|
|  |
| uit dit artikel zijn aanvullingen verplaatst naar de ruispagina | | | One response | nn - 28.05.2010 19:12
Just a brief reply, before hopefully a longer one later. A very interesting article but just two or three initial points. You don't seem to know if squatters are part of the class or somehow seperate, you seem to switch between the two. Some squatters may be self imposed lumpen proletariat but simply holding a radical critique and viewpoint of the state and capitalism doesn't change your material position in class society or your relationship to the means of production. I'm pretty sure most squatters don't own property or have other forms of income that means they don't have to sell their labour to survive. State subsidised student money, social welfare or even the odd bit of money from their parents doesn't change that. To think otherwise would be idealistic and not very materialist, which brings me to another point. A materialist analysis isn't just about motivating factors but also about material experience of meaningful activity and struggle and how this informs/radicalises people which is why there is the importance for both theory AND practice as well as including as many people in struggle as possible. I've included a nice quote from an article on the importance of class analysis to struggle, link is below. That said, it is important we emphasise how our needs (and desires) are in opposition to the needs (and desires) of capitalism, because you know, sometimes the most simplest and basic of examples, approaches and understandings IS the most radical one.
"I have found that apparently minor disagreements on class analysis (such as whether teachers are middle class or working class) can turn out after much discussion to rely on very basic disagreements as to how the world is. In particular, disagreements on the nature of truth. Therefore it is necessary to start at a very basic level. My own understanding of the world is materialist. But I don't plan to waste much time arguing materialism versus idealism. The opposing world views are so far apart that there is no common ground to argue from. I will state though that the world is made and remade by material forces not by ideas. For instance, it may be or may not be the case that your ideas change after reading this. But any such change would be totally irrelevant if your actions, your behaviour do not change as well. In any case, ideas are not changed merely by the reading of some article, but in the context of some wider experience. If that were not the case then everyone reading the same stuff would end up thinking the same thing, which certainly isn't what happens."
One other and closing remark, with regards a quote in your piece taken from elsewhere.
"In all cases that are known to me those were clear political actions with a strong connection to the neighbourhood and the broader social context of the real-estate mismanagement by the state and the capitalists."
This is exactly the problem as outlined by Luca Voorhorst, the hollowing out of the radical political content of the squatting scene has meant that this space has been filled by reformist, leftist and social democratic political elements (what is called 'conformist' elsewhere). The problem is that we need more anarchist politics, less political action and more direct action. To put it another way, the importance of strong connections to the neighbourhood and a broad social context is obvious accompanied with an emphasis on housing as a meterial need and demand, however, within this we need to differntiate between anarchist demands and leftist/social democratic/conformist demands. Too often radical liberalism accompanied with some arrestable lobbying is considered anarchism, it's not.
Anarchist demands are those which stress the concrete material needs of the class (wage demands, universal healthcare, housing etc, the length of the working day, through to a rejection of wage labour altogether!) whereas leftist, social democratic, conformist demands are those which stress how capital should be managed to accommodate the struggles to impose those needs (tax this! nationalise that!). It's not the role of anarchists to point out the mismanagement of the state and the capitalists, it is about achieving/imposing those demands through direct action and self organisation.
 Website: http://www.prole.info/texts/classanalysisforstruggle.html
| | @nn | SCHRIFT - 28.05.2010 20:22
Thanks for the response! I agree I didn't provide a clear class analysis with regards to the Squatting scene and a subsequent analysis of the root cause of certain tendencies and degeneration, I hope to do so in the future.
"A materialist analysis isn't just about motivating factors but also about material experience of meaningful activity and struggle and how this informs/radicalises people which is why there is the importance for both theory AND practice as well as including as many people in struggle as possible."
I fully agree on this, it is more or less what I referred to with the 'production of subjectivities' through material experience.
I will include your reaction in a footnote in the original article with a link to the Prole pamphlet.
| |
| aanvullingen | |
E-Mail: