that's a lot of fucking talking there, chris mate

Anarchism is not about the middle class against the working class its about the ruled majority against the minority ruling class who corruptly control and manipulate. That kind of divisionist attitude only serves to lessen our impact as a unified movement, whilst i agree more needs to be done to combat the global war of lies and hate focus needs to be on the real enemy rather than blaming others for a birth and upbringing they cannot control.

Yeah. Too much of hearing about the musli, sandals, guardian reading middle class anarchism. There is a place for it. But it doesn't have the anger created by real antagonism with the state that others really do have. Not sure about creating armies - but damn sure that chatting over vegan muffins is exactly what the state would like all anarchists to do.

"but damn sure that chatting over vegan muffins is exactly what the state would like all anarchists to do"

And chatting over pints as well, mind.

Skank is spot on.

Hi

Let me first say, I was brought up in a council flat, but my Grandfather is middle class (although he was originally from a poor Indian village) so I understand things from both sides.

Anyway that is kinda' irrelevant to what I'm going to say. On protests I feel tactically it is more effective to resist in a 'this is not a riot' sort of way. On a demo you are in the spotlight the place is crawling with cops and the opportunity for real damage is limited. Protests allow the public to see there is a militant but restrained resistance.

For those that really want to cause damage that could have an effect, the approach taken by the Animal Liberation Front is effective. Hit the target in the dead of night, no cops, a balaclava to deal with CCTV, gloves to leave no prints, clothes washed and destroyed after an action, etc. Personally I do not take illegal direct action, but I feel this is the most effective mode of operation. Maximise damage and the chance of getting away to fight another day.

What are your thoughts on this?

Classism is every bit as stupid and divisive as racism or sexism, or any other form of social discrimination/exclusion/marginalisation/dehumanisation.

I think it is however good that inverted snobs wear a badge so the rest of us who wish to embrace the true meaning of class struggle (the eradication of iniquity) can steer such idiots a wide berth.

Try substituting the word "paki", "poof" or "scrounger" into any sentence that attacks people based on whatever class they happened to- by no choice of their own- been born into... To my ears it sounds equally as offensive.

Classic ad hominem fodder too...

There are many forms of resistance, but I certainly agree that putting your hands in the air and allowing yourself to get beaten by the cops is crap.

Whats wrong with muesli? Its yummy.

May I just clarify something here, I am not trying to stick the boot into the middle class as such. We all bleed and breath, no matter what else, there is no difference to me, and certainly should not be.
When a call for ideas comes my way, and holds some interest, I shall comment in the only way I know how.
My point being, the biggest worry on the estates is not about class, its about who's who in the zoo, politics means very very little. Reputation is king, selling drugs and looking good is what counts, looking after your own. I know very little about politics other then they rule my life. And that is enough for me.
The message being sent is falling on deaf ears my pals, on the other hand, if one were born into a middle class family, one would have a far better chance of understanding, and caring about what goes on in the world around us.
My thinking is that a new approach should be the aim, to involve those who really could make a difference, and need it.
Education is king in my book, the massage is being taken up on the whole, by those with a good understanding of the things.
If it is ideas that is called for, then the words should be put into the ears of those on the estates, the middle class's already know. The lines being full of them, and fair fucks to them that stand up and be counted.
It is inclusion that needs to be worked on, education on the street itself, and not just the select few, the message needs to be clear, and delivered to more of us.
How do you get the hooded masses on side, fuck knows, but if it could be achieved, then there is a force to be reckoned with.
Same old faces, passing on the same old massage to their own, is select.
We are all fashion victims of one sort or another, so lets just say we need a new fashion, and that fashion has to appeal to a wider audience.

Democracy is nothing more then the warhorse that capitalism rides into battle.

Yours

Chris Teathan

"Unless this meeting of minds is to organise an army, a force that can deal with the state on its own ground, using their own tactics, your pissing against the wind, again, so rap it up and get another hobby."

There is no need for an army. Numerous diverse tactics and actions hurt them more than a conspiscuos group is capable of, by this i o not mean confining one's self within the boundaries of the law. You cannot cause damage to it playing by the rules it created.
All around us every day are the tools of the oppresors. Tools can break and tools can be broken. Action by deed and voiceless solidarity is voiced by the act of attack itself.
"Hit the bastards where it hurts, in the wallet". It's not recommendable in this day and age to paint a target on your face. The Bolsheviks when "terrorist" tactics were employed by anarchists against them once said that they much prefer to fight hundred men than one singular that they cannot find.

Skank is rights, i couldnt have put it better. i personally dont eat museli or vegan cakes but whats wrong with being middle class? this isnt bolshevik russia you dipshit. if your discontent with the social demograph of this movement then form your own "working class only" party and stop whingeing in this pathetic way.

what happened to the other 4 comments in relation to the article? were they censored?

Last century I didn't think class was relevant to my life or political opinions, the past nine years has changed me in that regard. Maybe I'm getting more left-wing as I get older but I'd like to disagree with the consenus on this thread. I'm not even sure how to define class nowadays so I'll stick to a rule of thumb 'posher to poorer' 3D sliding scale. I'm basing this on personal experience both of others actions and of my own attitudes rather than statistical analysis, and my own experience and definitions are littered with exceptions and contradictions but,

The richer, better educated activists I've met tend to be:
More hypocritical;
Less commited;
Less effective;
More likely to act as state informers;
More likely to act for political self-promotion;
More likely to be in it for the social life;
Less likely to be imprisoned;
More likely to be discriminatory;
More likely to consume excessively.

There are enough notable exceptions, both good and bad, who post here for that to be a general rule of thumb rather than cast in iron, but 'rules of thumb' are useful for most aspects of life that require quick value judgements. At the end of the day, you can only take individuals on their own merits, but when you do make a class analysis, when you only offer a clear binary choice between 'inverted snobs' or 'snobs', I'd rather be labelled as the former.
By the way, nothing wrong with muesli but if you don't understand what is what is wrong with 'the Guardian' then you should read up on the propaganda model and the MediaLens alerts.

brought my kids up on an estate with bugger all money, and it was a pretty crap existence. Currency on the estate was who had the biggest stereo, and sold the most crack, both of these occupations going on all bloody night. You try coping with two young kids in those surroundings. I had no time or energy for politics then, my immediate enemies were the crack dealers and the junkies who'd break into my house all the bloody time, not the police or the state

Now I don't live on an estate any more, I have a mortgage and a job and am thankful for that. I might read the Guardian, but I still have a big chip on my shoulder. And now I have a bit more space in my life for politics.

I don't know about class or how to define it. But I think the poster is right when he says we need an army. Some proper resistance, something that people can believe in and get behind, something that has anger and substance and discipline and organisation and strength.

How we get this? Not a clue...

Working class people are more likely to vote BNP and be violent and be substance abusers and and and...

And that statement alone with no extended explanation is about as useful as the utter crap you just posted.

If you are hung up on class, then the class system has already beaten you- classism is no more defensible than racism.

Both are belief systems so generalised and supernatural as be wholly idiotic. E.g., "darkies stink and are lazy", "middle class people snobs and are wasteful" or "I trust white people" and "I don't trust working class people"= utter tosh no good for anything except fuelling prejudice and robbing people of their humanity.

I know I'm a better sabot than a bigot. I can prove that through my own police record. So I would appreciate you don't sink to accusing me of anything fouler than being distrustul of richer, posher people than I used to be. To label me a bigot simply for choosing one frm of a snob over another is not any more bigotted that my choice.

>Working class people are more likely to vote BNP and be violent and be substance abusers and and and...

Not true, not true, true only if you count terrible drugs like marijuana as 'substance abuse'. Different classes get fed different drugs. Who take the most coke per person? The most MD-5P per social groupr you can think of?
And and and nothing. Don't spout rhetoric. Whne did the 'drugs war' bumph get acceptable on Indymedia?

>If you are hung up on class, then the class system has already beaten you- classism is no more defensible than racism.

Until the past few years MI-whatever was staffed mostly by good graduates from good universities, which is an useful indicator looking for 'cut-outs'. IE people who can be traced to college or long term unemployment through known contacts are far, far less likelt to be James Bond wannabes.

