[matilda] Proposal for workshop(s)

[Dan]

Allo

Yeah, was sad to miss AED's fud.  Food, I mean. Fear, uncertainty and 
doubt is something different. Although I confess to having fud about 
AED's food, so I'm glad it all turned out well...

0742: Sadly, copying and pasting huge chunks of text from wikipedia 
doesn't count as an argument - and it certainly doesn't mean that you've 
demonstrated to anyone that you understand anything except CRTL+C / 
CTRL+V.  But thanks for the link.

To turn this into something positive, mind, I have a proposal.

I've been thinking about doing some sessions on how we go about actually 
changing the world.  How that gets done does start by how we think its 
structured - are there classes? Are they 'istorical forces wot need only 
a well-honed revolutionary cadre of swappies to lead the way?  Or does 
class not exist any more, the world being made up only of a vast 
ecosystem of groupings, understood only by market researchers?

It comes to mind now coz I'm working with a new guy who comes from a 
tradition of collectivism - and the power of the collective, whether 
through unions or parties.

A lot of current thinking about social change is based on the fact that 
lefty thinkers (y'know, those useful bookish types who dreamed up class 
in the first place) had to come up with new ideas for how revolution 
could come about, now that the working class as a united force was no 
more. (An arguable point...)

One answer: we don't need collectivism - all we need is a 
self-organised, world-wide movement of 'one no n many yeses': the social 
justice mirror of the decentralised economic system yer average leftie 
wants rid of.

But does that mean that all us autonomistas are just leftie variants of 
thatcher's children? In rejecting collective action in favour of 
'swarming', have we capitulated?  Do we need to bring class and class 
power back in?  Is this, in fact, class war?

Ha! Some arguments there - and we should do em in workshops!

So - anyone wanna meet up to plan some workshops on this stuff?

p.s. I've had a slightly better track record of actually starting things 
I say I'm going to recently! Both the affordable space group and the 
Voice / "Speak up" are actually happening, shock horror!  So maybe we 
can do this too...

p.s. First Speak up is next Wednesday if anyone wants to come - reminder:

http://www.alacsy.org.uk/images/voice4webjpg.jpg

See ya

Dan
---


worldwarfree at riseup.net wrote:
> So The Hacklab people cooked us all a very wicked meal.. You need to thank
> Armchair Hippy Alan D i just helped in a reluctant style..
> 
> Here is a link to a Critique of capitalism from Karl Marx..
> 
> Marx argued that this alienation of human work (and resulting commodity
> fetishism) is precisely the defining feature of capitalism. Prior to
> capitalism, markets existed in Europe where producers and merchants bought
> and sold commodities. According to Marx, a capitalist mode of production
> developed in Europe when labor itself became a commodity — when peasants
> became free to sell their own labor-power, and needed to do so because
> they no longer possessed their own land or tools necessary to produce.
> People sell their labor-power when they accept compensation in return for
> whatever work they do in a given period of time (in other words, they are
> not selling the product of their labor, but their capacity to work). In
> return for selling their labor power they receive money, which allows them
> to survive. Those who must sell their labor power to live are
> "proletarians." The person who buys the labor power, generally someone who
> does own the land and technology to produce, is a "capitalist" or
> "bourgeois." (Marx considered this an objective description of capitalism,
> distinct from any one of a variety of ideological claims of or about
> capitalism). The proletarians inevitably outnumber the capitalists.
> 
> More http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx#Critique_of_capitalism
> 
>>From here we need to Talk about The Proletariat
> 
> In the Marxist theory, the proletariat is that class of society which does
> not have ownership of the means of production. Proletarians are
> wage-workers, while some refer to those who receive salaries as the
> salariat. For Marx, however, wage labor may involve getting a salary
> rather than a wage per se.
> 
> Marxism sees the proletariat and bourgeoisie (capitalist class) as
> occupying conflicting positions, since (for example) factory workers
> automatically wish wages to be as high as possible, while owners and their
> proxies wish for wages (costs) to be as low as possible.
> 
> In Marxist theory, the proletariat may also include (1) some elements of
> the petty bourgeoisie, if they rely primarily but not exclusively on
> self-employment at an income no different from an ordinary wage or below
> it, and (2) the lumpenproletariat, who are not in legal employment.
> Intermediate positions are possible,
> 
> Now we come onto The Bourgeoisie
> 
> Bourgeoisie (boo zhwa zee') is a French word. The early Anglicization
> "burgess" is derived from the old French burgeis (Cf. Also middle English:
> burgeis, burges, borges and old Dutch: burgher = the inhabitant of a
> borough or burgh). In the French feudal order, "bourgeois" was formally a
> legal category in society, defined by conditions such as length of
> residence and source of income.
> 
> The French term in turn seems to have derived from the Italian borghesia
> (from borgo = village), which in turn derives from the Greek pyrgos. A
> borghese was a freeman dwelling in a burgh or township. The word evolved
> to mean merchants and traders, and until the 19th century was mostly
> synonymous with the middle class (persons in the broad socioeconomic
> spectrum between nobility and serfs or proletarians). Then, as the power
> and wealth of the nobility faded in the second half of the 19th century,
> the bourgeoisie emerged as the new ruling class.
> 
> As the term is difficult for a native English speaker to spell or
> pronounce, it is not used as often in politics in English speaking
> countries as in other Western ones, and is not in common use in the United
> States. From the late nineteenth century through the Great Depression, the
> pronunciation "bushwah" was used in political satire portraying radical
> leftists. Critic H. L. Mencken coined the portmanteau "booboisie" to label
> middle America, which he viewed as conventional and unintellectual.
> 
> Then we reach The Lumpenproletariat
> 
> The lumpenproletariat (German Lumpenproletariat, "rabble-proletariat";
> "raggedy proletariat") is a term originally defined by Karl Marx and
> Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1845), their famous second joint
> work, and later expounded upon in future works by Marx. In Marx's The
> Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), the term refers to the
> 'refuse of all classes,' including 'swindlers, confidence tricksters,
> brothel-keepers, rag-and-bone merchants, organ-grinders, beggars, and
> other flotsam of society.'
> 
> In the Eighteenth Brumaire, the lumpenproletariat were a 'class fraction'
> that constituted the political power base for Louis Bonaparte of France in
> 1848. In this sense, Marx argued that in the particular historical events
> leading up to Louis Bonaparte's coup in late 1851, the proletariat and
> bourgeoisie were productive and progressive, advancing the historical
> process by developing society's labor-power and its capabilities, whereas
> the 'lumpenproletariat' was unproductive and regressive.
> 
> According to Marx, the lumpenproletariat had no real motive for
> participating in revolution, and might have in fact an interest in
> preserving the current class structure, because members of the
> lumpenproletariat often depended on the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy
> for their day-to-day existence. In that sense, Marx saw the
> lumpenproletariat as a counter-revolutionary force.
> 
> Marx's definition has influenced contemporary sociologists, who are
> concerned with many of the marginalized elements of society characterized
> by Marx under this label. Marxian and even some non-Marxist sociologists
> now use the term to refer to those they see as the victims of modern
> society, such as prostitutes, beggars, and homeless people, who exist
> outside the wage-labor system, but depend on the formal economy for their
> day-to-day existence.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpenproletariat
> 
> So when people call me Lumpenproletariat as an attack a means of saying i
> have no intelgance understanding of the words i use that i use them as a
> term of abuse please think againe..
> 
> One is more than happy to have a interlectual debate on the issue of class
> and the relavance to Matilda and why i feel there is a conection that we
> need to look further than our own gheto..
> 
> http://pretentiousartist.com/
> 
> 0742..
> 
> _______________________________________________
> matilda mailing list
> matilda at lists.aktivix.org
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda