Class War Organisation

[Donnie]

I’m a little confused on where to put this topic, so if someone wants to move it to the right forum be my guest.

I have a little nag at the Class War organization, it seems to me that their just making more enemies than need be.
Now, my family is working class and I’m a staunch Anarchist and I totally agree with class liberation, but I also believe that if someone from a middle class background believes in working class liberation by all means they can join us in our struggle. But it seems to me that "Class War" seem to have got confused in their end goals, some of the stuff I read about Class War in news letters is all about waging war on both middle class and upper class. It seems to me that their making more enemies than they need to.
I have a friend who is middle class and he is a staunch Anarchist, I mean he's not just some pissed off kid because his daddy didn't give him his pocket money. I mean he reads books about Anarchism and defends Anarchism in any situation. But it seems to me that those people who are Anarchists and are middle class feel alienated as soon as someone mentions waging class war on the middle class.

I thought the ideology behind Anarchism and all the other left ideology was class liberation? Not just a constant class war?

[YKTMX]

Interesting.

There is a definite tendency in some anarchist groups towards a kind of "classism". This confuses the process of class liberation and the abolition of unequal class relations with being "working class and proud", which sounds like a knocked off neo-Nazi slogan. Our goal is the abolition of capitalism through working class revolution - that is it.

These anarchist groups would be stupid (ahem) to ignore this friend of yours just because they are suspicious of his class origins.

[JC1]

Why ? To qoute Marx " Being determines Counsince " .If he [ you're freind ] is petit bourgoise , he is gonna act in his self-intrest ( Witch wavers between the intrests of Capitial and Prolatariat ) .

I am happy to hear about a exclusivly Prolatarian Anarchist group . It seems to me all the Anarchists I have met are petit-bourgoise .

Thats the main reason I stayed away from them as a idealogy. They wanted to freak people out , not make reveloution.

[workersunity]

dude, learn how to spell, im sorry but i cant take what you say seriously

[Redcarpet]

Class war isn't the only feature of Left-wing ideology, if that's what you're asking about.

[YKTMX]

Why ? To qoute Marx " Being determines Counsince " .If he is petit bourgoise , he is gonna act in his selfintrest

Marx was from a petit-bourgeois background and Engels was a capitalist!

[Martin Blank]

It is interesting that the trend toward class-exclusive political organizations is becoming so widespread. This is one area where the League and Class War have something in common, and I would fully support their right to maintain such a structure.

Miles

[JC1]

Marx was from a petit-bourgeois background and Engels was a capitalist!

At that point , the intelegensia was still nessecary in the development of reveloutionary counsine . The workers movement required at that point in iots development to gain counsince from the petit-bourgoise .

But in the era of Eduacted and Literate prolatarians , why do we need the petit-bourgoise .

[waltersm]

I agree with donnie, we are fighting for a class, but not against other calsses. If we do not let others who share our ideologies join us we are no better than facists

[JC1]

I agree with donnie, we are fighting for a class, but not against other calsses. If we do not let others who share our ideologies join us we are no better than facists

This is Idealism .

[Poum_1936]

Some of the most prominent anarchist theorists were aristocrats. Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tolstoy.

There are good elements from every class, though in the upper classes they may very well be very rare.

I also know some petit bourgeois who are very radical. They were born into their situation. They can not doing anything about that.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:26 AM
I agree with donnie, we are fighting for a class, but not against other calsses. If we do not let others who share our ideologies join us we are no better than facists
This is ridiculous. When you fight for something and another "something" opposses it, then that becomes automaticly your target too. Plus this fits in the crappy argument category: "if we eat meat, we are no better then fascists!" "if we use violence, we are no better then fascists" etc etc. One shouldn't think too deeply into this comment, because it asserts that fascists do not let non-workingclassers join them. :blink: Which ofcourse is utter-bullocks.

---------

On to the serious discussion. I find it great that Class War doesn't admit non-workingclass. Middle-classers often enjoy a better education, have more money/time, thus end up having more influence on the organisation then their workingclass counterparts. The movement as a result shifts towards middle-class interests. As has happend in almost all revolutions/revolts in history. Creating just another class society after a revolution.

