Self-Employed? bourgeoisie

[victim77]

Would you be considerd bourgeoisie if you don't employ anyone but your self? Take for example the people that own the small stores and they are the only people that work there. I know of a few places like that in my town.

[Lord Testicles]

No, that would be petite bourgeoisie.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Petit shit applies to small time capitalists. Self employed people are quite proletarian. More and more workers are being forced into "independent contractor" status, they're not petit bourgeoisie.

[Cossack]

only if you oppress yourself :lol:

[Dros]

Petty bourgeois applies to anyone who owns some property but is not a "small capitalist". That is, not someone who owns large parts of the means of production.

Remember, class is determined by relationship to the means of production, not by income. So, it's true that a lot of petty bourgeois individuals are quite poor and most of the Petty Bourgeoisie will be on the side of the Proletariat during the revolution. But they are not Proletarians (not that it matters), and they are in fact part of the Petty Bourgeoisie.

[victim77]

haha thanks! I was also thinking they would be proletarian because they aren't actually oppressing the worker and they are still Actually working them selves and not leaching of others.

[Pawn Power]

Petit shit applies to small time capitalists. Self employed people are quite proletarian. More and more workers are being forced into "independent contractor" status, they're not petit bourgeoisie.

Indeed. This is becoming increasingly common, along with the "free lancer." Instead of hiring full (or even part time) workers who they must give a benefits package to and some sort of job security, bosses now hire temporary workers be it independent contractors or free lancers.

The temporary workers jobs are even more tied to the ups and downs of the capitalist economy then 'traditional' workers seeing as their work is hired per contract or job instead of them being hired as a 'permanent' worker for a company/business.

This is true with both blue collar and white collar workers. Though contract work always had a history in construction, it is becoming more popular in other fields as well as more and more companies shed the "industrial" part of their work. For example, Nike doesn't make shoes- it is all outsourced. They put in an order for a certain number of shoes to a factory which they do not own and who's workers they do not employ. Nike sells the product... or more accurately the Nike image.

On a smaller scale, white collared workers are now "self-employed" or work freelance. Newspapers, for example, are shedding the weight of employees (and again all that goes with it- a consistent salary, benefits, etc.) and instead buying the articles and photos cash from free lance writers, journalists, and photographers. These "workers" are not employed by a boss but work "for themselves." However, since their livelihood is not necessarily tied to how much or hard they work but to a demand for each individual product they make or service they provide they are, in reality, employed by the market.

[F9]

you all afraid of being bourgeoisie dont you?:lol:
no it's not bourgeois but its not proletarian either,but usually small self-employed will possibly be among the proletarians in a revolution!after the revolution small business would be necessary,a shoemaker,a baker etc

Fuserg9:star:

[Pawn Power]

you all afraid of being bourgeoisie dont you?:lol:
no it's not bourgeois but its not proletarian either,but usually small self-employed will possibly be among the proletarians in a revolution!after the revolution small business would be necessary,a shoemaker,a baker etc

Fuserg9:star:

You think in a post-capitalist society shoes will be made by individual shoe makers? That seems highly inefficient. Surely an automated shoe factory could make many more shoes in much less time.

[F9]

You think in a post-capitalist society shoes will be made by individual shoe makers? That seems highly inefficient. Surely an automated shoe factory could make many more shoes in much less time.

now that your saying so i find myself incorrect,you are right shoemakers wont be needed.but i still believe that some small business would be good to remain.

Fuserg9:star:

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Indeed. This is becoming increasingly common, along with the "free lancer." Instead of hiring full (or even part time) workers who they must give a benefits package to and some sort of job security, bosses now hire temporary workers be it independent contractors or free lancers.

The temporary workers jobs are even more tied to the ups and downs of the capitalist economy then 'traditional' workers seeing as their work is hired per contract or job instead of them being hired as a 'permanent' worker for a company/business.

This is true with both blue collar and white collar workers. Though contract work always had a history in construction, it is becoming more popular in other fields as well as more and more companies shed the "industrial" part of their work. For example, Nike doesn't make shoes- it is all outsourced. They put in an order for a certain number of shoes to a factory which they do not own and who's workers they do not employ. Nike sells the product... or more accurately the Nike image.

On a smaller scale, white collared workers are now "self-employed" or work freelance. Newspapers, for example, are shedding the weight of employees (and again all that goes with it- a consistent salary, benefits, etc.) and instead buying the articles and photos cash from free lance writers, journalists, and photographers. These "workers" are not employed by a boss but work "for themselves." However, since their livelihood is not necessarily tied to how much or hard they work but to a demand for each individual product they make or service they provide they are, in reality, employed by the market.


Yup, this is why I don't classify them as petit bourgeoisie. Most self employed folk I know have less income and property than a lot of skilled workers I know. The most egregious is the trucker "owner-operator" agreement, where truckers were given shoddy loans to buy their own rigs and basically forced out of employment. Now instead of the trucking company paying for gas, parts and maintenance the trucker has to pay. Under antiquated and immobile definitions these guys aren't proletarians. Yet their condition is essentially that.

[Lord Testicles]

Most self employed folk I know have less income and property than a lot of skilled workers I know.

Wealth doesn't dictate class, your relation to the means of production does.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Wealth doesn't dictate class, your relation to the means of production does.

