What did Love and Rage do?

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wobbly Preacher's picture
Wobbly Preacher
Offline
Joined: 6-11-06
Jan 1 2007 17:55
What did Love and Rage do?

I have been reading Roy San Filippo's "A New World in Our Hearts" recently. The book offers a selection of essays from various members of Love and Rage. It is supposed to offer an overview of the organization's thought but according to Wayne Price it only offer one tendency's thought (http://nefac.net/node/516). While that may or may not be true (I don't know enough about Love and Rage to have an informed opinion) what the book does not do at is talk about Love and Rage's work. So, I'd like to know about what they did as an organization. I know they put out a newspaper and had conferences. What did they do beyond that? Tenant organizing? Workplace organizing? Zapatista solidarity work?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jan 2 2007 03:21

It did no workplace organizaing, for sure. Workers struggles was its weakest point. Anti-racism was probably it best point.

--mitch

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 2 2007 03:48

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_and_Rage

Quote:
The 1994 Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico focused much of the attention of the organization on Zapatista solidarity work. Members of Amor y Rabia made quick contact with the Zapatistas and Love and Rage members in the United States were early participants in setting up Zapatista solidarity groups and in disseminating English translations of their communiques. At the 1994 convention of Love and Rage, "Mexico Solidarity," "Prison Abolition" and "Anti-Fascism" (including anti-police brutality, anti-KKK, and abortion/gay rights) were decided as the three main areas of work for the organization.

Love and Rage members also participated in a variety of fights against neo-liberal measures in the U.S.. These included the fight against budget cuts and tuition hikes at the City University of New York (CUNY), a Living Wage campaign in Vermont, and connections with Welfare Rights organizers in Minneapolis.

blackstarbhoy
Offline
Joined: 2-01-07
Jan 2 2007 03:52

i would say that L&R should be viewed as the first experiment in creating an explicitly revolutionary anarchist organization in North America(since the Anarchist Communist Federation of 1979-81) during the 1990's.

flawed yes, it contained many remarkable militants and helped (often by its mere existance) sharpen political debate amongst the anarchist scenes.

It also was one of the first attempts to create an organization linking US, Canadian and comrades from Mexico. the paper was bilinguial and many L&R worked both on Zapatista solidarity and to further the influence of it's Mexico group, Amor y Rabia.

i was pretty disappointed in Roy's book and felt that it tilted in its coverage and end analysis heavily towards the future Bring the Ruckus! tendency. although L&R was weak on the development of theory, there is no doubt it helped shape the conciousness of many young anarchist militants.

it's to bad L&R imploded before events in Seattle. there didnt even exist a small cadre of L&R by this time.

late coverage of L&R generally stresses that the faction that included Wayne, the What We Believe, faction, was responsible for L&R's demise but it is much more complicated. WWB tried to argue for the maintaining of revolutionary anarchism in the face of a vocal L&R tendencu that argued for a politics created from a synthesis of Left political trends including maoism and stalinism. in fact this group would go on to become Fire By Night who later split and had members join Maoist groups like Freedom Road.

in addition to this political fracturing inside L&R, many of it's militants consistently ignored political debate and tended to stress action over the development of ideas and corresponding strategy. this made the political fights a task for a minority.

anyway, Roy's book talks about Fire By Night and presents their document, but it leaves out other postL&R documents issued by the WWB and associated factions, like it leaves out a document by members of the Detroit L&R group. This document tried to put forth a strategy for anarchist militants now that L&R was gone. Roy ignores these facts.

a proper account of Love and Rage has yet to be written.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jan 2 2007 04:18

I would agree that L&R attracted some fine young and some older militants. The AYR spanish speaking folks travelled first through the WSA and then into L&R.

i would venture to say that WSA (oranized in 1984) was also trying to build a class struggle anarchist organization, more from a syndicalist perspective as well. L&R was more into the streets and less suited or had a desire to do the long term work of building a movement grounded in communities and workplaces.

I think L&R's demise is the fact that it tried (too hard) to link new leftism with some kind of anarchism.