I also totally disagree 'we' need an army. I think I'd fight against it. The first priority is producing good media and good medics. Media for the exposure, medics for the repurcussions. Maybe the odd targetted assasin, in the honourable and legal sense of the word. Like those anarchists who tried to kill Hitler who were forgiven and honoured since then.

You are openly comfortable in prejudging whole swathes of people based on social group identity. So, you are now better than racist or a sexist, in fact you are the same game as them.

You think that someone having a good CV is any indicator of them not being a spy? And the IRA were crawling with Oxbridge plants challenging Loyalists to croquet? I think you need to do some proper reading on the subject and leave the Boys' Own stuff alone.

You don't think that every MI5-Special Branch/MI6 field officer has a "good CV"? That they don't have employment records placed in friendly companies & institutions and in fronts? Even the world's worst private detective could at least get that much together.

The best advice is: bear in mind that absolutely anyone can be a spy or got at by spies, and forget all your 'red sky at night' and witch-ducking piffle.

>You are openly comfortable in prejudging whole swathes of people based on social group identity. So, you are now better than racist or a sexist, in fact you are the same game as them.

Yes I am comfortable with that prejudice, and thanks for helping me understand why. Women and racial minorities have traditionally been persecuted in this country, they still are. You are equating them to rich, posh people, hardly a persecuted minority historically - quite the opposite in fact. Of course there are great anarchists who are posh and all wealth is relative, but really. The worst persecution rich and posh people have to face is a bit of a slagging from the commoners every now and then, it's not in the same ballpark, not even the same league let alone the same game.
My predujice applies to any issue. If there was a schoolkid in the news tommorow for contracting flu, I'd rather it was someone who went to Eton rather someone who went to an ordinary school. The Eton kid will have access to the facts, good medical care and is more likely to be able to afford to buy their own anti-virals.


>You think that someone having a good CV is any indicator of them not being a spy?

It is an indicator that they aren't a Military Intelligence employee but it is no indicator that they aren't a cut-out (meaning a paid or pressurised informer). MI just don't recruit, or at least never used to recruit, from where I was educated.

>And the IRA were crawling with Oxbridge plants challenging Loyalists to croquet?

I think British MI could put together a better croquet team than the IRA ever could.

>I think you need to do some proper reading on the subject and leave the Boys' Own stuff alone.

Like I said I'm talking from personal experience, I'm not a Tom Clancy or Ian Fleming fan.

>You don't think that every MI5-Special Branch/MI6 field officer has a "good CV"? That they don't have employment records placed in friendly companies & institutions and in fronts? Even the world's worst private detective could at least get that much together.

A good faked CV, the best back-story, is always a facade. I think with a little effort you can see through most of those, most of them aren't in-depth because so few people bother to check. Too many key connections in most movements are based on trust /face-value and the most secure groups are closed groups. We should check each other out more when we have to work together over extended periods. I can't prove I am not an arsehole but I am confident I can prove I'm not a MI officer. Can you claim that?

>The best advice is: bear in mind that absolutely anyone can be a spy or got at by spies, and forget all your 'red sky at night' and witch-ducking piffle.
That is good advice certainly, but it's not for you to call it 'best advice'. Nothing I've said disagrees with that important point. In many ways poor people can be more easily 'got at' and uneducated poor people are more likely to side with their own oppressors.

I read some of the comments on this thread and I despair. For the first time I am driven to psycho-babble, and I need to mention I believe in Stockholm Syndrome and the normal interpretation of the Stanford experiment. Anarchism means opposing power which means opposing wealth, privelege and inequality. That isn't socialism but it is our overlap.

I've met two people of a higher social rank just through Indymedia UK. Only of them is listed with the enemies of love. In other groups that I've met and who post here though, there was a clear correlation in the ability and reliability of the the individuals, reversely proportional to class, with notable outliers. If I was getting this from books, I would be able to quote stuff, but I've rarely had to explain the change in my opinions. I am talking from my own experience which may not be representative of anyone else but it's my best advice.