Hence why I said income and property. Property as in wealth producing property. Just becuase you own the tools, or the area necessary for your job doesn't put you out of the revolutionary class. In my experience many skilled workers have far more to lose and have a less traumatizing relationship to capital than most "independent contractors." Thus their relationship to capital is just as probable to spur revolutionary spirit as any other worker. Outside of the first world ever larger swaths of people work in the informal sector in a "self-employed" capacity, but that doesn't change the fact that street vendors are brutalized by capital in much the same way an industrial worker is brutalized. We'll just fail to build any sort of mass movement if we hold on to many of these antiquated classifications.

[ckaihatsu]

Can't we just call it piecework? The colonization of the mass proletariat? (Hey, know anyone who needs some design work done?) = )


Chris



--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Devrim]

now that your saying so i find myself incorrect,you are right shoemakers wont be needed.but i still believe that some small business would be good to remain.

How can you have small businesses in a society without money?


[/U]Joe Hill's Ghost]Just becuase you own the tools, or the area necessary for your job doesn't put you out of the revolutionary class. In my experience many skilled workers have far more to lose and have a less traumatizing relationship to capital than most "independent contractors." Thus their relationship to capital is just as probable to spur revolutionary spirit as any other worker. Outside of the first world ever larger swaths of people work in the informal sector in a "self-employed" capacity, but that doesn't change the fact that street vendors are brutalized by capital in much the same way an industrial worker is brutalized.

I think that you are completely wrong here. Yes, street vendors are brutalised by capital, and I am certain that they make less money than most workers. These people are doing it in most cases because they are absolutely desperate.

However, the working class is not a revolutionary class because it is poor. There is more to the proletarian condition than that.

Devrim

[DancingLarry]

If "independent contractors" are petit bourgeois capitalists, then nobody ever has done more to spread bourgeois values and status than FedEx, for whom every driver is clearly a "petit bourgeois" "independent contractor". Comrades! Remember that every FedEx driver is the class enemy, the petit bourgeois fascist insect preying on the working class!

[F9]

How can you have small businesses in a society without money?

why not?:confused:with small i'm saying about a neighbor store,baker that fills the needs of the neighborhood-community!or there can be a music-organ producer etc

Fuserg9:star:

[Devrim]

why not?:confused:with small i'm saying about a neighbor store,baker that fills the needs of the neighborhood-community!or there can be a music-organ producer etc

Because in the absence of exchange there can be no business.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Would you be considerd bourgeoisie if you don't employ anyone but your self? Take for example the people that own the small stores and they are the only people that work there. I know of a few places like that in my town.

Your interests wouldn't be quite the same as a worker, because you'd need to manage resources in a different way, and would want to fight to keep that level of independace and thus figh against becoming working class.

It's a conservative position, but not reactionary.

[F9]

Because in the absence of exchange there can be no business.

Devrim

ohh i misunderstood the "business word" as my english are not so good!i didnt see it as a business,but there that a man/woman can work to product something so he lives by this work!

Fuserg9:star:

[ckaihatsu]

How can you have small businesses in a society without money?


A socialist revolution would be able to public-ize / publicize all accounting records, thereby first exposing the crimes of the capitalists, and then secondly the records could show everyone exactly what everyone is doing, at what difficulty level, and for how many hours. Work would be compensated from public goods, which would also be noted through public records.

Small business could only exist if the workers there themselves decided that they wanted to work there -- without the coercion of *having* to work at that particular job (or field) for the basics of living. The small business would also have to be approved at some general societal / political level -- as with a jury, maybe -- to prevent rackets, or organized crime, or cults, from forming.

Recall that corporate businesses currently practice socialism *internally* over their respective, managed departments -- the point of a revolution is to have *public* oversight over all of the economic / political functions of society, period.



However, the working class is not a revolutionary class because it is poor. There is more to the proletarian condition than that.


The working class is more empowered the closer it is physically to the implements of mass production. (This includes mass transit and other vital public services.)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I think that you are completely wrong here. Yes, street vendors are brutalised by capital, and I am certain that they make less money than most workers. These people are doing it in most cases because they are absolutely desperate.

However, the working class is not a revolutionary class because it is poor. There is more to the proletarian condition than that.
Devrim

Which is why you're a left-communist and I'm an anarchist comrade Dev :)

Does "you have nothing to lose but your chains" sound familiar? A revolutionary class is not just built on utility, but on their own resentment towards oppression. The most exploited have the least to lose and the most to gain. There's at least 100 million street vendors in the world right now, and that'll only go up. That's a very exploited and very angry sector with huge numbers. It's just bad strategy to ignore it.

Of course workers are revolutionary becuase they control the means of production, but that's only part of the equation. Besides, a great many proletarians don't work at jobs that provide much revolutionary utility. Baristas aren't gonna bring capital to a screeching halt. Waged or self exploited, more and more people are working in sectors marginal to any kind of revolutionary leverage.

[Devrim]

Of course workers are revolutionary becuase they control the means of production, but that's only part of the equation. Besides, a great many proletarians don't work at jobs that provide much revolutionary utility. Baristas aren't gonna bring capital to a screeching halt. Waged or self exploited, more and more people are working in sectors marginal to any kind of revolutionary leverage.

That is of course only half of the equation. It wasn't even what I was referring to.

For somebody like the street-vendor the collective work, and solidarity of the working class is completely alien. Their work, at its worse, forces them to see other human beings as buyers of their products, and people to make money off, and if at all possible to rip off. It is the totality of the petit-bourgeois spirit.

In many ways it is worrying that huge amounts of the urban poor are being turned into a sort of 'lumpen petit bourgeoisie'.

While of course not saying that individuals from amongst these groups can't be socialists there material condition does not lead them to collective solutions and their struggle for communism.


Which is why you're a left-communist and I'm an anarchist comrade Dev :)

Actually, I put that down to you most probably being a couple of decades younger than me. I was a member of an anarcho-syndicalist organisation in my youth too.;)

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

For somebody like the street-vendor the collective work, and solidarity of the working class is completely alien. Their work, at its worse, forces them to see other human beings as buyers of their products, and people to make money off, and if at all possible to rip off. It is the totality of the petit-bourgeois spirit.

In many ways it is worrying that huge amounts of the urban poor are being turned into a sort of 'lumpen petit bourgeoisie'.

While of course not saying that individuals from amongst these groups can't be socialists there material condition does not lead them to collective solutions and their struggle for communism.

Eh I’m not so convinced comrade. First, the workplace isn’t the only place we can organize these folk. They are likely to live in working class communities and face the same problems of rent, prices etc. Community and tenant organizing provide valuable inroads here.

Moreover it’s important to remember that these vendors are repressed and attacked by the state, and disciplined by the market. They have to organize collectively in order to survive. A similar situation applies to cab driver associations, and to the old paper vendor strikes. I remember reading an article from Arthur Miller of the IWW detailing how he organized a union amongst street paper vendors. Their material condition put them in for some solid collective vision. They were very militant and had a strong sense of solidarity. I think its in the IWW issue of ASR if you want to look it up.


Actually, I put that down to you most probably being a couple of decades younger than me. I was a member of an anarcho-syndicalist organisation in my youth too.;) Devrim


Heh. I dunno about that. I feel like I’d get bored with left-communism, cause lets face it, most left communists aren’t the most exciting of folk (though I hear Alf is a mean blues musician) Good analysis, but yall need to build on your prose skills. Read some Jack Kerouac and sex up that writing. But that could just be a problem with most anglophone left-communists. EKS may have some wondrous turkish prose. Regardless we’ll see in a couple decades, perhaps the responsibility of family life will convert me to cold precision of the ICC.:lol:

[Devrim]

Eh I’m not so convinced comrade. First, the workplace isn’t the only place we can organize these folk. They are likely to live in working class communities and face the same problems of rent, prices etc. Community and tenant organizing provide valuable inroads here.

There are two interesting point here. One is about how anarchists whilst being quite clear that the working class must organise itself seem to always end up talking about organising people.

The second, and more important is with the whole thing about community 'organising'. Personally, I find it very unlikely that large community struggle will break out outside of a time of growing class confidence and militancy in the workplace.

I think that anarchists talk of community organising is generally substitutionist and useless.


Moreover it’s important to remember that these vendors are repressed and attacked by the state, and disciplined by the market. They have to organize collectively in order to survive. A similar situation applies to cab driver associations, and to the old paper vendor strikes. I remember reading an article from Arthur Miller of the IWW detailing how he organized a union amongst street paper vendors. Their material condition put them in for some solid collective vision. They were very militant and had a strong sense of solidarity. I think its in the IWW issue of ASR if you want to look it up.

I tried to look it up but they didn't have articles on line just contents. I would like to know though whether these paper sellers were employed by the paper. I would imagine that they were, or even if not effectively workers.

In Turkey today for example we have two different kinds of street vendors selling bread rolls in the morning. One type is self-employed, and the other employed by the municipality. Guess which type tries to sell yesterday's rolls. That is just a very small example of how they relate to people.


Heh. I dunno about that. I feel like I’d get bored with left-communism, cause lets face it, most left communists aren’t the most exciting of folk (though I hear Alf is a mean blues musician) Good analysis, but yall need to build on your prose skills. Read some Jack Kerouac and sex up that writing. But that could just be a problem with most anglophone left-communists. EKS may have some wondrous turkish prose. Regardless we’ll see in a couple decades, perhaps the responsibility of family life will convert me to cold precision of the ICC.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Yes, there are some 'style problems' in English. I know. Should that put you off the politics though (I play four instruments, and occasionally play hardcore Arabsek dance music with some friends. Does that make me cooler?).

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

I am a supporter of the International Communist Current and Kerouac is one of my favorite authors. =)

I think the ICC has a very cold prose but I support them not because I find some literary insight in their texts, but because I agree with their politics and especially their relentless internationalism. I am fed up with the "nationalism of the opressed" bullshit that is associated with marxism.

ANyway, concering the question of the thread, I think that this forum is plagued a lot by "self-guilt" questions concerning class. It doesn't matter if the petty bourgeois in marxist analysis is reactionary, in as much as individuals can always turn to communism. The working class is the revolutionary class, however marxism deals with tendencies, not absolutes. class is not a straight-jacket and throughout history it has never been. Class analysis is useful to create strategies to deal with different classes in different ways, but if people from different class background can defect and become communist militants, it doesn't means we reject them.

[Coggeh]

If you have to work for a living then your proletariat, if he/she stops working tomorrow he'll/she'll be simply in the same situation as any worker really , as long as they don't employ labour.

[Devrim]

If you have to work for a living then your proletariat, if he/she stops working tomorrow he'll/she'll be simply in the same situation as any worker really , as long as they don't employ labour.

So let's get this clear, you are saying that someone who has to work for a living as long as they don't employ wage labour is a proletarian. Does this apply to small shopkeepers, and small peasants? It isn't very Marxist if it does.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

There are two interesting point here. One is about how anarchists whilst being quite clear that the working class must organise itself seem to always end up talking about organising people.

The second, and more important is with the whole thing about community 'organising'. Personally, I find it very unlikely that large community struggle will break out outside of a time of growing class confidence and militancy in the workplace.

I think that anarchists talk of community organising is generally substitutionist and useless.

Not all people are workers, but all workers are people. I think you’re just quibbling over semantics on this one. Unless workers have become robots, or cyborgs. :scared: Then maybe you have a point.


From my own experience and knowledge, community organizing has often come at times when local workplace organizing wasn’t going strong. Saul Alinsky was a bit of reformist, but he had significant organizing victories from the 30s to the 70s. He rode out the 50s without major setbacks. Worker militancy remains patchy and repressed in Mexico. B community organizing remains relatively vibrant.

Really the two reinforce the other. The Barcelona rent strike certainly pushed the CNT forward, and the rent strike would not have occurred without previous labor organizing. Today’s worker’s centers are a good example of community/labor synergy. And in that case it’s the community that was instrumental in their development.


I tried to look it up but they didn't have articles on line just contents. I would like to know though whether these paper sellers were employed by the paper. I would imagine that they were, or even if not effectively workers.

In Turkey today for example we have two different kinds of street vendors selling bread rolls in the morning. One type is self-employed, and the other employed by the municipality. Guess which type tries to sell yesterday's rolls. That is just a very small example of how they relate to people.

The paper sellers were not waged. They made money through the actual sale of the paper. Street vendors in Mexico have organized along similar lines.

Now of course they have to sell things to people. As do many retail associates and other sales based occupations. The idea that there’s this essentially communist and humanist viewpoint engendered by wage work is silly. How many food service workers spit on food and hate their customers?

There are often economic conflicts between different sectors of working people. Construction workers get behind gentrifying stadium deals because it gets them jobs. Loggers ally with lumber companies to destroy old growth forests. Mass transit workers can be at odds with the public over funding and fare costs. Its not just street vendors its most any job where you have to interact with other people. A large degree of misanthropy gets injected into just about any job these days. I don’t think a street vendor selling stale bread is any worse than a burger flipper deliberately spreading illness. In either situation collective struggle has the ability to mitigate those beliefs and attitudes.

Its also important to note that most of the "self-employed" will not make a career out of it, since the "self-employed" tend to make far less than the employed. They are likely to move into traditionally working class employment soon afterward.



Yes, there are some 'style problems' in English. I know. Should that put you off the politics though (I play four instruments, and occasionally play hardcore Arabsek dance music with some friends. Does that make me cooler?).

Yes it does make you cooler. :)

The style denotes a larger problem, namely that Anglophone left-communist groups are often as incomprehensible as their writing. If you can only express your ideas in inaccessible jargon and bland intellectual prose, your group’s politics and practices are usually not much better. You can’t organize well if you can’t communicate well. And if you can’t organize you can’t build praxis, and if you can’t build praxis then your politics don't improve or evolve.

[Devrim]

From my own experience and knowledge, community organizing has often come at times when local workplace organizing wasn’t going strong.

I think that is when anarchists get involved in community organising. I think that there is a difference between this and class struggles in the community.


Saul Alinsky was a bit of reformist, but he had significant organizing victories from the 30s to the 70s. He rode out the 50s without major setbacks. Worker militancy remains patchy and repressed in Mexico.

I don't know this guy, but I would imagine that he was not involved in class struggle, but in leftist campaigns.


Worker militancy remains patchy and repressed in Mexico. B community organizing remains relatively vibrant.

Yes, and I think a lot of these things are certainly not working class movements.


The paper sellers were not waged. They made money through the actual sale of the paper.

I would still argue that they were effectively employed. I don't imagine that they decided how many to buy, and where to sell. I would presume that they were working on piece rates per sale.


The idea that there’s this essentially communist and humanist viewpoint engendered by wage work is silly. How many food service workers spit on food and hate their customers?

None that I know.


I don’t think a street vendor selling stale bread is any worse than a burger flipper deliberately spreading illness.

The stale bread was a stupid example, but there is a difference though. Somebody spitting on the burger is for whatever reason acting misanthropically. Some one selling yesterdays bread is acting in his direct economic interests.


In either situation collective struggle has the ability to mitigate those beliefs and attitudes.

The point is though that the petit bourgeoisie tend not to get involved in collective struggles.


Its also important to note that most of the "self-employed" will not make a career out of it, since the "self-employed" tend to make far less than the employed. They are likely to move into traditionally working class employment soon afterward.


There's at least 100 million street vendors in the world right now, and that'll only go up.

If it is there. As you say this sector is expanding and the reason is because people can't get work.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The style denotes a larger problem, namely that Anglophone left-communist groups are often as incomprehensible as their writing. If you can only express your ideas in inaccessible jargon and bland intellectual prose, your group’s politics and practices are usually not much better. You can’t organize well if you can’t communicate well. And if you can’t organize you can’t build praxis, and if you can’t build praxis then your politics don't improve or evolve.

I think that the problem is exaggerated too. This is the leaflet the ICC gave out in recent strikes in the UK.

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/313/teachers-strike

Please, tell me what you think is wrong with it.

Devrim

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Come on Dev, we had a good argument going on. Don’t snip it up into little stock phrase one liners!


