💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-letters-on-class-to-freedom.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:12:42. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Letters on class to Freedom
Author: Anarcho
Date: June 23, 2009
Language: en
Topics: class, anarchist analysis, letter, Freedom Press
Source: Retrieved on 29th January 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=271
Notes: Two letters on why class analysis is important for anarchism, as well as trying to dispel common misconceptions of what such an analysis means and implies.

Anarcho

Letters on class to Freedom

First letter

Dear Freedom

It seems to me that Tavis Reddick (Freedom 6^(th) April) totally misses

the point in his comments on class struggle. I will ignore the comments

on “those who would divide ... may be seeking to rule” as the slanderous

nonsense they are and concentrate on the key issue, namely the

importance of class analysis and struggle.

Travis simply does not understand the nature of the society he lives in.

He argues that “capitalism can’t really be said to exist for the benefit

of anyone, can it?” The fact that the capitalist class seems intent on

maintaining both the system and its position in it suggests otherwise.

Simply put, capitalism benefits capitalists. “Capitalists aren’t evil,”

he asserts, “but mistaken. The desire for infinite acquisition of wealth

is a symptom of mental illness.” So we have it, capitalists are just mad

and the desire to acquire wealth has nothing to do with capitalism.

Sadly for this argument the need to accumulate “wealth” is driven by the

capitalist economy, irrespective of the “desires” of individual

capitalists. If capitalists are mad it is simply because they operate in

a mad social system, one which encourages and rewards such “insanity.”

Travis argues that the “path of anarchy can presumably start in any

society. So why the emphasis on an apocalyptic showdown between ‘working

class’ and ‘capitalists’?” The answer is simple. We do not live in “any

society.” We live in the current one, which is capitalist. This means we

have to place “emphasis” on the here and now rather than flights of

fancy. Looking at modern society we are struck by the fact it is marked

by social inequalities, with a few ruling over the many. In order to

change this, we have to ask a simple question: “Who has an interest in

changing this society, the rulers or the ruled, the exploiter or the

exploited?” Once we ask that question, the “emphasis” on class struggle

is obvious. Only those at the bottom of society have a self-interest in

freeing themselves from the burden of those at the top

As such, class struggle is the key to creating a free society. The

struggle by the exploited and oppressed to resist their exploitation and

oppression can be turned into a struggle to end both. Struggles do not

start with such a perspective, of course, and Travis is right to state

that there is “no great sign of solidarity” in workers’ struggle and

that “many of them seem to happen in order to maintain a group of

workers in their place in the social hierarchy.” However, to leave it at

that simply shows ignorance of social change. Struggle is a process.

Ideas change and develop in struggle. It can also create new forms of

organisation based on libertarian principles (such as self-managed

assemblies and bottom-up federations) which accustom those involved to

manage their own affairs directly, without leaders and rulers. This

experience of “anarchy in action” helps change ideas by showing that

anarchism is not a utopian vision but rather a viable alternative. Thus

“a new paradigm” is generated from struggles that may, initially, appear

limited but which can grow into the possibility of a free society.

This explains Nick’s comments that “we should try and prosecute more

effectively the war between classes.” Only by anarchists taking an

active part in such struggles can we encourage their libertarian

elements and vision as well as creating a power which can resist and

finally overthrow hierarchy. Thus the “concept of class” is essential to

understanding how capitalism works and how, ultimately, how we can end

it.

Membership of a class, Travis argues, is “defined by their relation to

the means of production.” This means that the position of “children,

unpaid carers, elderly, sick and unemployed” is clear. They do not

own/control the means of production and have little (official) power and

so are part of the working class. The working class is divided. That is

part of the problem (and it is not surprise that this is encouraged by

those in power to maintain their position). Anarchists are not blind to

the fact that the working class is riddled with inequalities and

hierarchies (e.g. sexism, racism, homophobia). I for one see the class

struggle as a struggle to end all forms of social hierarchy and

oppression. By changing society, those involved change themselves and so

become open to the need to end all forms of oppression, not just those

based on class. This, again, indicates why class struggle is important.

Travis wonders “why is it a good thing if somebody thinks of themselves

as being working class before [they] think of themselves just as a

person?” The answer is simple. By being aware of the objective facts and

their position in society, people will want to change them. They can

realise that in order to become a person they have to abolish class

society (while, of course, not postponing personal change while taking

part in social struggle). Class consciousness does not mean perpetuating

classes. It means being aware that they exist, why they exist, and how

we can abolish them along with every other form of oppression and

domination.

Ultimately, the class war goes on independently of whether we recognise

it or not. To wash our hands of it does not make it go away and to deny

its existence simply helps those at the top win it (which explains why

the ruling class and their agents are at such pains to deny it exists!).

If anarchists ignore the class struggle then our ideas will stagnate and

become impoverished as our ideas will not be applied in practice and so

become cut off from the spring of life.

Iain McKay

Second Letter

Dear Freedom

I was always under the impression that, as Scott Wakeham argues, “the

class struggle should be a struggle against class itself.” This was the

underlying assumption of all the great anarchist thinkers on this

subject as well as of modern day “class struggle” anarchists. What the

issue seems to boil down to is what does this struggle against class

actually mean.

According to Scott, this struggle is “not an internecine struggle

between classes.” He argues that the “means are the ends” and that

“internecine class war now can only give rise to further class war in

the future.” I must admit to being unsure what he means by this.

Obviously class war now means further class war later, but only in the

sense that until such time as the class war is won, it will go on —

whether we want it to or not. In other words, class society produces

class struggle, not vice versa. “Class struggle” anarchists argue that

only those subject to class oppression have a direct interest in ending

it. By encouraging class struggle, by making its causes understood, we

simply point to the only way that classes can be abolished — by the

direct action of those subject to class domination. For this reason most

anarchists stress class struggle and the need to fight it in such a way

as to end class systems once and for all.

However, I expect he does not mean this truism. I think he means that by

pursuing the class struggle as the means of creating anarchism, we

ensure that class war will always be with us. I wonder if he applies

this logic equally to other struggles. Would he argue that internecine

struggle between governors and governed now can only give rise to

further struggle between rulers and ruled in the future? I doubt it.

Scott states that “class is a red-herring — a way of splitting us up

that serves capitalism only too well in its attempts to divide and rule

us.” Which, I suppose, explains the recurring attempts by politicians to

deny that we live in a class society. Does it mean that when Blair and

Major declared Britain to be a classless society, they were doing

capitalism a disservice? Does it mean that when Mussolini and Thatcher

stated they had ended class conflict, they were simply trying to

undermine capitalism? I doubt it. It serves capitalism far better to

deny class and class struggle.

He states that “definitions” of class “currently present us all as

innately and inevitably capitalistic animals.” Given that any definition

of (modern) class only makes sense within the capitalist system,

obviously it will present them as parts of that system. The question is,

of course, what part of this system has an interest in destroying it and

which an interest in maintaining it. The answer is obvious. As Scott

notes, “people are interested in what anarchists have to say.” Very

true, but what kinds of people? Those subject to wage labour or those

who whom they serve?

Perhaps we are discussing different things? Scott talks about the middle

class and the working class, yet does not mention the ruling class. Most

“middle class” people, as he acknowledges, are workers (i.e. wage slaves

like the rest of the working class). Nor do “class struggle” anarchists

reject the contribution of those who were not, originally, working

class. How could we? Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta were not working

class but they rejected their class backgrounds and participated as

equals in the struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors.

Finally, Scott argues that we must “muster sufficient ingenuity to

elaborate new systems of relations.” Very true. Anarchists from Bakunin

onwards have argued we need to form self-managed associations of

producers now in order to, firstly, fight the class war and, secondly,

to create the facts of the new world in the current one. The struggle

against oppression must be the forum in which we apply our ideas. Only

by applying our ideas in our workplaces and communities, creating

libertarian organisations which combat wage labour by self-management

and statism by self-government, can an anarchist society be a

possibility.

Simply put, rather than being a “red herring,” class struggle is an

essential aspect of anarchist theory and practice. It is the means of

creating both a substantial and serious anarchist movement today and an

anarchist society tomorrow.

Iain McKay