Corporate whore by day, anarchist by night?

by hmmm Wed Aug 11, 2004 09:49

Most of your friends are probably hypocrits too, I've met actually the most fervant bigots, racists, sexists and hypocrits among members of left-wing activist groups. curious eh? at least conservatives are polite.

by Ray Wed Aug 11, 2004 10:00

I think there's a difference between working for a multinational, or a company, that is capitalist, and working for a company that makes weapons. Its kind of like the difference between working for the government as a binman and working for the government as a soldier or a garda.

Do you think all activists should refuse to work for capitalist companies? Should we all refuse to buy from them too?

by Michael Hennigan Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:33

Generally, an activist should choose to work in a multinational rather than a locally controlled company.

The conditions are likely to be better and the General Manager would be an employyee subject to the same rules as everyone else.

As to being a corporate whore, most of us have no choice but to be wage slaves in the money economy. Depending on age etc. today, there is a much better choice in choosing the type of organisation to work for than was the case some years ago.

What's the alternative? To be a slave to political/bureaucratic/administrative whim such as people on welfare have to accept.

by Joe Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:37

Yeah Eoin people would take us all so much more seriously if we were all permanent students or drop outs. After all its so hard to get over the typical stero type people hold off anarchists as people just like them who need to work 9 to 5 to get by. They'd take us so much more seriously if they knew we were really all on the dole with dreads and a dog on a bit of string.

by Sell-out Wed Aug 11, 2004 13:01

Chekov of WSM is a true sell-out he has worked in the core of capitalism. He designed genetically modified grain for Monsanto, he enriched uranium for the Yinks in WWII (directly responsible for the Hiroshima attack), and he was Maggie's behind the scenes man who planned the crushing of the coal miners. Ohh and I believe Andrew (WSM personal capacity) trained Columbian marksmen how to shoot only unionised members of the Coca-Cola plant.

TRAITORS

by Chekov Wed Aug 11, 2004 13:21

Eoin, you really would be better off getting over this.

"I recall getting attacked here some months ago by Chekov of WSM when I declared my candidacy in the European Parliament elections. Around the same time he was interviewed for a profile in The Phoenix mag, which included a passage about his work for a mobile phone company and some banks (putting TopUp functions on ATMs). C'mon people."

The only logic that I can detect in this piece, Eoin, is that you feel that I attacked you, so you are going to attack me - on a completely different, and to my mind silly, principle.

If anybody cares to follow the link to the article that Eoin is referring to, they will find that I basically criticised him for embarking on an election campaign that would not help the anti-war movement, just help to build up his own profile. I believe he finally scored 0.4% of the vote, 6 times less than Justin Barrett. I don't know if he deliberately presented himself as such, but the media pretty inevitably portrayed him as a candidate of the anti-war movement. I think that my position that his candidacy was unlikely to assist the anti-war movement stands the test of time.

On the other hand Eoin now posts up an article on indymedia whose only purpose seems to be to attack me for working for a living and appeals to the crowd with a "c'mon people" as if my hypocrisy was just leaping off the screen.

I don't know if you are aware of it, Eoin, but people have to earn money to house, feed and clothe themselves. Sadly, I am bereft of capital and have not a single factory with which to support my idleness. Forlorn and desolate, I must sell my labour to survive. What's worse is that those rotten capitalists won't employ me to sit in my armchair plotting their overthrow and directing the proles from afar. It really is a beastly situation.

Finally, I might as well point out that you have no idea of what I do or who I work for now or ever; you have misquoted an inaccurate account from the Phoenix; you have no idea what my principles are with regards to work. Yet somehow you felt that you should write an article about it and put it on the internet!

Next time, Eoin, save yourself the typing. Hang around outside McDonalds or ALDI and lecture the workers.

by Ray Wed Aug 11, 2004 13:50

"What's worse is that those rotten capitalists won't employ me to sit in my armchair plotting their overthrow and directing the proles from afar. It really is a beastly situation."

If the capitalists won't do it, the WSM should!

If everyone in the WSM paid some more money into the organisation, that would pay you enough to sit around and tell them what to do. Genius!

by justin Wed Aug 11, 2004 14:21

If all the mutinationals left Ireland then you'd really have to think hard and fast about what you're doing!

by moonwolf Wed Aug 11, 2004 14:27

Don't worry dubsky, being attacked is par for the course around here it seems. the issue you raise seems valid enough and I see it as a personal thing.Some people are committed enough to what they hold as personal beliefs to be willing to earn a little less and work in a situation that compromises their belefs less than other situations might. You referred to anarchists in your article, I would question what any Anarchist is doing standing for election. That is not an attack on you , it is merely a question that you might answer in order to clarify your thinking on the subject. I'm in the happy position of working in a job that is not exploitative of myself or others as it is with a registered charity who work with the homeless,(actually the same as C.O'Reilly who you also mention in your article) I could choose to work for a multinational and earn twice as much but I don't. If my main object was the pursuit of material gain then surely that would make me a capitalist?However since my main objective is being useful to the society I live in and of being of service to my fellow humans I forego those share options etc. As to others,you refer to chekov, i don't know what they do for a living but hypocrisy can not be easily hidden from either oneself or those in close contact. I would imagine that working for the banks is difficult to reconcile with Anarchism- the old adage"if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas comes to mind. No doubt what i have written will be slagged off as it regularly is, but who cares?
Since i don't live in an "intellectual"notion of either anarcy or socialism but in actual anarchist community i really couldn't give a fuck what the intelligensia have to say from their multinational sponsored computers.

Anarchy is not the future it is the here and now!

by Terry Wed Aug 11, 2004 14:36

You say:
'You referred to anarchists in your article, I would question what any Anarchist is doing standing for election'

No anarchist has stood or is standing for an election.

I don't think Eoin has referred to himself as an anarchist, as I suspect that might be the source of the confusion.

by iosaf Wed Aug 11, 2004 14:55

I coined that line three years ago, when thinking about issues of relative morality which included personal autonomy, feminism and abortion. I never used it in relation to work.
I think Eoin may be touching on a ethical crises that effects many people when they first enter the "grown up" job market and levae university and first offer themselves for election to the European Parliament.
Oh it can be a sticky time, especially if your first attempt to get elected to the European Parliament fails (like Eoin's), what are you to do?
Well parents and friends might suggest, a period of further study. "Oh sure don't worry dear, the European Parliament is not so much fun, why don't you get a doctorate instead?".
Where as other potential mates and newer types of pal, might want to see some extended "action". And suggest doing a fact finding tour of really cheap third world countries. "come on man the smoke is so so cheap, no -one will miss you for two years, it could be character forming".

At end, Eoin,these are your life choices.
No one can tell you what to do.
This is naturally a very difficult and challenging time for you and all those in a similar position.... Are you going to be a capitalist lackey hypocrite with your own xerox card in a south dublin "office"? or end up teaching english/advanced yogic origami on the continent?

by paul c Wed Aug 11, 2004 14:58

arn't all workers corporate hoares...

from the labourer to the computer engineer to the charity worker... theres corporation and government behind all those jobs

ed is really going down in my estimation with all these posts...

i read the post the was hidden could an editor move it here as comment so we can see what said not exactly news but it night steer it to policy not personality

by Ray Wed Aug 11, 2004 15:10

It is practically impossible not to interact with the capitalist system, in some way.

You can live in a squat, work for a charity (or beg - no dole though, because that involves the state), buy only from charity shops (and use what is thrown out by others) and myabe stay pure that way. (And if that's what you choose to do, fair play to you)

But its not a way of life that you can reasonably expect many people to adopt. And its not a way of life that will, in itself, change society. And its only possible for those who are happy to live only with other anarchists - if your significant other would rather not live in a squat, what do you do?

This is not to say that all ways of living are possible for anarchists. Anarchists should try to avoid exploiting others, and should not be enforcers for the state. But we all live in the world as it is, and nobody gets to stay clean.

by Joe Wed Aug 11, 2004 15:40

Charity jobs are not unproblematic either. Charity is very much part of capitalist ideology as rather than society as a whole being responsible for everyones needs instead 'good' people volunteer money or time to cover these needs. And if there are not enough good people or they don't include enough rich people then these needs are not met.

In addition the rules charities have to operate under very often forbid them highlighting the political/economic reasons that create the problems they are trying to solve in the first place. Otherwise they get their status pulled or (much more common) lose state funding.

That's the nature of capitalism, there is no point 'outside the system' except perhaps as an unnoticed hermit on an otherwise uninhabitied island. But none of these jobs, even the ones that are most obviously about helping others (charity worker, nurse, teacher) are free of capitalism so getting snobby about one or the other category is pretty pointless.

by Michael Hennigan Wed Aug 11, 2004 16:12

Anarchy, the elimination of the state and its replacement with a society based on voluntary co-operation of free individuals, is another name for Utopia.

To function, a group would need at a minimum an agreed set of rules and as Brendan Behan said, the first item on the agenda of any new Irish organisation, is 'The Split.'

There is no group of people that is immune from the issue of the balance between self-interest and common interest. Self interest may just be a matter of wanting to lead but that results in resentmet, jealousy etc. Then the leader has to eliminate real or imagined rivals and the inevitable result is a conventional organisation. An extreme example would be the evolution of the family run prison that is North Korea.

by Joe Wed Aug 11, 2004 16:18

Michael you might want to check out what anarchism is rather than reacting to sterotypes. What you refer to as the 'balance between self-interest and common interest' actually lies pretty much at the heart of anarchism. It's why we reject forms of leadership that place people in power because as we see these lead to North Korean type situations. (North Korea is about as far from anarchism as you can get).

I suggest you check out the anarchist FAQ at http://anarchism.ws/faq/ which goes into all this in a lot more detail.

by Corporate Whore Wed Aug 11, 2004 16:26

Nice article. It calls everyone who isn't purer than pure a whore. Thanks Mr. Dubsky you self-righteous git. How about I just do my bit to improve things where and when I can, and you let me get on with it, without insulting me for not being a saint?

by dirty type - the great unwashed Wed Aug 11, 2004 17:12 living in blissful ignorance.

Never trust an anarchist / socialist / bolshevikiii / punk with a degree / libertarian /
under 30.

For Time alone "tempus mutantur",
shall prove their mettle.

by Michael Hennigan Wed Aug 11, 2004 17:21

Joe, I simply don't have the faith in human nature that you may have.

The consenual community based appraoch may work in particular limited scale situations and in a very simple form of living.

I met a Somali some time ago who had returned from a visit home. He was very happy that there was no longer a functioning countrywide government. He no longer had to bribe officials at the border crossing with Kenya etc. But at what cost?

Extract from http://anarchism.ws/: 'What we learn in school is the necessity for government, rulers and capitalism. What we do not learn is that many times it has been shown that this government is not necessary. People are not inherently bad. Given the right conditions a spirit of mutual aid and co-operation can grow.'

There will never be remedies for all injustice but many people who strive for justice also have aspirations to have the benefit of modern positive technologies, medicines and so on. Progress may be incremental- (e.g. The proportion of people living in extreme poverty (less than $1 a day) in developing countries dropped by almost half between 1981 and 2001, from 40 to 21 percent of global population, according to figures released last May by the World Bank. Progress has been uneven as economic growth eludes many countries)- but half a loaf is better than no bread

by Corporate Whore Wed Aug 11, 2004 17:24

I notice that this article berating people for having jobs appears under "workers issues". Brilliant

by Joe Wed Aug 11, 2004 17:33

I don't have any particular faith or indeed belief in 'human nature'. I'm more of an anarchist becauseI believe anyone is corruptable than because I believe everyone is perfect.

Anarchism isn't about consensus although some anarchists are into consensus.

