CSSGJ host 'post-anarchism' guru

Sounds like a load of academic, middle class bollocks to me. How far do we have to throw the movement into schism before we end up as ineffectual and isolated. Oh no...wait...that's already happened.

Alright, so post anarchism doesn't equate to 'after anarchism'. I should read before spouting off. But as I said before...academic bollocks!

Yep usual academic middle class wank !

yes totally agree with anarchist and nutty professor - who needs ideas and analysis ('middle class w**k)? what we need is more mindlessness, more putting others down because we don't understand them or their ideas, more taking pot shots at people who work in universities because they are by definition 'middle class' - boo - why won't anyone listen to me and my robust 'working class' common sense ... ?

Don't talk crap Max - nobody is against ideas and analysis, its an integral part of anarchism. What I'm against is the specialisation of knowledge - couching rather simple ideas into academic terms that alienates everyone but armchair revolutionaries who want to feel part of a clique. Why don't you apply some of that analysis on the role of your class.

But still, you don't have to agree with the guy to find him interesting. Why not come to the talk, find out what he has to say, and ask questions?

Well as the title says whats get me on this, is that all this post - structalist anarchy is just reverting our movement back to a small group of individuals, rather than the once proud working class movement of anarcho - syndicalists it once was and of course still can be, the working class may have changed as theorists of capital always explained it does, so it doesnt mean we have to revert to a intellectual sect

All this talk this middle class anarchy is cods wollop

I do not believe that a just and sustainable society can be created in a hierachical, capitalist system which recognises countries or states.

The problem is that, although I could demonstrate working class roots as valid as anyone, my job, income and the area where I live would define me as middle class.

That's a bugger for me because if asked to sum up my politics I would like to say Anarchist, but I can't 'cos I'm not working class.

Come on people, stop using crass global class labels to define people. That's the State's game. In todays world those who think they have the power (businesses and States) know what class they want us to be today: the consuming classes!

Using class labels is certainly not the 'State's game' - if anything they would like us to forget there is massive gaps between the haves and the have nots - hence the ridiculous assertion by first MacMillan then Blair that "we're all middle class now". What bollocks. It's always the middle class supposed activists that complain against these labels - because it makes them feel uncomfortable and very aware of the buffer role they play in society between the working class and the ruling class. Hence any activist or social change group, unless rigidly working class, will almost always have an unspoken hierarchy with the middle class acting as unofficial leaders or cliques - its what you were born into and why most brush it off after they've passed 'that phase' and become...say...university lecturers! Thats why most working class people will continue to ignore you and see you as irrelevant, the same treatment the Left got. Sure, the social structures of the classes may have changed with the times, but the divide hasn't gone away - its just different industries now. Try taking this paragraph from your 'guru' (what the fuck does that mean?) "Where I depart from May is in my shift away from a pure postmodern ‘politics of difference’ to a more Lacanian focus on the Real as that which dislocates, and at the same time, constitutes the subject in his/her lack. And here also Laclau and Mouffe’s post-Marxist project was an important reference for me. It seemed that there was a parallel between Laclau’s poststructuralist reading of Marxism (via Lacan, Derrida, Wittgenstein, and of course Gramsci) and my poststructuralist reconfiguration of classical anarchism. Both projects attacked the essentialist concepts and dialectical narratives that were at the heart of these discourses, and emphasised an anti-authoritarian, anti-institutional and radical democratic politics. There are also, of course, other influences - Zizek, Agamben, Badiou, to some extent, and Claude Lefort, amongst others." into any working class estate in Nottingham and see what the response is. You're pointless, obsolete...but thats OK cause all you do is sit in an armchair and try to mould a revolution. If one actually happened you'd be shitting in your M&S pants.

Anarchist you demonstrate the most dangerour of attributes - your reply is riddled with enormous assumptions about who I and others are and what they think. This is the same kind of prejudice what underlies all bigotry and is exactly what must be challenged in any society that is going to care for everyone.

You managed to totally disregard any of my points and came back with a paranoid defense of yourself.

Here's a guess - are you really middle class but don't want to admit it?

Anarchist: "Try taking this paragraph from your 'guru' (what the fuck does that mean?)... into any working class estate in Nottingham and see what the response is."

Try taking any paragraph from any of the classic anarchist thinkers (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman etc.) and see what the response is. The reality is that most 'ordinary' people (working class or otherwise) don't give a fuck about political theory of any stripe.

Oh, and I assume the "guru" reference is what is known as a joke. I assume you don't regard humour as a purely middle class reserve?

>> Oh, and I assume the "guru" reference is what is known as a >> joke. I assume you don't regard humour as a purely middle >> class reserve?

The 'guru' reference, you patronising little twat, was the title of the article. Do try and keep up, Tarquin. I agree with you in theory though, most people couldn't give a thrupenny bit for staid uninspiring politics; which is why the lecture in question is just a bunch of middle class bores pretending to be slightly radical to another load of middle class bores. Woopdee fucking doo.

It's easy to say things online, and it seems like the discussion here is getting a bit hot headed. Referring to folk like 'you patronising little twat' is done with the intention of provoking argument and/or limiting constructive dialog. Be aware of our guidelines:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/static/editorial

Also, Indymedia is not intended to be a discussion forum. It is for announcing, but mainly reporting on events. So please take things like this elsewhere where they're better suited:

 http://www.urban75.com/
 http://libcom.org.uk/

Cheers..

How curious. You 'report' news without allowing redress to any of the articles nor do you allow people to have dicussions or debates about them. Underground as fuck.

Anarchist: "You 'report' news without allowing redress to any of the articles nor do you allow people to have dicussions or debates about them."

Hang on a minute, you've left about 4 comments of 'redress' already and are continuing to. This is, and continues to be, a discussion about the article. Your criticism seems to be unsubstantiated.

What was being objected to was: "Referring to folk like 'you patronising little twat'... with the intention of provoking argument and/or limiting constructive dialog." I don't know whether that was your intention or not, but the phrase could easily be left out of your argument. Maybe you should also figure out why you choose to make your enemies "little" and "twats".