Revolutionary Potential

[loveme4whoiam]

This is an off-shoot of the thread on Chavs - I'd wanted to discuss the two issues simultaneously but considering anti-social behaviour is not by any means limited to those called chavs it seems better to start a new thread.

My question really is this - can people who have a firm anti-social mindset be of any value to a revolution? Or do they represent a threat to the revolution?

My own view on the matter is this - no, they cannot be of value. While it is true that many of the anti-establishment acts that people with this mentality perpetrate have similaties with acts that we might do, their is a fundamental difference between what we do and what they do. We are anti-establishment because we have an aim - they are anti-establishment because they believe in destruction. And by they, I mean those with anti-social mentalities, I'd prefer this thread not get bogged down in stereotyping.

I look at any and all acts advocated and committed by Anarchists and Communists and judge them based on what support these actions will gain/lose us. If I think they'll promote leftism, then I applaud it. If I believe it will damage the movement to be associated with and act that I'll decry it. Which is why I don't believe the random destruction and violence wrought by people with this pattern of thinking can ever be productive to a revolution. Laying aside the rightness and wrongness of class stereotyping, having any group associated with random acts of destruction of private or public property will look bad in the eyes of most people. Notice that I say random acts.

If certain institutions or buildings that are representative of something unpopular with the majority of the people, then to me they are fair game. And not to silly things like graffiti of "Daz iZ a w0nker", but something that will be praised by the majority of the public that the movement can rightly attach its name to. Stuff like culture jamming I love (despite being no good at it myself), because as far as I can see half the task is pointing out what people already know and believe to them.

Anyway, to get this post back on topic: can people who have an anti-social mindset be of any value to a revolution, in generating support for the movement, during revolution itself, and post-revolution?

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

I must admit that being from the US I'm not to up on what exactly the Chav subculture consists of, although I just now learned a bit from Wikipedia and some online sources. To answer your question: obviously I don't think the Chav subculture holds any revolutionary potential. As far as the individuals within the movement, thats a far more complex question. It seems the subculture glorifies commercialism, wealth etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that these people are outright bad. Its a reflection of the dominant culture: wealth and the status they bring IS highly valued in capitalist society, and the fact that youths would admire such a thing and aspire to it is nothing new. If they are truly working class then I would say they might hold some revolutionary potential, a revolution would be in their interests after all, this is supposing they havent been brainwashed too much. I would be interested in knowing: are most working class youths in the UK 'Chavs'? What % would you say? It seems like in many ways it mirrors rap/"gangsta" culture in the US, which also glorifies wealth, etc (at least mainstrem rap). It does seem like bubbling under the rap culture is a sentiment of dissatisfaction with society and a view that personal glory and wealth is all that can be strived for or attained since the system is inherently rotten. I know that doesn't answer your question in the slightest, it'll be interesting to see what others say.

As far as straight-out 'anti-social' mentality goes, I would say, yes, people who are anti-social are often just extremely alienated from the dominant culture, or have been jaded and turned to cynics by the pressures and gloominess of modern capitalist life. In fact, I would say that I myself am a bit anti-social. Not in the sense that I hate everything or something like that. But I am not the most 'outgoing' person or whatever, although that could be because at the moment I am one of the few working class people I know stuck in a more-or-less ruling class environment which makes it hard to relate to people. Heres another question related to this for others to contemplate: often time our movements require outgoing people willing to talk to anyone about politics. What of shy people, or people who dont feel that confortable being vocal out on the streets? Where do they fit in?

[bolshevik butcher]

I just thought I'd say htat chav isnt a subuclture, it'd the exact oppisite. It's the conformity, it's there music thats on tv, its there stuff thats stereotpyed as the youth of today. It's not a subculture its normality.

[loveme4whoiam]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+ Mar 3 2006, 11:25--> (BattleOfTheCowshed @ Mar 3 2006, 11:25)It seems the subculture glorifies commercialism, wealth etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that these people are outright bad.[/b]
Indeed, that is true, but when combined with the anti-social and destructive elements of their mentality, I'd say it does. Then again, that's entirely subjective.


Originally posted by [email protected]
I would be interested in knowing: are most working class youths in the UK 'Chavs'? What % would you say?
Gah, I don&#39;t really know. The media would have that number as 100% <_<. Going just by my own observations within my college (which is pretty much working class, generally speaking) I&#39;d say somewhere between 60 to 70%. In my area, that would firm up to become about 75%. But then, that number is those who conform to the chav media stereotype of bling culture and foul-mouthedness. Of those people who have true anti-social mindsets, I&#39;d say 45%. Again, that&#39;s based on my observations, it probably changes with location and other factors.

I think my inexact wording may have been misleading a bit. When I say anti-social I mean anti-society. I&#39;m cool with people keeping to themselves because they dislike those around them, I do it all the time. But anti-social (or should I say anti-societal) behaviour is what I describe in the forth paragraph of my first post, or at least I think it is. I&#39;m interested in what this pattern of thinking has in relation to revolution.