I think that is when anarchists get involved in community organising. I think that there is a difference between this and class struggles in the community.

I don’t see the qualitative difference. Anarchists organizing housing struggles are certainly engaging in “class struggles in the community.” We’re not force from outside the working class. Well at least the serious ones aren’t.:cool:




I don't know this guy, but I would imagine that he was not involved in class struggle, but in leftist campaigns.

Bosses and slumlords repeatedly shot at him; he composed most of his writings in jail. He helped win a number of strikes, utilizing community support. He was involved in class struggle. Though I often get confused as to what you determine as “class struggle.” Since it seems to exist only in the workshop. Is it class struggle when a black community organizes against police brutality?


Yes, and I think a lot of these things are certainly not working class movements.

Again, like you cut out a lot of groups that have a history of solid collective organizing. Street vendor groups typically are anti capitalist and utilize collective direct action. The vendors are from working class backgrounds, they live in working class communities, sooner or later they will have traditional working class jobs. They’re sort of like a worker occupied factory. They’re essentially self exploiting, and more or less employed by the market. Perhaps it doesn’t fit into a strict “you must earn wages from a company” classification, but its not good praxis to just discount them. If you are concerned with the growth of this sector you need to address it in a proactive manner. Dismissing it out of hand is exactly the kind of posturing turns folk off from your ideas.


I would still argue that they were effectively employed. I don't imagine that they decided how many to buy, and where to sell. I would presume that they were working on piece rates per sale.

They decided how many papers to sell and they were definitely not assigned an area in which to sell. One of the union’s main tactics was the use of direct action to protect sellers from police attacks. If the state pushed a seller out of their “turf” they would send hundreds of folk to occupy the place until the police gave up.


None that I know.

Heh As a student I know a whole lot.


The stale bread was a stupid example, but there is a difference though. Somebody spitting on the burger is for whatever reason acting misanthropically. Some one selling yesterdays bread is acting in his direct economic interests.


Yes but it’s also in your economic self interest to be really nice to folk you’re selling to. If you’re a service industry worker, it’s in your interest to provide the worst service possible without getting fired.


The point is though that the petit bourgeoisie tend not to get involved in collective struggles.

And yet these “petit bourgeoisie” are very well organized and are fighting collective struggles. Much like other “self-employed” groups like New York cabbies, “independent” truckers etc. These groups are tending to organize a whole lot.



If it is there. As you say this sector is expanding and the reason is because people can't get work.

Yeah, but one assumes that they will abandon it once they find more regular work. There aren't too many jobs around, but 4 years of looking is bound to produce something. Like most hyper exploitative jobs the turnover is high.


I think that the problem is exaggerated too. This is the leaflet the ICC gave out in recent strikes in the UK.

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/313/teachers-strike (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.internationalism.org/wr/313/teachers-strike)

Please, tell me what you think is wrong with

*shrugs* There’s no question that the writing has gotten better. But as you’ve just illustrated, yall have a bad tendency to fall back into this very narrow definition of class struggle. Thousands of street vendors collectively organize and you just dismiss them, even though they represent an exploited and huge sector of society. Rather than engage these new developments the praxis just gets stuck. Which is a shame because yall are one of the few libertarian leftist tendencies around that has a strong command of economics and can think in concrete terms. Give your theory some slack and your influence will grow.

[Devrim]

Come on Dev, we had a good argument going on. Don’t snip it up into little stock phrase one liners!

Sorry, that is just how it came out. I will try to be more substantive. Also sorry for being so late replying.


I don’t see the qualitative difference. Anarchists organizing housing struggles are certainly engaging in “class struggles in the community.” We’re not force from outside the working class. Well at least the serious ones aren’t.:cool:

I think that it comes down how we define what class struggle is. I don't think that there are many class struggles in the community to be engaged in at the moment. What housing struggles are anarchists organising? Don't you think that there is a difference between being involved in real struggles that are going on, and starting small groups, or campaigns over 'community' issues? Even in the US where the working class is weak, we have see big workers strikes in the past few years. Have there also been massive rent strikes? I haven't heard about them.


Bosses and slumlords repeatedly shot at him; he composed most of his writings in jail. He helped win a number of strikes, utilizing community support. He was involved in class struggle. Though I often get confused as to what you determine as “class struggle.” Since it seems to exist only in the workshop.

We don't think that class struggle only exists in the workplace. We do, however, think that the working class is stronger in the workplace for various reasons. We think that many of the campaigns that leftists involve themselves in are working class struggle, but have a cross class nature.

As for you example, as I said I know nothing about the guy, but going to prison doesn't mean that he was a revolutionary. Our current (Islamicist) Prime Minister put in jail for political reasons and could soon be going again even.


Again, like you cut out a lot of groups that have a history of solid collective organizing. Street vendor groups typically are anti capitalist and utilize collective direct action. The vendors are from working class backgrounds, they live in working class communities, sooner or later they will have traditional working class jobs. They’re sort of like a worker occupied factory. They’re essentially self exploiting, and more or less employed by the market. Perhaps it doesn’t fit into a strict “you must earn wages from a company” classification, but its not good praxis to just discount them. If you are concerned with the growth of this sector you need to address it in a proactive manner. Dismissing it out of hand is exactly the kind of posturing turns folk off from your ideas.

What street vendor groups? Really, I haven't heard of massive strike of street vendor groups. You can't just imagine the class struggle into being. Please, show me where this is happening today.

We are concerned about the growth of this sector in that it represents a real weakening of the working class. We don't see much potential in these sectors, and think that maybe they can be dragged behind the working class in periods of mass struggle. If that turns people off, well so be it.


Heh As a student I know a whole lot [of restaurant workers who spit in food].

Actually, I am quite shocked and disgusted by this. I can't imagine this happening a lot in Turkey, basically as the market for jobs is much tighter, and when people have a job, they tend to hang on to it. (The staff in my local pub, about forty workers, are the same as they were 15 years ago). We don't have the whole thing of students waiting tables as there are no jobs to be had.

I could make some comment here about this being a reflection of the whole déclassé student milieu, but I won't.


Yes but it’s also in your economic self interest to be really nice to folk you’re selling to. If you’re a service industry worker, it’s in your interest to provide the worst service possible without getting fired.

No, it's not. It is in your interest to do as little work as possible, but that is different from providing the worst service possible.


And yet these “petit bourgeoisie” are very well organized and are fighting collective struggles. Much like other “self-employed” groups like New York cabbies, “independent” truckers etc. These groups are tending to organize a whole lot.

The question is whether it is on a class terrain. Certainly, these sectors can become involved in struggles, which is more clearly shown in Europe today than the States. The question is though what the nature of these struggles is. Maybe a little thinking and analysis is called for before jumping headlong into supporting them.


Yeah, but one assumes that they will abandon it once they find more regular work. There aren't too many jobs around, but 4 years of looking is bound to produce something. Like most hyper exploitative jobs the turnover is high.

I think that the whole thing that you were talking about the growth of street vendors refers to countries more like Turkey than the States. In Turkey unemployment is about 20% permanently. The crisis is already deep, and is deepening. '4 years of looking is' not 'bound to produce something'. The pressure that are producing this sector continue. As you said it is getting bigger.


*shrugs* There’s no question that the writing has gotten better. But as you’ve just illustrated, yall have a bad tendency to fall back into this very narrow definition of class struggle. Thousands of street vendors collectively organize and you just dismiss them, even though they represent an exploited and huge sector of society. Rather than engage these new developments the praxis just gets stuck. Which is a shame because yall are one of the few libertarian leftist tendencies around that has a strong command of economics and can think in concrete terms.

Again please, show me where 'thousands of street vendors are collectively organised'.


Give your theory some slack and your influence will grow.

Where have we heard that before?

Devrim

P.S. We are not libertarians either. ;)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I think that it comes down how we define what class struggle is. I don't think that there are many class struggles in the community to be engaged in at the moment. What housing struggles are anarchists organising? Don't you think that there is a difference between being involved in real struggles that are going on, and starting small groups, or campaigns over 'community' issues? Even in the US where the working class is weak, we have see big workers strikes in the past few years. Have there also been massive rent strikes? I haven't heard about them.

Of course there are no rent strikes. Rent strikes haven’t been used in the US on a mass scale since the great depression. The tactic is just now getting dusted off. There was an upsurge around housing organization in the 80s, and that was at a time of pretty low class struggle. But that was initiated through ACORN mostly, and ACORN got recuperated real fast.

Community struggles are pretty widespread in the US. Though they tend to stay under the radar because they’re isolated. Community groups aren’t federated in anything rivaling the AFL . If that were the situation it would probably be a whole lot different. Plus labor gets a lot more coverage as it’s of larger importance to the capitalists and fits within their frame of reference. Transit rider unions don’t really fit, even though they’re sometimes more militant than the transit workers themselves.

And what this about “real struggle”? Is a struggle only real once it has hit a certain threshold? Most mass movements build out of a small organizations winning victories at roughly the same time. Eventually they congeal together to form big time mass struggle. But sometimes you gotta start from scratch.


We don't think that class struggle only exists in the workplace. We do, however, think that the working class is stronger in the workplace for various reasons. We think that many of the campaigns that leftists involve themselves in are working class struggle, but have a cross class nature.

It’s obvious we’re stronger in the workplace as that’s where we have the most leverage. But we shouldn’t abandon other areas of struggle, as they often provide certain benefits and lessons we don’t get from the workplace. For example, if we want to build women’s involvement, community struggles are often more conducive as men haven’t entrenched themselves there.

Yes a lot of anarchists are involved in cross class activities. I don’t see why this is a problem. Many struggles will have a cross class nature to them. Women’s liberation is a cross class struggle, but it’s a struggle we should be ardently involved in. It’s important to have a presence so that we can build a strong working class pole that can claim hegemony over the larger movement. We can’t reduce everything to class, as shit like patriarchy isn’t built solely on class relations and we don’t want to get into economic reductionism.



As for you example, as I said I know nothing about the guy, but going to prison doesn't mean that he was a revolutionary. Our current (Islamicist) Prime Minister put in jail for political reasons and could soon be going again even.

Dev you never seem capable of doing your own research. :lol: You have the internet; you should at the very least know that he’s not a fucking reactionary.

The man fought his way through the CIO strikes and then turned towards community organizing. His first project was the “back of the yards” community in Chicago. It was Alinsky’s home town and the worst slum in the country. Through community organizing he was able to help leverage a victory for the meat packers strike (which employed most nearly everyone there0, which provided enough income to fix up the neighborhood. During the strike company thugs repeatedly shot at him. During the campaign and most subsequent campaigns he was jailed almost on sight. The moment he came to a town business leaders would call the police to arrest him. He was no doctrinaire communist or anarchist. He even had a bit of a reformist side to him, but he wasn’t too bad. See for yourself.





The American Radical will fight privilege and power whether it be inherited or acquired by any small group, whether it be political or financial or organized creed.
He curses a caste system which he recognizes despite all patriotic denials.
He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders.
He will fight any concentration of power hostile to a broad, popular democracy, whether he finds it in financial circles or in politics.
The Radical recognizes that constant dissension and conflict is and has been the fire under the boiler of democracy. He firmly believes in that brave saying of a brave people, "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people.


What street vendor groups? Really, I haven't heard of massive strike of street vendor groups. You can't just imagine the class struggle into being. Please, show me where this is happening today.

We are concerned about the growth of this sector in that it represents a real weakening of the working class. We don't see much potential in these sectors, and think that maybe they can be dragged behind the working class in periods of mass struggle. If that turns people off, well so be it.
Come now Dev. You seem to be ignorant of a lot of stuff these days.
There are street vender unions all throughout Mexico. There are several scholarly articles on the Mexico City group. I’m not at Uni right now so I can’t access them. In Texacoc the repression of flower venders initiated the events at San Salvador Atenco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Uprising_in_San_Salvador_Atenco). There are organizations in Kenya, Nepal, South Africa, as well as several US cities.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Uprising_in_San_Salvador_Atenco)
If you’re concerned about the sector then you should probably try to engage and address it. “Turning off” hundreds of millions is not the way to build a revolutionary movement.

Actually, I am quite shocked and disgusted by this. I can't imagine this happening a lot in Turkey, basically as the market for jobs is much tighter, and when people have a job, they tend to hang on to it. (The staff in my local pub, about forty workers, are the same as they were 15 years ago). We don't have the whole thing of students waiting tables as there are no jobs to be had.

I could make some comment here about this being a reflection of the whole déclassé student milieu, but I won't.
The US job market is pretty abysmal as well, far tighter than any other 1st world nation. However, the service sector is geared towards high turnover, so conditions are utterly miserable and workers act miserably to customers. If they lose a job they get a new one down the street where someone else was fired for the same reason.
And no it has nothing to do with the student milieu. It’s an equal opportunity offense that spans the sector.

No, it's not. It is in your interest to do as little work as possible, but that is different from providing the worst service possible.
Worst service is usually congruent with least work possible. You try and not get fired, but you never try to do more than the bare minimum, unless there are tips, then it’s in your economic interest.
But, it’s not just that. There are many sectors where the workers will find it in their economic interest to support things detrimental to working people, and humans in general. There are entire economies built around military bases and military industries. Workers there will fight for the base’s expansion and the expansion of the military industrial complex. Oil workers will fight for the continuation of oil production. Loggers will support logging of national forest. The list goes on.

The question is whether it is on a class terrain. Certainly, these sectors can become involved in struggles, which is more clearly shown in Europe today than the States. The question is though what the nature of these struggles is. Maybe a little thinking and analysis is called for before jumping headlong into supporting them.
Well let’s examine this. They are extremely poor and live a precarious existence. The state represses them on a regular basis. They are party to the whims of the market like all other workers. They come from working class families, working class neighborhoods, and have worked or will have worked a waged job for a large portion of their life. In order to fight repression and their own destitution they collectively organize and engage in struggle. Sounds working class enough to me. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Hell man, even Vanzetti was a fish peddler.

I think that the whole thing that you were talking about the growth of street vendors refers to countries more like Turkey than the States. In Turkey unemployment is about 20% permanently. The crisis is already deep, and is deepening. '4 years of looking is' not 'bound to produce something'. The pressure that are producing this sector continue. As you said it is getting bigger.
*shrugs* One assumes that if you look long and hard enough, something will come up. Of course there is a net drain of people entering the sector, but there would also be a steady trickle out into either legitimate industry or informal industry.

Where have we heard that before?
Whenever you have a very small political sect with a hard and fast ideology? ;)

P.S. We are not libertarians either. ;)
Then what are you? Anti-Leninist authoritarians? Makes no bloody sense.

[Devrim]

I deal with some of the incidental stuff first before getting back to the many points.


Then what are you? Anti-Leninist authoritarians? Makes no bloody sense.

Libertarian, and authoritarian are both words that come from the anarchist political tradition. For us they don't have any real meaning. I don't really see any difference between some groups that anarchists call authoritarian, and some of the anarchists themselves apart from questions of historical analysis connected to Russia, and Spain.

I think that there practice is often very similar.

To be honest, I don't even understand what the anarchists mean by authoritarian (and remember I spent time in an anarchist organisation-this is not ignorance talking). It makes no sense to me.


Dev you never seem capable of doing your own research. :lol: You have the internet; you should at the very least know that he’s not a fucking reactionary.

I try not to get into discussions about things that I don't know about. One of them is America. Seriously, I have very little knowledge of the history of the working class in the US, a little stuff about the IWW but not much more.

I didn't mean to imply that he was a reactionary. I was merely saying that going to prison, or being shot does not in itself mean anything. It happens to bourgeois politicians too.


*shrugs* One assumes that if you look long and hard enough, something will come up. Of course there is a net drain of people entering the sector, but there would also be a steady trickle out into either legitimate industry or informal industry.

Again, I feel that you underestimate the depth of the crisis in the peripheral countries. Of course, some people can escape from this existence, but the majority don't. There is a constant stream of people coming from the country side to swell the numbers of this social group, and it isn't matched by the numbers getting real jobs. That's why this group is increasing in size.

