3%A9rica) section of the CNT.,[195] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#cite_note-195) the Unione Sindacale Italiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unione_Sindacale_Italiana) and the Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Organisation_of_the_Workers_of_Sweden) (SAC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[Tim Cornelis]

Trade unions exist within capitalism and without capitalism. There is no problem with that statement. Your thought-process is polluted with party politics and you should try to clear your head before you think again.

:confused: Haha, what? :grin:

No, when there's no capitalism, there's no working class, there's no trade unions. It's really simple. They can't exist without capitalism because then there's no basis for their existence. This has nothing to do with 'party politics'. You just 'knee-jerked' this 'response' without actual thought process.

[Comrade #138672]

By definition, trade unions exist to defend the (immediate and narrow) interests of the dispossessed working class (even if it is nominally in certain contexts), and therefore they exist within capitalism. Unionisation can only exist in capitalist society, and is therefore not a socialist policy. Trade unions wouldn't exist in socialism.While you are strictly speaking correct about trade unions being inherently capitalist, the way you put it is a bit misleading. According to your reasoning, working class organization itself would be non-socialist, since the working class can only exist within capitalism. However, since this [working class emancipation] is the essence of socialism, this would be quite absurd as a socialist point of view.

[Tim Cornelis]

While you are strictly speaking correct about trade unions being inherently capitalist, the way you put it is a bit misleading. According to your reasoning, working class organization itself would be non-socialist, since the working class can only exist within capitalism. However, since this [working class emancipation] is the essence of socialism, this would be quite absurd as a socialist point of view.

I was talking about trade unions in the context of socialist policies. Socialism can exist in capitalism insofar it is a movement that seeks to abolish capitalism, but socialist policies cannot.

[Comrade #138672]

I was talking about trade unions in the context of socialist policies. Socialism can exist in capitalism insofar it is a movement that seeks to abolish capitalism, but socialist policies cannot.What would be the correct socialist policy regarding trade unions during the transition from capitalism to socialism?

[Tim Cornelis]

What would be the correct socialist policy regarding trade unions during the transition from capitalism to socialism?

There may be a socialist's policy, if socialists are in power (through a workers' state), but if we are in a transition toward socialism there is no socialist policy, and trade unions would disappear over time within the transition.

[exeexe]

:confused: Haha, what? :grin:

No, when there's no capitalism, there's no working class, there's no trade unions. It's really simple. They can't exist without capitalism because then there's no basis for their existence. This has nothing to do with 'party politics'. You just 'knee-jerked' this 'response' without actual thought process.
When there is no state and no capitalism there is only a working class. You are a fool to not see such a basic thing.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

why?

It was, how to say, a joke. The situation in France is the same as that in the United States, no matter how much certain reformists in America praise European states.

And when there is no state and no capitalism, there are no more classes, including the proletariat. There are still people who labour but they do not form a class since classes are necessarily contradictory social formations; society can no more be divided into one class than a pizza can be divided into one slice (simile shamelessly stolen from Blake's Baby).

[exeexe]

A class does not need a negation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/class


a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason) of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits;
...
(in Marxist theory) a group of persons sharing the same relationship to the means of production

[Ele'ill]

slaves to production

[bricolage]

I'm sorry, but what the fuck does this union membership rate have to do with anything aside from... union membership? If we were to go by that as something that can be extrapolated to fascism, isn't the U.S. the MOOOOOST FASCISTTTT OF ALL!!!11(with as many further exclamation point as the irrelevant point deserves to make it more true-).

Sweden has a high membership for a number of reasons, including that Union membership was often automatic at certain jobs, as well as a strong culture of unionisation. This doesn't make the Swedish fascists any less strong, however; indeed, many of the professional academic unions are explicitly "right-wing" these days. Union membership and union coverage only reflects the direction the state chose to go in - it's worth noting that they have presumably all declined further since these 2008 numbers, and that they in turn are a decline sine earlier numbers in at least most of the listed countries.
And union membership has often been low in France because other forms of worker organisation has been strong. You can't even assume complete correlation between union membership and level of strikes, let along something as far removed as fascism!

[Tim Cornelis]

When there is no state and no capitalism there is only a working class. You are a fool to not see such a basic thing.

You really need to think -- try really really hard to -- before you start to call others fools. First you call France fascist because of low union membership, then you say trade unions are a socialist policy, and now that because I say there's no working class in socialism, I'm a fool... Also, this is a red herring as you ignore the essential trade union aspect of it, which was the whole point. Socialism is a classless society, meaning there are no classes, and neither a working nor capitalist class. There can't be one class in a similar way that there can be no one subspecies.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

slaves to production

Is that from the new Dimmu Bordiga album?

And honestly, people need to stop relying on one-sentence definitions and try to understand how terms are used in context. Marxists only talk about classes in context of a society divided by classes, groups with different relations to the means of production. In fact the very adjective "classless" implies that there are no more bleeding classes.

[exeexe]

You really need to think..
Socialism is a classless society, meaning there are no classes

Its funny you asked me to think, and i just realized K. Marx was wrong when he called for a classless society. His meaning was of course still the same but the wording came out wrong. He should had called it a class united society, not a classless society.

Yeah you asked me to think, so i did.

If you want the opposite of a class divided society you want a class united society. Now i ask you to think

[Tim Cornelis]

Its funny you asked me to think, and i just realized K. Marx was wrong when he called for a classless society. His meaning was of course still the same but the wording came out wrong. He should had called it a class united society, not a classless society.

Yeah you asked me to think, so i did.

Marx, and everyone socialist was wrong then... Really, why not claim that in socialism, everyone is a capitalist since everyone owns means of production? It's ludicrous. Socialism is called classes because it has no classes. The aim of socialism is the self-abolition of the working class.



If you want the opposite of a class divided society you want a class united society

That sounds like an apt description of corporatism and class collaboration, not socialism. If you want the opposite to class society, you want a classless society.

[Remus Bleys]

When there is no state and no capitalism there is only a working class. You are a fool to not see such a basic thing.

"For Marx, it could only be the victory of man. Labour here means, in the historical moment one was thinking about it, that of the revolution, wage-labour, the other side of capital.*One can only speak of the victory of the proletarians to the extent that one simultaneously affirms that they will not realize it as proletarians, but in negating themselves, in posing man."
-Jacques Camatte, Capital and community (Remarks), 1972.

There will no working class (neither the without reserves/wage laborers, nor any members of any pre capitalist working class) in communism or it won't be communism at all.

[exeexe]

If you release a rabbit from its cage does it then become something else than a rabbit when its free from its cage?
If you release a worker from the class divided society does the worker then become something else than a worker when its free from the class divided society?

[Tim Cornelis]

If you release a rabbit from its cage does it then become something else than a rabbit when its free from its cage?
If you release a worker from the class divided society does the worker then become something else than a worker when its free from the class divided society?

Jesus...

If you release a worker from its social position that defines him as a worker, he ceases to be a worker yes.

[Remus Bleys]

If you release a rabbit from its cage does it then become something else than a rabbit when its free from its cage?
If you release a worker from the class divided society does the worker then become something else than a worker when its free from the class divided society?

Yes you dolt, its right there in the quote. In communism, no one is forced to sell their labor for a wage, no one is cast aside and used as a bargaining chip to create cheaper products and to threaten workers with unemployment. If you think socialism is the generalization of this condition, you better take a fucking long hard look at yourself, Mr "anti authoritarian." Again, look at this, an anarchist demonstrating themselves to being a stalinist; a trade unionist showing all tasty be cannot even think outside the bonds of capitalism. You sound like a Catholic who just wants the world to be nice, free of the exploiters - yet you ultimately support capitalism with your exaltation of poverty. Fuck poverty, abolish poverty, and fuck you for wanting to perpetuate it.

If you take away the chains of capitalism, you are left with a human, not a wage laborer.

[exeexe]

If you take away the chains of capitalism, you are left with a human, not a wage laborer.
In that case communism doesn't work because in order for some social system to work you need workers. We can not all be nonproductive capitalists or politicians living off from other peoples work and you know this too.

[exeexe]

Jesus...

If you release a worker from its social position that defines him as a worker, he ceases to be a worker yes.
But the worker will find other workers and voluntary they will form a community and together they will realize that they need to be workers in order for their new community to work.

[Tim Cornelis]

In that case communism doesn't work because in order for some social system to work you need workers. We can not all be lazy capitalists or politicians living off from other peoples work and you know this too.

You need producers.* A worker is defined as a member of the working class (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worker), and since communism is classless there is no working class; it has abolished itself through a workers' state. Communism is based on the free association of producers (and consumers) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_(communism_and_anarchism)).


But the worker will find other workers and form a community and together they will realize that they need to be workers in order for their new community to work.

No.

[exeexe]

Communism is then still not classless but will consist of a class called producers.

[exeexe]

Also a producer is a worker

How could it be any different?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Communism is then still not classless but will consist of a class called producers.

A class is a class because of its relation to other classes. Ergo, in the absence of any other class... get it? No, you won't.

[Tim Cornelis]

Also a producer is a worker

How could it be any different?

No. Because, as I said, a worker is a member of the working class; a producer is anyone engaged in productive activity. A worker stripped of its social position as worker is a producer. Although I sometimes use worker to refer to producers in socialism, this is technically (or theoretically) incorrect.