While I have tremendous criticisms of L&R I have tremendous respect for a few comrades who have come out of it --- and have had the good sense of retianing their activism and anarchist views.

blackstarbhoy
Offline
Joined: 2-01-07
Jan 2 2007 15:49

syndicalist is correct about the WSA, who i respect very much and of all the libertarian groups presently in the US i feel the most affinity with, even if i didnt join them 15 years ago when i goy recruitment material from them haha

L&R was not syndicalist, actually, although they were influenced by the platform and the pro-organizational tendency within anarchism, L&R was essentially a synthesis of various anarchist and autonomist trends that came out of the 1980's.

if workplace and community focus was absent i think it had more to do with the overwhelming youthfullness of the organization and that more serious politics and strategy developed over time. this maturing i think is also evident in the eventual splits, where as its members got older and started thinking deeper about struggle many of its members started to come to different conclusions about ways forward.

i think that lessons from L&R are still important. look right now at the atrophy of US based anarchism. after Seattle there was this huge revival and growth, now things are fragmented and there are few active, viable poles beyond the countercultural and liberal/social democratic variants of anti-authoritarianism. even the NEFAC is in no great shakes and perhaps remains together due more to stubborness than coherent and applied strategy. but hey, i'm saying this from the outside. so correct me if the case is otherwise.

i saw on a another thread mention of the testudo list initiated by NEFAC to discuss possibilities of continental organization among revolutionary/class struggle anarchists. given the sitauation i described about US anarchism i think a concentration of forces into an alliance might make sense. a re-examination of L&R, ACF, would be helpfull in such discussions.

Wobbly Preacher's picture
Wobbly Preacher
Offline
Joined: 6-11-06
Jan 2 2007 16:02

From what I've seen the NEFAC model has worked well, more-or-less, for NEFAC but hasn't proven to replicable. As far as I know all of the various NEFAC inspired organizations (FRAC, SCAF, etc.) have collapsed after only a couple of years and little meaningful activity.

Two more questions:

1. What are the lessons that can be learned from Love and Rage?
2. What is the relationship between Bring the Ruckus and Love and Rage?

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 2 2007 17:00
syndicalist wrote:
It did no workplace organizaing, for sure. Workers struggles was its weakest point. Anti-racism was probably it best point.

--mitch

I was never a member of Love & Rage (although when I was younger I had some vague affiliation with them through the Anarchist Youth Federation), but I remember at least some labor activism. There was some good solidarity work with the Detroit newspaper workers, and I know of at least one member who was directly involved with the Teamsters strike at UPS. Also, the Vermont local did some really good work around a statewide living wage campaign (and some of these people went on to start the Vermont Workers Center). Class struggle was definitely not at the forefront of L&R's activity overall, but there were some locals who did some solid labor activism.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 2 2007 17:14
Quote:
even the NEFAC is in no great shakes and perhaps remains together due more to stubborness than coherent and applied strategy. but hey, i'm saying this from the outside. so correct me if the case is otherwise.

That's actually not that far off from the reality of where we are at these days, but I think there is the hope that things will get better and those of us who are left have committed ourselves to at least keeping the group together until the political climate changes in our favor.

Quote:
i saw on a another thread mention of the testudo list initiated by NEFAC to discuss possibilities of continental organization among revolutionary/class struggle anarchists. given the sitauation i described about US anarchism i think a concentration of forces into an alliance might make sense. a re-examination of L&R, ACF, would be helpfull in such discussions.

More than anything it is a question of initative. I think a lot of anarchists sympathetic to this idea look to us to try and facilitate a continental project like you describe, but really we are just not in the position right now. We have our own internal house cleaning that needs to happen, projects we need to keep going, etc. We are basically a group with a small over-extended membership, and I think there is a fear that anything more ambitious than just keeping our immediate group together will end in failure.

That said, I would love to eventually see the remanents of groups like FRAC and FNAC (and L&R for that matter), along with NEFAC, WSA, Capital Terminus, CIPO-RFM, etc. someday unify our efforts into one continental organization. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

blackstarbhoy
Offline
Joined: 2-01-07
Jan 2 2007 18:02
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:

More than anything it is a question of initative. I think a lot of anarchists sympathetic to this idea look to us to try and facilitate a continental project like you describe, but really we are just not in the position right now. We have our own internal house cleaning that needs to happen, projects we need to keep going, etc. We are basically a group with a small over-extended membership, and I think there is a fear that anything more ambitious than just keeping our immediate group together will end in failure.

