And so would Pvt. Jake Kovco.
The story is, he was singing to the Cranberries, mincing around singing in falsetto when he took his sidearm from its holster and pointed it to his head as if to say “this is so gay, I’d rather be dead”. Well now he is.
Hello patient comment-leavers. It looks as though I have managed to fixthe broken captcha on my blog. Fingers crossed!
If you try to comment and it doesn’t let you, email me: annaaniston -at- gmail . com
I’ll post the comment for you and get tinkering under the hood of the comments scripty thingy again.
*Disclaimer - I wrote this about a year ago when I was in a really pissed off mood. I no longer agree with everything here, and its not a finished piece of writing. Still, I think there are some useful points *
There was a time in my late teens when I turned on, tuned in and dropped out. I was waiting for the moment everyone told me was coming: the moment when I would grow out of my anarchism and face the Real World with insensitive resolve, ready to do What Needed to be Done.
I ate at friends places, I walked through the city, I watched people, I read like crazy, I wrote in my diary. Trains were free when you used the right stations and the five finger discount could get luxuries like Brie and dark chocolate. People With Cars were often good for a lift, and there seemed to be no end of folk wanting to buy beers and meals for a wayward child like myself.
I genuinely felt that I traded something with the people who supported me. I honestly believed that my freedom was worth something to them because it made life more interesting, less banal and through me, they saw another possibility for life. I didn’t work. Had I been cleaner, straighter, more astute, then maybe I’d be dumpster-diving and begging scraps from restaurateurs.
So I know what its like to live free of work. When I criticize this behavior, its because I’ve been there and I’ve thought about what it means.
Does working somehow stop you being an anarchist? Does the act of going to a job, performing work tasks set by another, or even setting work tasks for another, implicitly destroy your political being? Does spending 8 hours a day at a place of work delete your identity? Does work have that power?
There’s no doubt that work can suck. Study is an equally alienated institution, yet lots of anarchists will stay in study while rejecting work.
If you work in an anarchist bookshop, or a creative studio, or helping children, or at legal aid, is your work any better? Is accepting minimum wages and fucked conditions any easier to bear?
Hearing and reading about activists attitudes to work, I’m sometimes reminded of the squeamish rumors about sexual activity that used to circle the playground (“you can get AIDS from holding hands, kissing makes you pregnant, lesbians all want to be men, girls who sit with their legs apart are sluts”).
Work is alienated, but alienating yourself from society and from your class is not the answer to work. At best, you become a charity case; at worst, it alienates you from the class, and class politics.
In terms of Marxist analysis, the working class is the big one. Who’s the working class – simply anyone and everyone who must work to survive in today’s alienated, dog-eat-dog capitalist world. Why is the working class so important? Well, they’re the ones who have the power over the means and tools of production. They’re the ones who can perform that revolutionary action: withdrawal of labour power because without the working class, nothing gets done.
There are lots of reasons why anarchists can benefit from being members of the working class.
Learn new skills (like desktop publishing, typing, fixing machinery, prioritizing tasks, communicating effectively)
Get free stuff (like photocopying, computer use, faxing, email)
A real chance to combat alienation and build community
Learn to work with others co-operatively (even if you don’t like them)
Stay in touch with what working people (including yourself) actually think, and you can talk to them about what you think
Work can be enjoyable
I don’t have the same politics as the people I work with. So?
When you don’t work, then you place yourself outside society. You also place yourself on the receiving end of another person’s labour power. Cadging off friends, stealing, begging scraps at restaurants, and dumpster diving are all ways to re-appropriate the waste and inequities of capitalism, but they are also simply living off other people’s work. The restaurateur goes to work at 6am to cook, clean, take stock and serve rude customers. Asking her for leftovers at the end of the night is asking her to support you.
Rejecting work is easily seen by others as a knee-jerk reaction. It can be characterized as an infantile rejection of the adult world – a world in which nothing is pure and doing What Needs To Be Done is a daily reality (before you start thinking that only capitalism presents this conundrum: think about whether adults really want to clean baby shit off nappies and why they do it anyway).
Rejecting work often means hanging out with, forming communities with and doing cool revolutionary stuff with others who also reject work. This is voluntary enclaving – isolation of yourself as a revolutionary from the working class (and from class power).
Its easy to spot the group of folk who don’t work: cool cats with dreads and torn clothes, beautifully malnourished (rake-thin women who reject the beauty myth gall me). If one were to come down from the pedestal of rejecting work a moment and talk to me about revolution, it would be easy for me to discount what they say. Easy, because I can see they do not live in a world of responsibility (to themselves, to the class, to the bills, to the loved-ones, to political knowledge, to workable solutions). Someone else feeds this person, someone else clothes them, while I work, they read Bakunin and they call themselves superior to me because I have not read Bakunin. When I tell them I disagree, they tell me I am wrong because I’m brainwashed by work and the conventions of shopping, cooking, cleaning, eating and drinking as a worker. Then I end the conversation with “you don’t know what you’re talking about”.
The political power is zero because a stereotyped image discounts any political insight you might have to offer.
One thing I find very slippery about class is pronouncements like “if you work, you’re a worker”. John Howard ‘works’, but is he “working class” or something else? I suspect that this line is a sneaky way for middle class unionists who earn heaps to get in on the class issue. On the other hand, I work in an office job which I quite enjoy most of the time - which doens’t fit into mouldy workerist conceptions of the proletariat either.
I can identify the middle class by their born-tosucceed airs but that’s about all. I don’t think that its enough to idenitfy classes by the kinds of work people do, or whether or not they do work, or their salaries. To do so is obviously limited and will never lead to any kind of solidarity. Jordan calls it the ruling class vs the ‘disposessed’, which I think is a bit too slippery, but it has a social/psychological basis which might be useful. On the other hand saying that you’re working class is you ‘feel working class’ doesn’t have an economic basis.
The wobblies use the “power to hire and fire” as a line in the class sand. But, I’m not sure its all that useful - ultimately those at the bottom of the hire and fire pile are workers too and gain little priviledge from their power. Or do they? I don’t know.
The “struggling mums and dads” of Howard’s Australia - are they working class? They might have a small business but are in the shit financially. Traditionally, these petty bourgeoisie have been the enemy/scapegoat/convenient target of the working class. Whether they’re workers per se, I don’t think they form the ‘real enemy’ and might be co-opted to the struggle. They work long hours underpaid and have a consciousness of themselves as small fry versus the big banks - they might be struggling to get out of the working class, but I doubt they’re there yet.
Some old and unfinished thoughts….
Leaders
Leaders will naturally arise from among us. The key to leadership is to allow leaders to naturally subside.
When in a crisis, we look to our leaders. Sometimes they fail us, but it is comforting to know that they light our way and they take ownership for the decisions which are difficult to make.
The leader’s word is not lore.
Leadership is learned. Learn to lead.
Leadership is not natural. There may be those who find it easy to lead, or easy to command, but they are not unique. We can all learn to make directions.
Leadership is the courage to step forward. Leadership is the courage to step back.
Leadership is the courage to admit to mistakes.