BattleOfTheCowshed
often time our movements require outgoing people willing to talk to anyone about politics. What of shy people, or people who dont feel that confortable being vocal out on the streets? Where do they fit in?
That&#39;s a damn good question :). I guess, since gaining initial interest from people requires a certain amount of out-goingness, it would limit the role shy people could play in that phase of activities. I imagine shy people would be good at winning over people who are already curious about Communism and the left movement, since they would be coming to us rather than the other way round. Not that I am trying in any way to be offensive to shy people - I used to be a pretty closed-in guy myself - I just think that everyone can have a place in revolutionary activities, regardless of social skills.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I think there is a real difficulty in determining what is anti-social (or "anti-society") behaviour and what behaviour is anti-social and in a small way, anti-establishment.

Is X a genuine arsehole, or is s/he just really alienated from mainstream society and therefore has some potential "revolutionary consciousness".

I don&#39;t know if we could "lump" todays youth in either category, I think we&#39;d have to take these things on an individual basis. That being said, in the other thread I did list some of the things which, in my opinion, show a kind of proto-communist mindset within todays youth....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292028030 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46854&view=findpost&p=1292028030)

The disdain for Religion being a particularly good one&#33; :D

I know from my personal experience, that I felt there was something "wrong" whilst I was growing up, a general feeling that societies imposed "authority" and "tradition" weren&#39;t good.

I suspect at this time in my life - when I was 13 or 14 - I was starting to develop a "communist mindset". Basically, my lives experiences meant that when I was exposed to communist ideas, they made sense.

The question I&#39;d ask is: Was I an exception?

I don&#39;t think so - I&#39;m not particularly bright, nor was I extremely alienated. So, I think - based on personal experience - that there is at least the potential for alienated ("anti-social") youngsters to become communists.

Though that is just my hypothesis, the next few decades will either confirm, or rebut, this hypothesis. I hope it confirms it.


Originally posted by loveme4whoiam+--> (loveme4whoiam)We are anti-establishment because we have an aim - they are anti-establishment because they believe in destruction.[/b]

Perhaps it is my optimistic side coming out, but I don&#39;t think these things are mutually exclusive.

Being "anti-establishment" because you "believe in destruction", at the very least, implies that you have no respect for the "establishment". Not respecting the "establishment", is, in my opinion, the beginnings of a "communist mindset".

There is certainly in my opinion, a "space" we can "tap into" within these people. As the "Child Psychologists" would say, we need to "channel their energy".

Not an "easy" task, but not impossible.


BattleOfTheCowshed
What of shy people, or people who dont feel that confortable being vocal out on the streets? Where do they fit in?

I must admit, I am a useless "public speaker".

I "go red" when I talk, plus I think my voice sounds daft and I&#39;m short, which apparently puts you at a disadvantage when conveying your ideas.

That is what, in my opinion, makes the internet great&#33; :D

At the present time, there is very little happening politically in my area (I can&#39;t wait to move&#33;) and I lack the funds to make "day trips" to areas where there are protests. So, what I can do is come here and discuss revolutionary politics with others.

The internet doesn&#39;t care if you are a good public speaker who can convey a message with "gusto", it just requires you make reasonably well structured points.

So in essence, hopefully, in some small way I am helping other revolutionaries develop their theoretical capacities and maybe even spreading communist ideas to others.

[Red Heretic]

I think that anti-social tendencies are ultimately rooted in the capitalist system.. It enforces all kinds of negative social relations are people that turn their personalities inward, and force them to try to cut off their pain from cutting themselves off from society.

I don&#39;t think that the question so much should be whether these people will play a significant role, but rather how these people are going to play a significant role. Don&#39;t get me wrong, the vast majority of them will not be able to be won over until after the proletariat has state power. However, I think that we seriously need address this issue.

If this issue is not address, it leads to depressed anti-social intellectuals who the bourgeoisie will try to use against us, like George Orwell. Stalin did a very poor job of handling this contradiction, because he didn&#39;t unleash the masses, or create a situation where the masses wanted to come forward and take part in the revolution.

Mao did a much better job, but I think we need to do any even better job next time. We need an atmosphere like the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, where there is debate, dissent, art, culture, and struggle in all spheres of society, but we need to do it much better next time. If we are rigid like many were in the GPCR, then we will alienate people, and create an atmosphere or dogmatism rather than revolution, as happened in many places during the GPCR.

I think we need to win over everyone once the proletariat has power (with the exception of class enemies who refuse self-critcism for crimes against humanity), not just the people serve the interests of the initial upheaval of the revolution.

Hope that helps.

[Commie Rat]

We are anti-establishment because we have an aim - they are anti-establishment because they believe in destruction.

Hey now whats wrong with a little destuction?

Basically everybody i know that is my age firmly belives in communist and proto-communist idears and yet it is that same set of idears that drives them away from communism.

All my friends are incedibly anti-religious, not because they are angry angsty kids, but becuase they see and understand all the problems it has and will cause and its almost idiotic anti-science stance.

99% of my friends hate, hate, Bush, Howard and all those idiotic pollies. They are viewed with comtemp and disrespect, they see all poltical systems as tedious and irelivant.

Yet politics is nerdy, joining a party is equivilent to signing your soul away. communism is seen as old and outdated, and the anti-authoritarian movement amoungst the youth is driving them away from communism as it is see as being inherently authirtairian.

[bolshevik butcher]

Actually a lot of chavs arent as anti-establishment as they are made out to be. Politically they think in the mainstrem and are often racist.

And petty vandilism that they commit doesnt tend to come from an anti-establishemtn viewpoint.