That said, I would love to eventually see the remanents of groups like FRAC and FNAC (and L&R for that matter), along with NEFAC, WSA, Capital Terminus, CIPO-RFM, etc. someday unify our efforts into one continental organization. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

i think the task of initiating something is rather daunting at the moment. and for such an alliance to work at even the most basic levels of productive discussion and some common project, there can not be a rush into it. i think there have been many projects that people thought had potential, but the rush to declare an organization meant not having a more solid foundation. i think NEFAC is correct in its approach to maintaining and developing a core membership.

i think one lesson of L&R, NEFAC, FRAC etc is that our organizations ebbed and flowed with the broader movements. when there was wide activity these groups were able to recruit and represent a not so insignififgant block within the movements. but as momentum dissipates, so the formal organizations wind down to an extent. partly because of political differences, lack of strategy, lack of working projects, an inability on the part of many anarchists to be truelly conected to developments in labor or community. also, and this is no small issue, but the trend in anarchism towards spectacular militancy and this gravitating to various drop out cultures. the empahsis on spectacular militancy shows its limitations when, for instance, in the current period "militancy" and extra-legal activity is very risky. people dont want to be arrested and brought up on felonies and spend time and energy fighting to keep people out of jail for doing things in which what is gained is very small.

but on the flip side, there are many anarchists who reject such militancy and gravitate towards more conservative approaches like paid staff positions in NGO's, unions, community organizing projects. being paid staff itself aint bad, just when you start thinking that such work is the correct approach to struggle, such attitudes are more fitting for electoral social democratic reformism. and hey, people need reforms and decent pay and healthcare and representation and advocates when they are being harrassed. but such activity, from a revolutionary perspective, is usefull in asmuch as it transforms peoples views, aids in the creation of autonomous and combative working class culture, builds confidence in rank and filers, and has the potential to break from officialdom.

anyway, i'm getting off the subject i think...

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jan 2 2007 18:18

I don't have the book in front of me but one of the things I found most interesting in it was the thing by Chris Day, I think, about "reproles", where he talked about the demographics of L&R, that the group was mostly younger and in lower end jobs or in university. I'm curious to know about the make up of the earlier federation mentioned and of the WSA. I dont think this kind of make up determines everything or anything like that, but it's a useful piece of the puzzle to have. Day's account, if it's accurate, makes L&Rs less emphasis and involvement in workplace stuff make a lot of sense.

Also, I can't remember but didn't the living wage stuff and other economic campaigns fall under the "anti-austerity" working group of L&R? I don't mean to be sectarian but that stuff isn't what I'd think of as workplace organizing, with the exception of the UPS stuff. And I could be wrong but the UPS stuff came pretty late (the strike was late 1997, and L&R dissolved in early 98, right?). So my impression is that there was more the initiative of one member or a few members than something that L&R did as a group.

I would also like to hear more about the relationship between L&R and BTR, L&R and NEFAC, and what role, if any, that plays in relationships between BTR and NEFAC. All of this is useful stuff to think about re: bigger anarchist organizations.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 2 2007 18:39
Quote:
Also, I can't remember but didn't the living wage stuff and other economic campaigns fall under the "anti-austerity" working group of L&R? I don't mean to be sectarian but that stuff isn't what I'd think of as workplace organizing, with the exception of the UPS stuff. And I could be wrong but the UPS stuff came pretty late (the strike was late 1997, and L&R dissolved in early 98, right?). So my impression is that there was more the initiative of one member or a few members than something that L&R did as a group.

No, definitely not workplace organizing. Like most of L&R's activity, I think most of their work in this area would fall under 'solidarity activism' (with the Vermot Living Wage being the grassroots organizing exception).

Quote:
I would also like to hear more about the relationship between L&R and BTR, L&R and NEFAC, and what role, if any, that plays in relationships between BTR and NEFAC. All of this is useful stuff to think about re: bigger anarchist organizations.

NEFAC's direct ties to Love & Rage are pretty minimal. We have two members who were also L&R members (both part of the 'What We Believe' faction that challenged the rise of Maoism in the group). Other than that, there are a few vague affiliations. I was in the Anarchist Youth Federation, which had loose ties to L&R in the mid-90s. Some of the founding NEFAC people from Quebec City were ex-members of Demanarchie, which was a francophone newspaper and activist network that had some kind of vague relationship to L&R.

Bring The Ruckus had much more direct ties. I believe most of their founding group was ex-L&R.

[also, on a sidenote, the mid-west group FRAC had a good number of ex-L&R people involved].

We don't have any relationship with BTR, and honestly I'm not even sure if BTR is still around. We printed an exchange in our magazine with them way back when, but I don't know that it ever really broke any ground. We sort've politely just wrote each other off over differences of theory and practice. I think they went on to have a few splits, and some of their most active people went on to a life of acadaemia (which isn't really a surprise).

Wobbly Preacher's picture
Wobbly Preacher
Offline
Joined: 6-11-06
Jan 2 2007 19:23

Bring the Ruckus is still around. You can check out their web-site at (http://agitatorindex.org/). I don't know how active they are but I do know that a few months ago they were doing some events. I have a good friend in BTR and he hasn't ever given me the impression that they were going away anytime soon. Then again, not being involved in either NEFAC or BTR nor living in a place where either is currently active means that I have little perspective on what they are up to.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jan 2 2007 19:31

SRB, thanks for clarifying on L&R and NEFAC, I was under the impression there was more crossover.

I forgot to mention before, BTR has a number of L&R related documents online here - http://www.bringtheruckus.org/study/index.htm

Elsewhere on the site is also the NEFAC responses, which I'm inclined to agree with from what (little) I know of all this.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 2 2007 19:57
Nate wrote:
SRB, thanks for clarifying on L&R and NEFAC, I was under the impression there was more crossover.

I forgot to mention before, BTR has a number of L&R related documents online here - http://www.bringtheruckus.org/study/index.htm

Elsewhere on the site is also the NEFAC responses, which I'm inclined to agree with from what (little) I know of all this.

I actually think some of the BTR, and Race Traitor, analysis is interesting. You can't seriously talk about class stratification in the United States without looking at the history of how labor and social division has been racialized (and sexualized for that matter) in tis country. That said, I think the actual praxis they derived from their theories was crap, and totally at odds with where we are coming from.

pgh2a
Offline
Joined: 9-12-06
Jan 2 2007 20:11

Going on memory from Los Angeles, I recall they put out a rather ugly newspaper - all "Slingshot" looking (people in the San Francisco area know what I'm talking about). Maybe I had it confused with another circle-A punk-rock rag. I remember finding it too hard for me to follow when I was about 17 or 18. Clearly, it was not on par with either the Northeastern Anarchist or the Industrial Worker.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 2 2007 20:19
pghwob wrote:
Going on memory from Los Angeles, I recall they put out a rather ugly newspaper - all "Slingshot" looking (people in the San Francisco area know what I'm talking about). Maybe I had it confused with another circle-A punk-rock rag. I remember finding it too hard for me to follow when I was about 17 or 18. Clearly, it was not on par with either the Northeastern Anarchist or the Industrial Worker.

I'm not sure they ever had a print publication. Just a website. You might be confusing them with someone else.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 2 2007 21:59

From various event notices I've gotten I'd say that BTR does still exist here on the west coast. I don't think they have a group here in San Francisco, tho. It's pretty invisible if it exists.

SRB: "I actually think some of the BTR, and Race Traitor, analysis is interesting. You can't seriously talk about class stratification in the United States without looking at the history of how labor and social division has been racialized (and sexualized for that matter) in tis country. That said, I think the actual praxis they derived from their theories was crap, and totally at odds with where we are coming from."

I'd generally agree with this. Back in the 1980s WSA had some extensive discusions, and developed a fairly nuanced statement, on structural gender inequality and on gay liberation. But our statement on racism from that era was not sufficiently worked out, and too moralistic. This imbalance may reflect the fact we had a significant number of women members, and some gay activist members, back then, and no black members.

My current view on structural racism I've expressed in some posts on the "material basis of racism" thread, and I think are similar to some things i've seen some people in NEFAC express. Here in urban California there is often an uverlap between the class and race dimensions of truggles.

To answer Nate's question about WSA "composition," when it was formed it drew people from two splits, mainly. There had been a group of folks who worked together in ACF who stayed together, and we also picked up initially two people from a split from the IWW, people who'd been involved in the Industrial Organizing Committee, an attempt to do industrial union organizing back then.

WSA's membership has fluctuated from a low of 20 to a high
of about 50. In the '90s WSA lost more than half its members, due to a general downturn in activism and radicalism in that period, loss of the WSA's publication (due to not having a sufficient critical mass of members to keep it going), and entryist problems -- two groups of people who entered WSA and attempted to manipulate it with their own agenda. WSA lost most of its women members at that time. The situation of WSA in the '90s made it difficult for WSA to gain new members during the upsurge in anarchism after 1998-99.

At its high point, I think WSA had small branches in San Francisco, Sacramento, Atlanta, and large branches in Knoxville and New York City.

In the early days WSA didn't have many "dual carders" -- people belonging to IWW. In later years about half the membership belonged to IWW. For a number of people this was a path out of WSA as they continued their IWW membership. This probably reflected difficulty keeping projects alive.

