Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Good Interview

Great interview from CrimethInc. Very informative and gave me a new perspective on 'anarchy' in general, specifically what an 'ex-workers' movement is. Think everyone would find it interesting.

Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. JesseMA3/26/09, 12:56 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JesseMA3/26/09, 1:32 PM

    CrimethInc. is so great. I am in the middle of reading Expect Resistance...that is my first book suggestion for you.

    But about this article... this is the stuff that has infiltrated my mind. Welcome.

    This article highlights many important topics that we are all, maybe for some it is subconsciously, dealing with. First and foremost, I see a theme of DIY (Do It Yourself) culture presented in this interview. Ex-workers take their lives into their own hands. By blindly working in the capitalist system and by voting in elections, and thinking that this is your greatest form of political power, you are actually giving up any sort of agency that you have.

    In light of this, this quote makes much more sense: "Perhaps you could say “ex-workers” are attempting to stage a permanent strike, to seize the means of production in the form of our own time and energy, as a step towards provoking a general strike." Doesn’t make much sense to blindly follow orders because someone has more green paper than you does it?

    A second theme that jumped out at me was being open to all forms of structures, meetings, actions, etc. etc. Power comes in keeping an open mind. "Different structures are appropriate for different situations." This is why I do not subscribe to a non-violent ideology. I am not in favor of violence by any means, and I am surely opposed to it, but I am certainly not closed to it. Sometimes violence is the only way. That is what I believe. You can surely take down the masters house with the same tools that put it up, i.e. a hammer. So, to those who use the Audre Lorde’s quote to preach non-violence because a violent system is acting on us, you can suck it! Further, there are situations when by any means necessary (the ends justify the means) become a reality. To name one: the poisoning of your water source, your life source, and killing wild salmon while doing so. there are a million of these things that are actually occurring daily, and they need to be changed, by any means necessary… i.e. they are worth killing for.

    In the same vein, CrimethInc. sees “the refusal of work as a strategic approach for those who can make use of it, not as a litmus test to determine who is really radical…It’s not the only point of departure, and it’s not available to everyone, or to the same degree.” Translation: to each his own…do as you do. There will be no prescribed revolution; so don’t wait for the doctor’s orders. Remember what I said, DIY.

    Here are a few other quotes that I think are worth a second read and further thought: I have included brief personal responses, but I would love to hear what you all think about the subject matter…

    “We’re saying nobody is really free until all of us can make decisions based on desire rather than economic need, and the first step towards real freedom is for us to commit our lives to lifelong resistance… whether or not it comes with a salary.”
    -Freedom aint free. Even Brother Ali knows that. It is hard to put the thought behind this in words, but true freedom requires all to be free.

    “Lack of wage labor is only a problem when it is coupled with capitalist domination; to campaign for jobs for all, rather than for the abolition of capitalism, is cynical if anything is.”
    -This second quote actually gets to the root of my interest in (A). The focus is the root of the problem, not the branches of it. Anarchist analysis allows us to see the systemic issues, the issues that bread poverty, homelessness, racial divide, so on and so forth, (to use a Jake high school expression…do you still use this in your speech?)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jake3/31/09, 1:28 PM

    I like this. Good response. In my head:

    My thoughts pertain to a discrepancy in the definition or interpretation of what 'personal action' is and the role it plays in redefining social structures. From reading the interview I interpreted an ex-worker as a person who is consciously refusing to be defined as a worker or laborer, in the context of a capitalist economy. This statement derives its power from individuals who then choose to "make decisions based on desire rather than economic need." However, because of the structure capitalism imposes not all people have the opportunity to make this decision, leading to the following quote;

    “We’re saying nobody is really free until all of us can make decisions based on desire rather than economic need, and the first step towards real freedom is for us to commit our lives to lifelong resistance… whether or not it comes with a salary."

    Which brings me to the point of, what exactly are we resisting and what defines resistance? Assume a person has recognized that they have the option to choose where they work and why they work there, understanding that their situation has provided this option, does this constitute resistance? If opportunities within a capitalist system give them the means to pursue a desire as opposed to a wage are they no longer '...blindly working in the capitalist system..."? As quoted in the article;

    “the refusal of work as a strategic approach is for those who can make use of it, not as a litmus test to determine who is really radical…It’s not the only point of departure, and it’s not available to everyone, or to the same degree.”

    And then in your response "Translation: to each his own…do as you do"

    This could be taken many ways. It is at this point that the definition is unclear for me. If not everyone has the option to choose their path, because of the capitalist structure, does any participation in a capitalist economy negate an individuals actions to live consciously? Absolute separation is one extreme, but then their must be degrees between that and blindness. So I wonder where the final line is drawn and who is drawing it. If the goal is resisting passivity in decision making the gray area is quite large, but if it is purely resistance of an imposing economic and social structure the room for interpretation is much smaller. Do you feel the breaking point has been defined within anarchist literature? Or, because of the fluidity in structure, is this a completely open ended question? The answer being redefined each time a person decides to consciously resist making decisions based on economic terms? I just keep going in circles about this…

    I also loved the quote;
    “Lack of wage labor is only a problem when it is coupled with capitalist domination; to campaign for jobs for all, rather than for the abolition of capitalism, is cynical if anything is.”

    On point.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)