This article is labelled 'Anarchist beware of those who talk too much', but I think that is 100% misleading. Anarchists should talk to people, question more and learn more about them. If you want to practice identifying MI employees then get to know some salesmen in depth, ask them to pretend to be an anarchist. I am very bad at spotting a liar so I I try to take that into account when I am prejudging folk, especially online. There is only one working class activist who has fucked me over, and he may not even be working class for all I know, I am biased through that fact and I am happy to be labelled that way. I am prejudgiced against rich posh people. I admit I am, now. I think 'bigot' is unfair but the only reason I say that reaks of bigotry. "Some of my best friends are rich and posh..."

and most of my worst enemies.

So, your marginalising someone for being "middle class" is far more virtuous and even perhaps nobler than you marginalising someone because millennia of selective breeding patterns makes them darker skinned?. Sounds like a load of garbage excuses to me.

So, just because the majority of "middle class" people have a certain degree of better living standards (and that situation is being rapidly and dramatically eroded... and I know working class people who have private medical cover as part of the their salaries now.. or does that make then suddenly bourgeois according to the 'Danny Class Taxonomy'?) means they are 'fair game' for abuse?

Yeah, "you see, most of them Pakis just come here to steal our jobs and steal our women. Don't get me wrong, some are okay, but most shouldn't be here. Most of them hate us. Most of them are either terrorists or support terrorists. They wouldn't think twice about cutting our throats..." It's the EXACT same overgeneralised garbage you are spouting, but just using a different identity qualification.

If you hate someone for something YOU project on to them because your presumptions and for their deeds as an individual, you as big a bigot as any other.

And to assert that people shouldn't be part of any movement largely on the basis of how they talk (as it is mostly the only signifier left of 'middle class') is quite obviously, knuckle-draggingly stupid, as is the implicit assertion that any who is a "diamond geezer" stereotype must be inherently trustworthy.

You must live in a very frightened world to be living by such Procrustean "rationalisations".

Oh yes, because there were no middle class people involved in the Irish Struggle were there...

And just what the hell has "military intelligence" got to do with "MI5" & "MI6"??? Are you one of those Japanese officers on some Pacific island that doesn't know that WW2 is over? Because "MI" is only hungover slang for the Security Service and SIS- neither which have been under military umbrella ( rather the Home Office) since the 1950s..

THIS is what "MI" has meant for some decades in the UK:  http://www.army.mod.uk/intelligence/intelligence.aspx

Why not try talking about things you actually have some knowledge of? Or if you can't do that, do us a favour go somewhere else with your charlatan prejudice. Perhaps www.cloudcuckooland.com/forums/moribundbilgewithagooddashofmadeupnonsense

So you're saying that having a class analysis and realising that the ruling class and the working class have nothing in common, and are in fact antagonistic of one another, is in any way similar to racism? What world do you live in boyo?
So we're supposed to feel sorry for Lear jet riding parasitical bastards as they're an oppressed minority? WTF?
I despair, I really do.

Erm, no. That isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying their is a big difference between class analysis, class struggle and being just a bigot who hides behind those concepts as an excuse.

A fight against class and all forms of oppression seeks to overcome class and not like some useful idiot wallow in it. In other words, it is fine enough to attack those who seek to perpetuate class oppression, but it isn't fair enough to say "you can't be a part of that struggle because you weren't born into a working class family, irrespective of what your views are'.

And it is no less stupid to marginalise someone based on how they talk as it is to do it based on the colour of their skin.

Danny is simply marginalising people based on his prejudices, and is blissfully unaware of his 'useful idiot' status in his adoration of one "class" over another- (il)logically perpetuating the very thing he claims to oppose. In my humble opinion.

I hate the class system full stop.

It's fair enough to attack Bill Gates despite all his "philanthropic" posturing, as he is an evil man, but it isn't the same thing to attack someone who has rejected their background and is doing good work in a group, just because they have an accent you don't like or their parents send them to some private school.

The former is a constructive process promoting social responsibility the latter is "you can't be our gang because you talk funny!". Not exactly a subtle distinction I would have thought.

That clear enough?