It's hard to have focused concentrations when you have a small membership. WSA has had some such concentrated efforts. There was the Needle Trades Workers Action Committee in New York in the early '80s, the focus on defense of reproductive rights (abortion clinic defense) via several WSA groups in the late '80s, early '90s period, and the work on CIW solidarity (Taco Bell boycott) for a few years recently. There has been some union organizing but mainly by individual members. A lot of the activity has been labor solidarity. Right now the San Francisco WSAers are working on the tour of left-libertarians from Oaxaca.

I've been mainly involved in community organizing since the late '90s -- anti-gentrification, housing, transit rider organizing.

t.

wangwei
Offline
Joined: 20-09-06
Jan 2 2007 22:10

My only experience with L&R was quite amusing. About 11 or 12 years ago I was chilling in an anarchist/Punk commune type of squat. I kind of talking to this real cute bald blonde punk with pink hair kind of framing her face. She was going on about how they were real anarchists and not those fake ones in Love and "cage". I was like "huh"? The other couple of punks explained that the organization was "like a cage man." So, I never actually met anyobody from L&R, but I met some punks who knew them. Never managed to get with that cute bald blond punk though.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Jan 2 2007 23:10

Tom -- what two groups tried to entryize the WSA in the 90s?? (If it's too recent to complain publicly, can you answer via private message?)

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 2 2007 23:56

MJ: about entryism in WSA in late '90s, email me privately.

t.

Feighnt
Offline
Joined: 20-07-06
Jan 3 2007 00:55
wangwei wrote:
bald

ok

Quote:
blonde

... blonde, but bald? :?

Quote:
pink hair kind of framing her face.

she's sounding less and less bald by the second! tongue

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jan 3 2007 02:59

Ok,OK -:) Point of clarification is in order.

My general experiance and contact was maily--if not almost exclusively---with the NYC folks. WSA was generally seen as being too staid and workerist -:) NYC L&R were more ABC, punk, street scene scene, bash the fash, we're so cool and we're the only real revolutionary anarchists --wink, wink Chris D. and his friends.

I suspect that the work done in Detroit was mainly by ex-RSL folks. The Vt. folks came towards the end, no?

BTW, I think, to a certian extent (sans political perspectives), the ACF, L&R, NEFAC and the short-lived other regionals have very much been the post-teenage movements of their respective generations. By which I mean they all were pretty much started by 20-something year olds.

I think there are probably common lessons each of the anarchist projects can come away with. Without going too far, I think a key is finding a balance between conflicting personalities and often nuanced points of views. Also, when to disengage and revisit an issue after tempers have flared.Also knwing when to allow a minority point of view disengage in a way that allows the comrades to walk away with their heads high and not feeling that they've been chucked under the tires of a moving train. And how to find a delecate balance between viewpoints still being worked out. And, finally, to simply and in the best comradsely fashion agree to disagree and say that a project might not be working.

Actually, I'm kindda tired of comrades always trying to rip new assholes in each other. Yeah, sometimes ya gotta be passionate, principled and straight ahead. But it don't mean ya gotta be nasty and personal. One of the most impressive things about WSA has been our ability to allow for differences, discuss differences and still respect each other at the end of the day after differences have been aired and worked out. see, anarchists don't have democratic centralism, we have only our self-discipiline and desie to work shit out and keep it together.

Yeah STRB, it's my "zen" perspective, eh, eh, eh -:)

BTW, while I think there's many differences between WSA, NEFAC, ex-FRAC, ex-NAF, I think that there are some excellent comrades in all. I for one feel close to ya all and look forward to continued talks and mutual activities where we can work together. Sorry IWW folks reading this, I really don't know many of ya, but welcome a chance to talk and work with as many of ya as possible on a equal basis.

Ya mon, rock da boat in 2007!

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jan 3 2007 03:18

Jeezuz, got so caught up I forgot to mention one last thing.
Before rushing into building an organization, try and work the politics out as far in advance of any "organizing conference". After the break-up of the ACF, there was a period of about 2-21/2 years where comradse with similiar viewpoints worked on mutual projects, engaged in discussion and generally worked our way towards "organization building". I've expressed this before, but I think if we (WSA) gave about 6 morre months of discussion and further outreach, I think we may have avoided of early pitfalls.

In the respect that regional work helps to build cohesiveness, I think that this is an important building block.

Bubbles's picture
Bubbles
Offline
Joined: 4-12-06
Jan 3 2007 03:21
syndicalist wrote:
Sorry IWW folks reading this, I really don't know many of ya, but welcome a chance to talk and work with as many of ya as possible on a equal basis.

Ya mon, rock da boat in 2007!

