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 ====
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005