OK, back to the main point:


Of course there are no rent strikes. Rent strikes haven’t been used in the US on a mass scale since the great depression. The tactic is just now getting dusted off. There was an upsurge around housing organization in the 80s, and that was at a time of pretty low class struggle. But that was initiated through ACORN mostly, and ACORN got recuperated real fast.

Actually the 80s was a time of intense class struggle. I don't know about the US, but internationally it was certainly true. I don't imagine that the US was very different.

My question though was about whether there were widespread struggles, not about whether there was housing organising.


Community struggles are pretty widespread in the US. Though they tend to stay under the radar because they’re isolated. Community groups aren’t federated in anything rivaling the AFL . If that were the situation it would probably be a whole lot different. Plus labor gets a lot more coverage as it’s of larger importance to the capitalists and fits within their frame of reference. Transit rider unions don’t really fit, even though they’re sometimes more militant than the transit workers themselves.

Again, I am very dubious about all this. I don't believe that there are mass 'Transit rider unions'. I believe there are a few leftists/activists running a campaign.


And what this about “real struggle”? Is a struggle only real once it has hit a certain threshold?

It's exactly what I was talking about just then. There is a huge difference between a group of leftists running a campaign, and a real working class struggle. There are occasional times when these coincide, but the majority of the time they don't.


Most mass movements build out of a small organizations winning victories at roughly the same time. Eventually they congeal together to form big time mass struggle. But sometimes you gotta start from scratch.

It is a very 19th century view of the worker's movement. If we look at the best examples of recent mass movements, the mass strike in Iran (1979-80), and Poland (1980-81), that is not how they happened at all. Workers are capable of struggling and forming their own organisations. Whether the anarchists believe it or not this has been shown by history time, and time again.


Come now Dev. You seem to be ignorant of a lot of stuff these days.
There are street vender unions all throughout Mexico. There are several scholarly articles on the Mexico City group. I’m not at Uni right now so I can’t access them. In Texacoc the repression of flower venders initiated the events at San Salvador Atenco (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Uprising_in_San_Salvador_Atenco). There are organizations in Kenya, Nepal, South Africa, as well as several US cities.

I appreciate that you can't access the stuff, but one small example from Mexico does not mean much. Here is an example from where I live, Ankara:


Demolition in Ankara leads to detention of 57 Tuesday, July 11, 2006
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
Police have apprehended 57 people who used sticks, stones, knives and Molotov cocktails to stop the demolition of the Maltepe Bazaar, known for illegally selling CDs, DVDs and electronic equipment.
Violence erupted on Sunday night when demolition teams from the Çankaya Municipality arrived at the bazaar to start demolishing tents. The teams arrived at night to avoid scuffles.
The municipality wants to build a multi-storey car park and shopping mall in the central district.
Police fought back attackers with pepper spray and took 57 people into custody.
The Ankara Police Department said those who were taken into custody were being interrogated, with all of them expected to be sent to court for arrest.
The group that attacked the demolition team also caused damage to the Maltepe Bazaar and the Çankaya Municipality Parks and Gardens Department across the street.
Two demolition vehicles, two cars and numerous police vehicles were also damaged in the clashes. One truck was burnt.
Vegetable sellers at the Maltepe Bazaar said they had not heard of the clashes when they arrived in the morning but criticized the decision to demolish the place.
Reports said nine people were injured during the clashes. The Doğan News Agency said a group had tried to prevent demolition teams from doing their job but had also clashed with each other.
The attackers said they had lodged an appeal against the decision to demolish the bazaar, claiming that men from the contractor that is to build the car park and mall had attacked them.
The makeshift tents were all demolished after the police dispersed the crowd.

Now to me, this was not a working class struggle in any way. I say this because I know what it was about. It was a struggle orchestrated by the market stall owners. Yes they may have got some of their workers to support them, but the fact that workers were involved in it doesn't make it a workers struggle on a class terrain.

Burning police cars doesn't make class struggle.

Another point that you make is about these organisations in various parts of the world. We are of the opinion that workers' struggle creates workers organisations, not the other way around.


Yes a lot of anarchists are involved in cross class activities. I don’t see why this is a problem. Many struggles will have a cross class nature to them. Women’s liberation is a cross class struggle, but it’s a struggle we should be ardently involved in. It’s important to have a presence so that we can build a strong working class pole that can claim hegemony over the larger movement. We can’t reduce everything to class, as shit like patriarchy isn’t built solely on class relations and we don’t want to get into economic reductionism.

We reject this approach too. In the current period, it is extremely difficult for the working class to assert itself in cross class struggles. This is because the working class is weak, and is struggling to assert its class independence. Taking part in cross class struggles only adds to this.

On the point of feminism, we reject it. We have women in our organisation who came from feminism, and we had long and hard discussions with them on this issue before they joined.

Call it economic reductionism if you will, we don't think it is.


Well let’s examine this. They are extremely poor and live a precarious existence. The state represses them on a regular basis. They are party to the whims of the market like all other workers. They come from working class families, working class neighborhoods, and have worked or will have worked a waged job for a large portion of their life. In order to fight repression and their own destitution they collectively organize and engage in struggle. Sounds working class enough to me. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Hell man, even Vanzetti was a fish peddler.

Generally, they don't come from working class families, but from peasant families.

They don't walk or sound like workers to me.

And I am still not convinced that they are involved in collective struggle.

Devrim