Is that some sort of proposition, from the WSA or you as an individual? I'm slightly confused as to what you are saying.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jan 3 2007 03:31

Oh, my comments are personal, but WSA has worked with IWW folks before. So, yeah, if there's things we can work on, sure.

What I was also saying is that I really don't know many of the IWW folks who post on libcom. I seem to know more of those associated with the various anarchist and anarcho-synddicalist organization. I like to know and work with as many folks as practical and on an equal basis.

If you'd like to introduce yourself to me in a PM, feel free.

--mitch

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jan 4 2007 04:27

Mitch, point of personal privilege, wink I may be in your part of the country this month with a bit of free time, I'll let you know. Also, on comradely criticism, I think that's wicked important. A friend of mine put it this way - we shouldn't criticize comrades in the same way we criticize the class enemy.

Tom, the info on what WSA members do is great, thanks for that. If I had more time I'd be keen to work on some of that kind of stuff too, especially clinic defence and related stuff. What I meant by the 'composition' of WSA though is like the group's demographics. I could be wrong but my impression of L&R was that it was mostly younger and studenty (the "reproles" thing) and mostly white. I get the impression from you and Mitch that WSA is a bit older, had fulltime jobs for longer, etc. Again this stuff doesn't mean a ton but I think it's interesting and is kind of a factor in some of the dynamics Mitch mentioned.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 4 2007 05:41
Quote:
A friend of mine put it this way - we shouldn't criticize comrades in the same way we criticize the class enemy.

Hippy. wink

blackstarbhoy
Offline
Joined: 2-01-07
Jan 4 2007 06:33
Nate wrote:
I could be wrong but my impression of L&R was that it was mostly younger and studenty (the "reproles" thing) and mostly white.

it's late but on the reprole stuff, while Day's argument had interessting points like how production and the relationship of different classes were being transformed, and how in the 90's you had this emerging commercial gimmick, "Generation X", who were the generation of middle class youth who would not enjoy the priledges their parents did, but really, the whole reprole concept was a justification for middle class, academic, grad student types who fancied themselves revolutionaries to NOT have to challenge themselves and their place in society by emmersing themselves in poor and working class culture.

Day and his faction could argue that students were somehow proletarians too and should just seek to organize among themselves, organize other Generation Xers, students, slackers, counterculturalists, coffee shop workers, and so on and so forth. this was a cop out rather than say, take a job at a large distribution facility, or at a warehouse, or a parts manufacturing plant, or a stamping plant, or becoming an apprentice for a city works employee, or at a major city hospital, or a newspaper plant, jobs that true, were becoming less and less, but were and are still available if one wants to look for them.

unfortuanantley the reprole concept still resonates with anarchists who just want to be slackers and think since they arnt controlling capital or dont come from money, that they are proles. horsesh*t. the reprole stuff is no different than ISO political practice of organizing university students and not even trying to organize on a community college level, just organizing university and grad student types.

blackstarbhoy
Offline
Joined: 2-01-07
Jan 4 2007 06:41
blackstarbhoy wrote:
this was a cop out rather than say, take a job at a large distribution facility, or at a warehouse, or a parts manufacturing plant, or a stamping plant, or becoming an apprentice for a city works employee, or at a major city hospital, or a newspaper plant, jobs that true, were becoming less and less, but were and are still available if one wants to look for them.

i forgot to say, that these jobs are really valuable to revs because they bring us in contact with a wide array of people. we cretae connections, get challenged, understand the day to day grind of being working class, use these connections to help make social and cultural scenes realted to our co=workers and the different communities they come from. these jobs are rich in lessons and experiences and it puts us as equals, as fellow rank and filers, with those we want to eventually organize with. alot of anarchists talk about class but dont really experience it as a part of their own life.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 4 2007 09:33
blackstarbhoy wrote:
these jobs are rich in lessons and experiences and it puts us as equals, as fellow rank and filers, with those we want to eventually organize with. alot of anarchists talk about class but dont really experience it as a part of their own life.

Er, are you being serious? I thought maybe I was misunderstanding the last bit of your previous post... Are you saying people who don't do manual labour aren't proletarian?

Because by your last part you are claiming that the vast majority of the western working class aren't actually "experiencing" it "as a part of their own life." This is flawed on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. This is like Maoist stuff, and it ignores modern reality (that in the west manufacturing jobs are a small minority of jobs), it ignores housewives and husbands, full-time parents, the unemployed... basically about 95% of the working class (in the UK at least there are only 3million manufacturing jobs).