Autonoumous self-organising of the class
The “Beach Riots” of recent days might put paid to the fantasy that the Australian working class might spontaneously rise up and overthrow their masters without much intervention from vanguardists. Its clear that when Australia errupts, it is with a flare of racist bigotry. The “reputable dailies” fan the flames, and offer a soapboax to white racists by contruing them as “locals” (not racists) who “confront” (not bash) “muslims” (not locals). The majority of photos published show arabs beinfg arrested, and whites in the full glory of the fray. No-ne seems to mind mangling history when racists talk of “defending these beaches…like our grandfathers did”. Actually, our grandfathers fought over beaches is Turkey, to defend our colonial master’s interests.
Saint John Howard’s biggest coup is convincing these young racists that their racism is right, is sanctified and is supported by a friendly government. When the working class errupts, it is against itself, not the government who orchestrates and condones racist violence; not against a government who has pursued a war on the working class for 9 years, and counting; not against the bosses who gladly institute the minimum wage.
There is no better argument to organise that this: the spontaneous radicalisation of the working class will fixate on any convenient scapegoat, not necessarily on those who actually perpertrate oppression against them on a daily basis.
If you’re going to complain (rightly so) about the media’s language when it arrogates the term “locals” for violent white racists and “Muslims” for their victims, shouldn’t you also be a bit more careful than to talk about “the working class,” “the Australian working class,” et cetera as if it were composed entirely of young white men? Lots of working class folks in Australia are suffering on the business end of the bashing at the moment.
Comment by Rad Geek — December 14, 2005 @ 5:09 am
You’re right. Though I wasn’t meaning to charchterise the racists as the only working class. Perhaps my language could’ve been clearer - I really meant to include everyone as the WC.
I just meant that I believe that lots of the racists are working class (not that they’re the only or whole working class). They might be white racist or arab racist (or sexists, or subculturists), but the result is the same - spontaneous action results in a frenzied attack at the nearest scapegoat (white, wife, arab, chinese, child, immigrant or local) rather than at the true oppressor.
That’s what I meant by saying “when the working class errupts, it is against itself”. Sections of the class bash other sections, and it sucks.
Comment by annaaniston — December 14, 2005 @ 10:11 am
“The “Beach Riots” of recent days might put paid to the fantasy that the Australian working class might spontaneously rise up and overthrow their masters without much intervention from vanguardists.”
What degree of ‘intervention’ from ‘vanguardists’ — meaning? — is required at a beach riot and of what does it consist?
And of course ‘a lot’ of ‘the racists’ were working class. (It’s a working class beach, yeah?) And? ‘A lot’ of the racists — I’d say more — are middle class, too. And what are individuals like John HoWARd and Alan-that-squawking-goddamn-fucking-parrot Jones?
Racism is structural, and ‘working class’ expressions of it shouldn’t really be that surprising. I also think that any analysis of the riots should begin @ the local level. Who were the people who took part?
Wikinews:
“A total of 25 people, including two ambulance officers, were injured and about 40 cars were vandalised at Maroubra as the unrest spread to other beachside communities. Police said 16 people had been arrested and charged with 41 offences. Locals said today they were in shock and many refused to be named, too scared of retribution for their comments.
Those charged were from Mortdale, Cronulla, Bondi Junction, Kareela, Granville, Lugarno, Greenacre, Mascot, Northmead, Jannali, Sutherland, and Riverwood. Offences included malicious damage, resist police, hinder police, assault police, resist arrest, possess prohibited drug, offensive manner, threaten violence, affray, possess knife in a public place, and driving in a manner dangerous. All of those charged were men between 17 and 40 years of age.”
Why couldn’t this lashing out also be interpreted as expressions of a wounded masculinity?
Etc..
More l8r.
Comment by @ndy — December 15, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
What degree of ‘intervention’ from ‘vanguardists’ — meaning? — is required at a beach riot and of what does it consist?
There’s a revolutionary fantasy that the WC will spontaneously ‘rise up’ and ‘create revolution’ without being self-organised. Its basically a way to shuffle-off class analysis and middle-class guilt. Its also a way for (some) anarchists to get around the vanguard problem (”how can we be leaders if we’re anarchist?” - to which I think there are better answers than “not organising”).
Examples like the beach riots show what happens when you rely on the “unconscious revolt” of the WC - you get a rage against an unconsciously chosen target (who are probably also WC).
Revolution needs to happen with our eyes open, not closed. I think that if we put hope in the unconscious , then that’s all we get: hope. Whereas if we organise, if we struggle, if we go out and make the hard arguments, and show another way of acting, and refuse to let go then we might create a revolution that won’t be taken away as soon as it starts.
I liked your point about wounded masculinity. I think that’s also a big element of oz culcha that makes organising difficult. It seems to be related to the “she’ll be right mate” attitude, and an intrinsic acceptance of hierarchy.
Comment by annaaniston — December 16, 2005 @ 12:04 am
Hi Anna,
1) I’m familiar w/- the thesis that one fine day the working class will rise up and overthrow the ruling class, and that the role of ‘revolutionaries’ is therefore made redundant. (See Richard Gombin’s The Origins of Modern Leftism: http://libcom.org/library/origins-modern-leftism-gombin)
The seeming absurdity of this proposition is often used by self-described ‘vanguardists’ to denigrate anarchism as a doctrine which supposedly relies upon this (presumably inevitable) ’spontaneous’ outburst for its justification.