Communism is then still not classless but will consist of a class called producers.

No.

[exeexe]

A class is a class because of its relation to other classes. Ergo, in the absence of any other class... get it? No, you won't.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/class

a number of persons or things regarded as forming a group by reason (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason) of common attributes, characteristics, qualities, or traits;
...
(in Marxist theory) a group of persons sharing the same relationship to the means of production
Get it? No you wont

[Remus Bleys]

Seriously exeexe why not argue that the proletarian are peasants and the bourgeoisie are aristocrats. I mean, nevermind the dissolution of feudal bonds causing societal relations to radically change, let's just focus on the fact that the aristocrat ruled and that the peasant worked.

[Remus Bleys]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/class

Get it? No you wont


Communism noun a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

what's your fucking point? You use this dictionary definition every thread - communists obviously mean something different by our words.

[exeexe]

No. Because, as I said, a worker is a member of the working class; a producer is anyone engaged in productive activity.

And a worker can not be engaged in productive activity?



A worker stripped of its social position as worker is a producer.

A worker stripped of its social position will quickly form a new social position that will enable him to emerge as a worker again. But being a worker does not exclude being a producer too. Its basically two words overlapping each other.

[exeexe]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

what's your fucking point?
The only thing i said where K. Marx was wrong was calling it a classless society.
My point is that workers can use trade unions outside capitalism.

[*BuntuBob]

The only thing i said where K. Marx was wrong was calling it a classless society.
My point is that workers can use trade unions outside capitalism.

The 'Working Class' or 'Proletariat' are defined by their relation to the Capitalist class.

http : // dictionary . reference . com / browse / proletariat

Without a Capitalist class, nobody will *not* own the means of production, nobody will be exploited by the Capitalist class. In other words, nobody will be members of the 'Proletariat'. I think you confuse the 'Working Class' with 'People who do work, in general'.

[Tim Cornelis]

And a worker can not be engaged in productive activity?

Oh lawd. No. No, no, no. A worker is engaged in productive activity and a member of the working class. In communism, there is no working class and therefore no workers, but there is still productive activity performed, and therefore there are still producers. Jesus.....


A worker stripped of its social position will quickly form a new social position that will enable him to emerge as a worker again. But being a worker does not exclude being a producer too. Its basically two words overlapping each other.

This doesn't even make sense.


The only thing i said where K. Marx was wrong was calling it a classless society.

Karl Mar was wrong, and every socialist ever.


My point is that workers can use trade unions outside capitalism.

Your point is wrong then. Trade unions are organisations for the immediate interests of workers vis-a-vis capital, or 'personified capital'. In communism there is no working class and no capitalist class, so trade unions are anachronistic.

[Ele'ill]

Will people be required to produce?

[GodOfEvil]

i don't think front national are "fascist" anymore but lets see in the future

[hatzel]

Okay okay exeexe, riddle me this...

What is the defining characteristic of a worker/the working class? What makes them distinctive from other classes? Of course the answer isn't 'working,' because classes aren't defined by activity (which explains why there isn't a teaching class called 'teachers,' or a hairdressing class called 'hairdressers,' or a footballing class called 'footballers,' or a bullshitting class called 'bullshitters' etc. etc.); the division between classes is economic. Now, after you've defined what a worker is, you may see a problem with a statement like this (and the problem isn't shifting between calling the worker 'it' and 'him,' though I must admit I'm a sticker for consistency):


A worker stripped of its social position will quickly form a new social position that will enable him to emerge as a worker again

What is 'a worker stripped of its social position'? Are you talking about a social position as a worker, that is to say, a relationship to the means of production? Or a relationship to proletarian labour, if you prefer to be one of those guys? In that case, 'a worker stripped of its social position' would be a worker no longer contained in those economic relationships, no longer relating in a distinctive manner to the means of production/proletarian labour/however you chose to define a worker when I asked in the first paragraph. It follows from this that 'form[ing] a new social position that will enable him to emerge as a worker again' means nothing other than reinstituting the relationship to the means of production/proletarian labour/etc. Serious question: is that what you envisage happening? Or are you confusing terms here, and using the word 'worker' to refer to several different things? If you are, then you're confused elsewhere, because you were talking about the perpetuation of the working class, and I quote:


When there is no state and no capitalism there is only a working class

I'll admit there is perhaps some ambiguity here, because you said a working class, rather than the working class, so you might argue that you're not talking about the perpetuation of the proletariat, but the transformation of one working class into another working class, confusingly also called a 'working class,' but then we'd need a definition of that class, what is distinctive about it...you briefly mentioned a 'class of producers,' I imagine this is the same as the working class which is all there is, or the reemerged worker, whatever, and now we ask: is this working class the same as the working class, that is to say the proletariat? If so, why would that continue to be the case? If not, what is the economic difference between the working class as we know it, and this future reemerged working class?