The argument has been made, that these organisations would miss out revolutionaries like Che, Marx, Kropotkin etc. However, this isn't true. If people are really serious about being a revolutionary, then nothing can stop them from joining workingclass organisations. Simply by becoming workingclass. Ensuring a movement which knows the necessity of revolution, of classlessness, of direct action.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 15 2005, 01:29 AM
On to the serious discussion. I find it great that Class War doesn't admit non-workingclass. Middle-classers often enjoy a better education, have more money/time, thus end up having more influence on the organisation then their workingclass counterparts. The movement as a result shifts towards middle-class interests. As has happend in almost all revolutions/revolts in history. Creating just another class society after a revolution.

The argument has been made, that these organisations would miss out revolutionaries like Che, Marx, Kropotkin etc. However, this isn't true. If people are really serious about being a revolutionary, then nothing can stop them from joining workingclass organisations. Simply by becoming workingclass. Ensuring a movement which knows the necessity of revolution, of classlessness, of direct action.
NSB, are you a part of the Class War Federation? The reason I ask is that, as a member of an organization with a similar (the same!) policy on class and membership as they have, I would like to talk with some of them about a couple of issues and ideas (not an abstract political discussion, but some practical political activity that could be done jointly).

Miles

[anonymous_red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:29 PM
Why ? To qoute Marx " Being determines Counsince " .If he [ you're freind ] is petit bourgoise , he is gonna act in his self-intrest ( Witch wavers between the intrests of Capitial and Prolatariat ) .

i believe marx's main contention was that the mode of production determines man's consciousness. the current mode of production is recognized as capitalism which determines the consciousness of everyone involved - no matter what class they are in. both the working class's AND the ruling class's consciousness is being shaped by capitalism. if a member of the working class is able to reach class consciousness and step out of the bounds that capitalism has place don them, why then, can a member of another class not step out of their bounds as well? anyone can be conscioutized. granted it is more likely that members of the working class will be conscioutized than members of the ruling classes, but it is silly to dismiss everyone from the middle class as unable to act in the interests of a socialist future.

[JC1]

i believe marx's main contention was that the mode of production determines man's consciousness. the current mode of production is recognized as capitalism which determines the consciousness of everyone involved - no matter what class they are in. both the working class's AND the ruling class's consciousness is being shaped by capitalism. if a member of the working class is able to reach class consciousness and step out of the bounds that capitalism has place don them, why then, can a member of another class not step out of their bounds as well? anyone can be conscioutized. granted it is more likely that members of the working class will be conscioutized than members of the ruling classes, but it is silly to dismiss everyone from the middle class as unable to act in the interests of a socialist future.

This is sillyness. One does not "Step out of the bounds that capitalism has placed on them" . Socialist Counsince is not an escape from the realitys of capitialism , it is the realization of ones RELATION to the means of production. People are Automaton's , and there counsince is a reflection of a number of factors .

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:17 PM
NSB, are you a part of the Class War Federation? The reason I ask is that, as a member of an organization with a similar (the same!) policy on class and membership as they have, I would like to talk with some of them about a couple of issues and ideas (not an abstract political discussion, but some practical political activity that could be done jointly).

Miles
I wish I was. You can contact them:

[email protected]

Class War discussion board (http://www.enrager.net/forums/index.php?c=29)

London Class War (http://enrager.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=61)

Miles, yeah i read the thread on the Communist League and I find it great that you don't submit non-workingclassers. However, there are some middle-classers and upperclassers who are genuinly revolutionary. My suggestion is that in case that upper/middle-classers want to join, you let them join a supportersgroup or something untill they become workingclass. However these in the supportersgroup do have to have plans to join the workingclass in the near future. This way, you don't miss out on genuine revolutionaries.

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:45 PM
Socialist Counsince is not an escape from the realitys of capitialism , it is the realization of ones RELATION to the means of production. People are Automaton's
Sounds a little mechanical, doesn't it? How can false consciousness then be explained if class, as a determinate relation to the means of production, is not simultaneously a negotiated position? The correlation of objective and subjective factors creates some space for identifying with an opposing class, though the external conditions that might allow or even facilitate a petty bourgeois identifying with the working class are probably extraordinary, like an economic crisis or a war that is perceived to threaten individuals in privileged strata. However, it seems that the theoretical definition of working class is not in doubt; the practical working out of this class for individuals is another matter. Here, the working class as an objective social fact does not wholly overlap with working class consciousness, as an upper stratum of the proletariat perceives its fate to be linked with nonproletarian elements. The false consciousness that Lenin identified as stemming from the privileges of a labor aristocracy has been generalized within the ranks of organized workers.