I think some relevant questions are:
– is ‘leadership’ synonymous w/- ‘vanguardism’?
— if not, how can anarchists ‘lead’ a struggle?
2) I’m not convinced that the rally was an ‘unconscious revolt’ of (a segment of) the working class; the role of the unconscious in politics is complex, and I think that the racists who assaulted people w/- the wrong colour skin were quite conscious of the aims and meanings of their activities.
3) Finally, I think that yr claim that “The “Beach Riots” of recent days might put paid to the fantasy that the Australian working class might spontaneously rise up and overthrow their masters without much intervention from vanguardists” implies that the Australian working class might (un-?)spontaneously ‘rise up and overthrow their masters’ WITH intervention from vanguardists. That’s why I asked you what role you think vanguardists might play in a ‘beach riot’. Another way of seeing it is: as anarchists / revolutionaries, what kind of intervention might we make in this area that might make the realisation of the (sic) revolutionary project more likely? In order to answer that question, I think we need to try and understand what happened. This comprises, in part, some knowledge of local history and the views of parties to the rally cum riot.
Again, more l8r.
Cheers!
@ndy.
Comment by @ndy — December 17, 2005 @ 9:49 am
Anna: I just meant that I believe that lots of the racists are working class (not that they’re the only or whole working class). They might be white racist or arab racist (or sexists, or subculturists), but the result is the same - spontaneous action results in a frenzied attack at the nearest scapegoat (white, wife, arab, chinese, child, immigrant or local) rather than at the true oppressor.
That’s what I meant by saying “when the working class errupts, it is against itself”. Sections of the class bash other sections, and it sucks.
That’s fine, and it’s a point well taken, but I think there’s still an important point here, and the question isn’t purely one of wording. Part of what I want to know is how the way that the “working class” is talked about affects our idea of what “vanguardists” are and what sort of “intervention” they need to provide.
In particular, it’s not like “the working class” tout court needs a bunch of revolutionary specialists to come in and tell them what racism is. Muslim working class folks who are getting bashed know what it is, know who is truly doing the oppressing (in this particular case), and have the bruises to prove it.
And when white working class folks participate in, or enable, violent racism, it seems to me like the people most qualified to confront them on it and show them that what they are doing is wrong, are the folks who have been bashed; in this case Muslims organizing and agitating for their own safety and dignity. Do they count as “vanguardists” and does this count as “intervention” in the uprising of the working class? If so, I don’t have a problem with it, but I think long historical experience should tell us how rarely self-proclaimed vanguards of the working class operate in that way, and how very dangerous this kind of language can be, because it tends to give the picture of the working masses, on the one side and the vanguardists on the other, with the vanguardists herding the workers in the politically correct direction, rather than the picture of folks within the working class taking the initiative to confront each other and fight with each other and hopefully learn from each other and eventually work together with each other. (In point of fact, given the number of “interventions” by “vanguardists” that had nothing to do with workers and everything to do with murderous power, I wonder whether the language of the Vanguard is helpful at all.)
Comment by Rad Geek — December 18, 2005 @ 4:23 am
I think yr comments are on the money radgeek.
But:
“Muslim working class folks who are getting bashed know what [racism] is, know who is truly doing the oppressing (in this particular case), and have the bruises to prove it.”
The slogans (’Bash the Lebs’ etc.) and much of the abuse was targetted @ Lebanese people, not ‘Muslims’ per se.
That said, there’s a religious divide within Sydney’s Lebanese community / population, with Christian (Maronite) Lebanese being more likely to be middle-class than their Muslim counterparts.
Well, that’s what I read anyway:
“According to the last census, the Lebanese community in Sydney was 114,491 in 2001, so would be about 120,000 today, or 3 per cent of Sydney’s population. About a third are Muslim. Ninety per cent were born overseas or have at least one foreign-born parent. The community is almost as diverse as Lebanon itself - Maronite, Orthodox, Shiite, Sunni, Druze and secular. The majority are Maronite, who dominated the first 80 years of Lebanese migration to Australia and whose children blended into the Catholic school system.”
Ie, the Lebanese Muslim community numbers about 40,000.
Incidentally, the victims of the assaults were judged by the mob as being guilty of the crime of being “of Middle Eastern appearance”; several individuals of supposed ‘Middle Eastern appearance’ were assaulted, several non-Lebanese (eg. Bangladeshi) were attacked, including a Jewish boy and a Greek girl.
Comment by @ndy — December 19, 2005 @ 5:07 pm
Hi Anna,
Speakinf of organising… it would be great if you or some other Sydney anarks would join the AABB. We’re discussing infoshops here:
http://bull.anarchy.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=128
and here:
http://slackbastard.blogspot.com/2006/01/anarchy-beyond-infoshop_21.html
A penny for yr thoughts?
Cheers,
@ndy.
Comment by @ndy — January 23, 2006 @ 5:07 am
Correction: that’s speaking of organisinf.
Comment by @ndy — January 23, 2006 @ 11:10 am