[exeexe]

Okay okay exeexe, riddle me this...

What is the defining characteristic of a worker/the working class?

A worker is someone who produces wealth
The working class is then the class which is producing all of the wealth of our society because no other class produce wealth.

Under capitalism the working class is additionally defined as being exploited and therefore wants to get rid of capitalism to obtain the full fruit of their labor.


What makes them distinctive from other classes? A politician talks and make laws, and with the law he will rule over the other classes.
The ruling class of politicians are therefore responsible for the politics conducted.

A capitalist hire workers so the means of productions which he owns can produce wealth which he then gets to own.
The capitalist class is then responsible for exploiting the working class.


What is 'a worker stripped of its social position'?An individual. But lets say there is a freight train over there and no one is controlling it. But it needs 5 people to manage it. And over there in the other direction there are 4 other individuals walking around alone by themselves. Wouldnt it then not be smart to go together and try to learn to drive this train and do something useful instead of walking alone as 5 individuals? Walking alone as 5 individuals will never get any train moving even if they worked harder than when they are in a group together.

The point:
The means of production require people to work together in a community.

So let me repeat:


A worker stripped of its social position will quickly form a new social position that will enable him to emerge as a worker again

because you were talking about the perpetuation of the working class, Yes i were


so you might argue that you're not talking about the perpetuation of the proletariat, Correct. The proletariat is people who can sell nothing other than their labor and there is no reason to continue that.



If not, what is the economic difference between the working class as we know it, and this future reemerged working class?
They are not exploited by capitalists and they are not ruled by a ruler class. The goals of anarchism would then have been achieved.

Marx talks about alienation. And its clear from this that there shouldnt be a ruling class ruling over another class because the ruling class will be alienated from the other class, and this applies even under our current form of democracy.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A politician talks and make laws, and with the law he will rule over the other classes.
The ruling class of politicians are therefore responsible for the politics conducted.

A capitalist hire workers so the means of productions which he owns can produce wealth which he then gets to own.
The capitalist class is then responsible for exploiting the working class.

Well there's your problem right there, you aren't a Marxist of any kind. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class, not "politicians" (a class of politicians!).

[exeexe]

Well it says here
http://books.google.dk/books?id=SWn4K85vWbMC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=the+ruling+class+the+bureaucratic+class+anarchi st&source=bl&ots=-GwsvCrMu_&sig=WabVbIcaI0R_oQC5PTCouaJ__QE&hl=da&sa=X&ei=HhmsU677B63R4QSwnoDgBQ&ved=0CHUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=the%20ruling%20class%20the%20bureaucratic%20clas s%20anarchist&f=false
on page 110 that
http://i58.tinypic.com/szfpqu.jpg

As you can see the ruling class is not limited to just being the bourgeoisie. So the ruling class is needed in order to have a state. And so to smash the state is to smash the ruling class.

Edit: actually i wanna extend that quote to include part 9 and 11 too. The black square is where part 10 fits

http://i59.tinypic.com/2enp4aw.jpg

Being an anarchist is not a problem but the solution.

[Tim Cornelis]

Well it says here
http://books.google.dk/books?id=SWn4K85vWbMC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=the+ruling+class+the+bureaucratic+class+anarchi st&source=bl&ots=-GwsvCrMu_&sig=WabVbIcaI0R_oQC5PTCouaJ__QE&hl=da&sa=X&ei=HhmsU677B63R4QSwnoDgBQ&ved=0CHUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=the%20ruling%20class%20the%20bureaucratic%20clas s%20anarchist&f=false
on page 110 that
http://i58.tinypic.com/szfpqu.jpg

As you can see the ruling class is not limited to just being the bourgeoisie. So the ruling class is needed in order to have a state. And so to smash the state is to smash the ruling class.

Edit: actually i wanna extend that quote to include part 9 and 11 too. The black square is where part 10 fits

http://i59.tinypic.com/2enp4aw.jpg

Being an anarchist is not a problem but the solution.

You treat that exposition as fact. "As you can see", as if therefore it's correct.

[Per Levy]

well, i find the book quotes to be somewhat confused. if the state is "autonomous from class interest" and is "much more than an expression of class and economic power" then why does the state, as we know it today, only exist since the rise of the bourgoisie as the ruling class? how come that one of the first things the bourgeoisie did once they had the power was to establish the state in order to protect private proberty from lower classes and supress said lower classes?


As you can see the ruling class is not limited to just being the bourgeoisie.

actually the bourgeoisie is the ruling class, the state(as a very specific tool) legalizes the rule of the bourgoisie through law and force.

edit:
Being an anarchist is not a problem but the solution.

solution to what exactly?