Punks at work

Okay then, how far up would you as anarchists consider to be fine in climbing up workplace hierarchy/social classes or enrich yourself in this present system without becoming a hypocrite? How do you draw the line as anarchists? Supervisor? Manager? CEO? 30k, 250k? And how would you justify yourself?

 

So you can't answer the question?

 

nice thing i found by chance on the all-wise wikipedia:

coincidence?
and i see you still don't get it, you don't give answers and no arguments too, you just repeat the same chasing-pipedreams questions again and again?
recommended reading about some of the problems in taking over the catalan/andalusian industry 1936 by the revolutionary collectives of anarchist workers:
Heleno Sana: The libertarian Revolution
especially the chapters 5 "Collectivising The Economy" and 7 "Success Or Failure Of The collectivisation?"

personally i would go so far and apply for the post of the queen of london at the next opportunity, but i guess they will just arrest me for wearing dirty boots and no fucking tie...

 

You conflate two different things: 1. wages ('30k? 250k?' etc) & 2. 'workplace hierarchy/social classses', perhaps you can go read a book, understand the difference, then we can talk.

 

No, I'm aware of their differences. But they are generally related to one another in this existing system, the upper you are in a hierarchy, the more you tend to get higher income. The higher income you get, the more you tend to be in a upper position of a hierarchy of social classes.

If you don't like the way I put it then let me ask separate questions :
(1) How far would anarchists in this present reality enrich their private life above others without being a hypocrite? What would draw the line and why?
(2) How far would anarchists in this present reality climb up a workplace hierarchy without being a hypocrite? What would draw the line and why?

If it is true that anarchists are for economic equality and anti-hierarchy, than logically, in the real world, enriching private life above other fellow workers and/or climbing up a workplace hierarchy should be unacceptable to anarchists.

 

Is it available online?

 

I do think hierarchy and inequality should be challenged and be replaced by more equal structures, but I don't think they are inherently wrong in itself. They tend to be corrupting, yes, but as long it attempts to prevent itself from corrupting/maintaining accountability to subordinates, I think they are just okay - neither wrong nor is it an ideal. It can be said that I agree in the anarchist proposal of a free society based on mutual aid, but I don't necessarily agree in anarchism's absolute opposition to hierarchy when a hierarchy is accountable/not corrupt/not oppressive. That's why I don't yet call myself an anarchist (anti-hierarchy), let alone a lifestylist (Dunno what to call myself). That's also why I don't understand how one can be an anarchist and in this reality but hold an upper position of a hierarchy and/or enrich one's life above other fellow workers in the present workplace.

 

Yes but they are two very different questions.
And yr new question 1 differs from what you were asking before, from 'how far can anarchists enrich themselves...?' to 'how far can anarchists enrich themselves above others...?'
In the first instance I'd say, so long as one is an employee not an employer, as much as they fucking can! Now how does an employee best do this? Through collective struggle against their employers. This is pretty basic anarchist stuff, i.e. it is consistent with anarchism politics not antithetical to it ('hypocrisy', etc). Moreover, in answer this question one is also answering the new one you posed about 'above other fellow workers', i.e struggling for better wages collectively is not only some anarchist moral code, but also a strategic choice one makes in order to enrich themselves.

As for:

There are shitloads of 'middle management' positions these days, esp. in the service industry, and most of them aren't that good. So, for instance, someone who is a 'deputy store manager' or some other equally meaningless title at some fast food chain often ain't on much more than minimum wage, and are infinitely more working class than the rich kid flippin burgers for a summer job (daddy wants him to learn the work ethic or something) this 'manager' is apparently 'above of'.
So yeah, is such instances things are confusing and probably better decided on the behaviour of said 'middle managers' than anything else. (Do they line up behind the bosses over workplace issues? etc.)
The definite lines are employers, cops, politicians, & scabs.

 

I'll make that as a correction, and I apologize for the confusion.

Well, what if you are a self-employed millionaire? Doesn't this make you an upper class? Isn't anarchism CMIIW also against this petite-bourgeoisie class hierarchy?

Okay. But I still don't get why "middle managers" anarchists are not hypocritical for being in a position of an upper workplace hierarchy, when anarchists are supposedly anti-hierarchy (note again : I personally do not think hierarchy is inherently a bad thing, I'm just curious about how anarchists - who claim to be against hierarchy face the everyday world)?

 

Two things:
1.

My point was that its pretty common for people not in a position of an upper workplace hierarchy to hold some bullshit managerial title these days. Its important to distinguish those with said bullshit titles from those who actually are in the upper ends of the hierarchy.

2.

This only becomes a problem when dealing with anarchists who are:

and/or

Do you know any who are either of these?
i.e yr question is largely hypothetical.

 

How would you make that distinction?

My point is, how far would an anarchist enrich himself above other workers (self-employed/not) without being considered a hypocrite. You mentioned before "as much as they fucking can", that's why I mentioned hypothetically this self-employed millionaire.

Not that I know personally. Chomsky seem to be widely considered to be an anarchist who is a lecturer (lecture-student relationship in this reality is hierarchical), dunno if you consider him an anarchist though.

 

Employee/employer.

Nice way to decontextualise my statement.
Moreover, most 'self-employed' people are just casualised labour, i.e. they are employed on a contractual basis. Which 'self-employed' people aren't paid less than their labour is worth? Which self-employed anarchist millionaires are you referring to?

Leaving aside Chomsky's politics, we should instead look at yr statement: "lecture-student relationship in this reality is hierarchical", and ask why is this relationship in this reality hierarchical? In what ways can teachers survive under Capitalism without working within its rules? In the latter instance, yr obsession with 'hypocrisy' relies on some fallacy that working under Capitalism and hierarchical social relationships is somehow a choice amongst many, rather than the fact that abstaining from (or being unnecessary to) Capitalism (leaving aside the question of how exactly one abstains) is for many a 'choice' to go hungry and homeless. In short, to paraphrase Aufheben: it is not us but capital that reduces life to survival/work. We thus return to my first rhetorical question, one that you essentially answered in yr quote, even if you passed over it. The key phrase being: "in this reality", Capitalism and hierarchical society is real and we have to exist within it, even attempts at creating non-hierarchical spaces/organisations 'outside' of Capitalism still actually exist within it (but are a necessary tactic in order to preempt and prepare for the social revolution), hypocrisy only starts at the point where an anarchist ceases their commitment to the overthrow of Capitalism [edit: and replace it with libertarian communism]. *




* Split the following cos its more of an aside than a response to Red-Herring:
this is particularly pertinent in a current context where it appears many 'radicals' seem to focus primarily on form over content, whereby dumpster diving and 'radical' bike co-ops become an ends rather than (at best) a means, and within these non-ends the vanguardists congratulate themselves for how 'pure' they are cos they don't work, how 'hypocritical' them workers are and how 'radical' it is to bullshit yrself that yr 'outside' Capitalism.

 

who said something like the "heroes of dumpster-lifestyle shouldn't forget who's producing the trash they live from?"
isn't dumpstering living off the hierarchical relationships-in-this-reality, thus accepting and exploiting the very same -
and isn't that
H Y P O C R I T I C A L !!!

 

dumpster living is a way of making use of this present society's excesses and in that sense, whether you're "leaching off the hierarchy" or not, youre doing what i'd consider a net good for society. also, notions of society's hierarchy when concerning basic human needs - food, shelter, water, heat - are grandiose and hence pretentious. self-reliance is an end within itself if it's within the system or out of it. if you're just trying to survive you don't really need to be thinking of usurping the state...

 

@shabbashabba
I think lil'apple is taking the piss here.

Besides, the point is that meeting basic human needs through dumpster diving, squatting, etc, is both precarious and often limited to only small sections of the population.

 

some unknown hypocrite quoted in Gabriel Kuhns brilliant reckoning of crimethinks "evasion" as an excess of evasive middle-class ideology sold to the evasive heroes of direct access to their parents well filled refrigator...

and taking the piss with that carpentry diploma:

is un-anarchist and... and... and completely un-stylish too!
(now i was taking the piss just before i apply for an pay below tariff temporary job at schleckers... maybe i'll become president CEO in the next 14 days?)

 

Yr comment is hypocritical.