[anonymous_red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:45 PM
Socialist Counsince is not an escape from the realitys of capitialism , it is the realization of ones RELATION to the means of production. People are Automaton's , and there counsince is a reflection of a number of factors .
i did not say anything about escaping reality. either you are twisting my words or simply don't understand them. people have the ability to objectively observe their role within the system, or as you say, come to a deeper understanding of their relation to the mode of production. why couldn't a middle classman come to an understanding of his/her role in the system and then seek solidarity with the working class to reorient their position? humans are not robots. if they were, marx (a product of the middle class) and engles (a factory owner) would not have been able to even consider class war as a viable ideology as it would have stood directly in the face of their interests.

[JC1]

if they were, marx (a product of the middle class) and engles (a factory owner) would not have been able to even consider class war as a viable ideology as it would have stood directly in the face of their interests.

At that period , the bourgoise intelegensia was nessecary to launch the struggle.But I think in the present day, it would be dangerous to our class NOT TO divorce ourselves from the petit-bourgoise.

Class Cousince is a a complex issue , however it is not the issue in disscusion.

To bite miles' sig :


If people ... from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should wholeheartedly adopt the proletarian point of view [which is only possible by joining the proletariat]. But these gentlemen ... are stuffed and crammed with bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas.... If these gentlemen form themselves into a Social-Democratic Petty-Bourgeois Party they have a perfect right to do so; one could then negotiate with them, form a bloc according to circumstances, etc. But in a workers' party they are an adulterating element. If reasons exist for tolerating them there for the moment, it is also a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in the Party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time.

(Marx and Engels, Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, et al., Sept. 15-18, 1879 -- emphasis added)

[anonymous_red]

If people ... from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them but should wholeheartedly adopt the proletarian point of view [which is only possible by joining the proletariat].

there you have it. the remainder of the quote is clearly addressing a specific group of people. i am not suggesting that everyone from the upper classes who wants to join the proletariat is going to be sincere in their actions, but it is not impossible for someone to reorient their position in society.

i think most of you would consider me a member of the petty-bourgeois. however, i think that will change in june once i'm out on my own as i have just graduated from college.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 15 2005, 07:57 PM
Miles, yeah i read the thread on the Communist League and I find it great that you don't submit non-workingclassers. However, there are some middle-classers and upperclassers who are genuinly revolutionary. My suggestion is that in case that upper/middle-classers want to join, you let them join a supportersgroup or something untill they become workingclass. However these in the supportersgroup do have to have plans to join the workingclass in the near future. This way, you don't miss out on genuine revolutionaries.
That is pretty much our attitude about such people: allow them to be League sympathizers (supporters) until they have fully integrated themselves into the proletariat -- which, admittedly, takes a while.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:21 AM
there you have it. the remainder of the quote is clearly addressing a specific group of people. i am not suggesting that everyone from the upper classes who wants to join the proletariat is going to be sincere in their actions, but it is not impossible for someone to reorient their position in society.

i think most of you would consider me a member of the petty-bourgeois. however, i think that will change in june once i'm out on my own as i have just graduated from college.
Yes and no, comrade. It is true that Marx and Engels wrote this circular letter in response to a specific group of people in the German Social Democracy, but it is clear from reading the entire letter that this view about non-proletarian elements was a generalized position. They believed it applied to any non-proletarian not willing to break with the petty bourgeoisie (or bourgeoisie) and "adopt the proletarian point of view".

Marx and Engels' views on class are perhaps the most ignored (or buried!) element of their political perspective. Those of us who have shone some light on those views are vilified and demonized by non-proletarian elements that prefer to turn Marx into a Weberian on class issues (or simply ignore class altogether), which in turn renders their "revolutionary" politics so much idealistic utopianism.

Miles

[anonymous_red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:53 PM
Yes and no, comrade. It is true that Marx and Engels wrote this circular letter in response to a specific group of people in the German Social Democracy, but it is clear from reading the entire letter that this view about non-proletarian elements was a generalized position. They believed it applied to any non-proletarian not willing to break with the petty bourgeoisie (or bourgeoisie) and "adopt the proletarian point of view".
well obviously a ceo of an international corporation would not be considered a part of the proletariat in any sense unless he gave up his position in bourgeois society. i am not arguing that the bourgeoisie can identify with the proletariat while maintaining their status at the apex of society. i am arguing that anyone in any class position can become conscioutized and realign themselves and their personal interests with those of the working class.

[Donnie]

Why would anyone want to be integrated into the working class, I mean I’m working class and I hate being from a working class family.
I would rather be middle class and still be part of a communist/anarchist organization.

Although being working class is good in one way because your able to socialise with people in the organisation who are also working class.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Exactly one of the reasons why I am against allowing non-workingclassers into revolutionary groups. Proles understand and more important feel the necessity of bringing down capitalism.

[anonymous_red]

maybe a useful exercise would be to develop some sort of updated definition of the "working class" that clarifies differences between the proletariat and the petty-bourgeois in the modern political economy.

i come from a "middle class" family, but my parents both work full-time jobs and the only land we own is our house and yard - from which we receive no income and on which we employ no one. if my parents were to stop working tomorrow, we could not easily survive beyond a few months. is this the petty-bourgois or the proletariat? am i excluded from all communist comradery because of my situation?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

So how are you middle-class?

[anonymous_red]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 16 2005, 10:27 PM
So how are you middle-class?
see, my question is how do we define these classes in modern society? most people who i know that are considered "middle class" have full time jobs and work to maintain their lifestyle. who then are the middle class?

[JC1]

Middle Class is not a lifestyle choice , its reationship to prodution . What do youre parents do for a living ?

[anonymous_red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 10:55 PM
Middle Class is not a lifestyle choice , its reationship to prodution . What do youre parents do for a living ?
yes, perhaps lifestyle was a bad choice of words.

high school teacher and a county employee.

[JC1]

high school teacher and a county employee

In america , education is a workers job. And most Service workers ( Public and Private ) produce a service witch is a commodity , so ill assume youre a worker .

So youre protesting a policy that dosent apply to you !

[getfreedropout]

I think the distinction between bourgeois and working class basically comes down to who has to sell their labor to survive. Sure, a CEO might work 50 hours a week, but he doesn't have to. He chooses to. The CEO can go live on a yaught or whack off to bondage films all day if he wants.

A prole doesn't get that choice. We have to work in order to pay rent, buy food, etc.

www.prole.info

[anonymous_red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:59 AM

high school teacher and a county employee

In america , education is a workers job. And most Service workers ( Public and Private ) produce a service witch is a commodity , so ill assume youre a worker .

So youre protesting a policy that dosent apply to you !
this is all very interesting. perhaps i was focusing too much on lifestyle. :blink:

i understand that the bourgeois are characterized by those who do not need to sell their labor to survive, but what then characterizes a middle class or petty bourgeois? i know historically the peasantry has been considered part of the petty bourgeois based on the simple fact that they profit from the land that they own. this seems odd to me since they most often toil just as much as the urban working class. why is there such a distiction being made between the petty bourgeois and the working class? and again, would someone like to offer whom they would consider a middle class member?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:10 PM
i understand that the bourgeois are characterized by those who do not need to sell their labor to survive, but what then characterizes a middle class or petty bourgeois? i know historically the peasantry has been considered part of the petty bourgeois based on the simple fact that they profit from the land that they own. this seems odd to me since they most often toil just as much as the urban working class. why is there such a distiction being made between the petty bourgeois and the working class? and again, would someone like to offer whom they would consider a middle class member?
The "old" petty bourgeois, to which you refer when you talk about the peasantry, both owns and has to work their own means of production (in this case, land). This is similar to the position of small shopkeepers and other independent producers, who often have to put in longer hours, under worse conditions, in order to make their capital ("private property") worth something. I do not empathize with the "overworked" petty bourgeois, since, when it is all said and done, they still have their capital and they can live off of that, whereas the proletarian, at the end of the day, has nothing but debt.

Miles