File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2003/postanarchism.0310, message 5


From: Richard Singer <ricinger-AT-inch.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Is there anyone on this list who isn't a current or  aspi..
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 01:10:16 -0400


No argument with any of the points below, really.  I wasn't saying I hate 
people because they are students and professors (which would be a surprise 
to some people on this list whom I even encountered and hung out with 
recently in an office in the CUNY graduate center!), but it is my 
observation that there have been academics, as well as various other types 
of teachers and educational bureaucrats, who've dominated "anarchist" 
groups and who seem to claim a certain degree of hierarchy and prestige, in 
part due to their academic status and/or the role that they are used to 
playing.  I won't name names or get more specific here, because I have had 
some conflict with some of these people (I don't like them and they really 
don't like me), and I am weary of infighting arguments.  My main point is 
to watch out for even not-so-conscious assumption of hierarchical power and 
privilege that may go with socially privileged positions.

Moreover, while it may be true that many academics will participate in a 
"subversive" movement, the question is, what kind of role will they assume 
in that movement?  That is the thing to watch out for.

As for John Zerzan choosing to stay away from the limelight, come on, you 
must be joking. :)

Regarding the $100,000-a-year longshoreman, I agree (and I think we've been 
through this conversation before).  I think most traditional conceptions of 
the working class and glorification of unionized labor (which is itself 
really a privileged section of labor, whether or not it fought to gain that 
privilege) are outmoded and deserve reexamination.  "Class" is also not 
strictly a two-level issue (though, as you know, saying this would be 
heresy in the Wobblies); there are various degrees of wage slavery.  I, 
myself, am now a college-educated contingent worker constantly at the mercy 
of temp employers, without any protection against my bosses' whims and 
without any confidence that I will have money to buy a meal next week or 
(especially) that I will be able to meet my bills next month.  Yet, am I 
less proletarian in my day-to-day struggles than a unionized worker with a 
relatively secure job, health insurance, and a salary over $50,000 a year? 
 I don't think so, unless you want to argue that I am neuvo-lumpen.

Regarding the issue of hourly wage, this also is tricky...  I make anywhere 
from $15 to $21 an hour when I can get a temp proofreading assignment, but 
I usually get one or two assignments a week, three if I'm very lucky.  And, 
by the way, I've also tried recently working at jobs, or applying for jobs, 
paying $10 an hour, and none  of that worked out.  Being able to get work 
at a higher hourly wage doesn't mean you can easily get work at a lower 
hourly wage if you want it -- I think a lot of people are discovering that 
in the present economic environment.

One thing that I encounter which I do think corresponds a great deal to the 
experience of most true proletarians is working under the constant pressure 
to compete to hold my job because temps like me are considered easily 
replaceable and expendable.  Professional academics and other educators do 
have a little more social status in that they are regarded as authority and 
are made to feel that there is some actual significance and importance to 
their paid intellectual labor. (Plus, the tenured kind do have relative job 
security.)

I appreciate the libertarian and autonomist Marxists because they 
constantly seek to debate and redefine the nature of class.  I don't think 
many anarchists, syndicalists, or "traditional" Marxists are quite as 
flexible.

I've been very appreciative of some of the works of Andre Gorz (who himself 
is apparently some kind of academic, and even a former protege of Sartre), 
who at one time talked about the "non-class of post-industrial 
proletarians."  We don't have the traditional class identifications that 
fill the dreams of traditional Marxists...yet, we are still proletarians.


Richard



Jason wrote:


While I reject specialization and privilege in general
I should also point out that I don't think that just
because someone is a student or a professor that this
means that they are the 'enemy'. There are many within
academia who, like the students and professors in the
Events of May '68, are actively working to subvert
their own positions and to open up the university to
the entire community. In fact I would assume that most
of the academics on this list would fit into this
description, being that this is an anarchist list, so
I don't think it makes sense to single them out as
though they were somehow 'worse' than computer
programmers, librarians, carpenters or other
specialized laborers who make more than $10/hr and
have their own apartment.

There is no denying that most (but certainly not all)
academics come from middle-class backgrounds but as we
hopefully learned after May '68 this does not mean
that they will not be involved in future insurrections
against power - in fact in the past several decades
students have been involved in almost every major
revolt around the world! I think the question that
should be asked here is not, should academics be
researching anarchism and trying to develop new
insights, etc. since obviously I certainly do think
they should, but rather, what is the role of the
academic in the movement toward an anarchist society?
I dont think that they should act as a vanguard by any
means but I do think they have a role - some argue
that they should be giving speeches, standing on
street corners, giving the movement their 'all' etc.
like Sartre or something, while others such as Paul
Virilio reject this because it makes the academic
appear to be the 'leader' - in fact he says  it is for
this reason that he prefers to just write on his own
and to develop new concepts that might help people to
see things differently, and perhaps to act differently
as a result, while doing minimal activism of his own
without making a big deal of it. Ironically then, by
holding back a little bit, being somewhat less
involved in activism and more involved in academia,
but from a radical standpoint, the academic may in
fact do more to bring about social change since they
will not be playing the role of vanguard, but will
help to get some fresh ideas out there!

This is kind of how John Zerzan acts in Eugene from
what I hear, he will go on activist radio and TV shows
once in a while but primarily he stays out of the
limelight so as to avoid the Sartre Syndrome. This
seems to be the appropriate position for the academic
to take in my opinion, especially for anarchists,
there should be a certain humility before popular
movements for social change in the early stages, and
then when it eventually gets to the point that the
universities and workplaces are actually being
collectivized, as in May '68, the professors and
students can join in and help to make it happen
without pretending that its 'their' university. Thus I
am not so disturbed that academics fall into their own
little sub-cliques within anarchism so long as they do
not think that they 'have it all figured out' or that
they will one day lead the behooded black-clothed
masses into the new world or whatever - in fact I
think it is probably healthy that they do so since
this allows the popular movements to develop more
organically.

As far as class struggle goes, I think there should be
every effort made to bridge the gap between working
class and middle class movements, as happened with the
Worker-Student Action Committees in May '68 where each
supported the other despite their differing life
experiences, since all were subject to some form of
authority or another even if not to the same degree;
while some would say that this amounts to changing the
system from within I would question whether there is
anything but 'within' - for instance is it really the
case that a student is within the system and a
carpenter is outside of it? Is a longshoremen making
$100,000 a year really 'outside' of the system? Is a
middle class dropout anarchist living off a trust fund
while trian hopping around the country really
'outside' the system? There has to be some common
ground here between all of the various positions we
are coming from and there also has to be room for
those who are not academics as such but who are
'organic intellectuals' who teach themselves radical
theory or who learn about this stuff on their own - I
have a freind for instance who never graduated from
high school who could probably debate any PhD on this
list about poststructuralism, situationism, Frankfurt
School Marxism, etc. and do quite well indeed - so in
short I guess what I am saying is 'hate the game not
the player', or whatever.

Jason

====


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005