Somalia is nothing to do with anarchism, there one state has been replaced with lots of mini primitive states. This is not a step forward and indeed you can read an anarchist analysis of this at http://struggle.ws/africa/discuss/strong_state_jan01.html

Lastly I'd be the last to claim that there can be no development under capitalism or that such development stopped in the 1910's. Thats a crude version of leninism rather than anything to do with anarchism.

The point is more that what development occurs does so in the interests to the few rather than the many. If the many are lucky they get the crumbs from the rich mans table and while crumbs can be better than nothing life is not just about food it is also about self-respect and freedom.

Capitalism also means development that is not in the interests of most of the worlds population. Nuclear power stations, terminator genes, stealth bombers and absurd patent laws are all things we could do without.

by Terry - Galway Grassroots Wed Aug 11, 2004 18:02

"Sure, if you're working as, say, the Environment Officer or Human Rights Officer or something, then it's easy to see how your work at, say, Microsoft, can compliment your activism work. But what if you just work in IT support, or Sales?"

- not really as you would be just contributing to the greenwashing of corporates, i.e. their ability to claim to have standards. Surely worse that anything. Eoin's post has illustrated very well the futility of notions of ethical jobs, consumerism, lifestylism, etc..
It's very useful as a means of feeling better than other people but not very useful as a means of changing society.
We live in capitalism, period, it doesn't have a nice fluffy, fair, green variant.

by Massachio Wed Aug 11, 2004 18:29

Don't support the capitalist system by joining it. By all means, draw the dole, heping to bleed it to death and use your spare time to smash the system.

Anyone who works in this society and claims to be an anarchist is a hypocrite.

by Michael Hennigan Wed Aug 11, 2004 18:54

Massachio, I guess to be consistent, a person shouldn't pay for a PC, mobile phone and so on. Coming to think of it, this web is a product of the Pentagon's military industrial complex. It's hard to be lily white! Talking about feeding, a true blue would need to grow their own food etc

Consistency is a scarce commodity. When I lived in Saudi, I used to observe the muttawa religious police alighting from their American air conditioned SUVs to harrass people because they were not living by a 1,400 yr + style of living. It often struck me that I would have some respect for them if they travelled on camels.

by iosaf Wed Aug 11, 2004 19:09

It was ten days after the strike battle at Homestead steel plant in Pittsburgh.
It was July 16th 1892. The 23year old Emma Goldman needed 15$ to buy a pistol with which she intended on killing the owner of the Homestead plant, Henry Clay Frick. And she knew no way to find the money, so she joined the other workers on Manhatten's 14th street.
She rejected every customer until finally an elderly man took her to a bar and suggested she was in the wrong trade, he gave her 10$.
She had previously borrowed money to buy some high heeled shoes and "fancy lingerie".
She telegraphed her sister saying she was sick, the sister provided the fifteen dollars.
Goldman gave the money to her accomplice Berkman who bought a suit and a gun and a dagger. Armed with which he entered the office building of the Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph and shot Henry Clay Frick.

by Cailín - Dublin Wed Aug 11, 2004 19:23

Boys, this really is an issue that each person has to figure out for themselves - reconciling or even balancing their jobs with their other activities.

No one knows how you feel, or what you do or what your job is really about except yourself. Take a look at your lifestyle, needs, job and principles - if you don't think that these are compatible you could manage a little alteration (hopefully it would be the job that would be changed not the beliefs!).

Please just don't judge or preach.

As for mentioning names of people when discussing this topic - that really doesn't get anyone anywhere.

by Fergal Wed Aug 11, 2004 19:27

"Anyone who works in this society and claims to be an anarchist is a hypocrite"

This is the problem with much radical politics. People's disgust for the way the world works becomes a kind of disdain. Instead of trying to make things better, too many people just develope an elitist attitude, where everything stinks, and you're better off living in your own paralell world. Which is all very well for your conscience and political purity, but does fuck all to solve the problems you got pissed off about in the first place. It's just a high-minded way of giving up. "Don't blame me, I'm an anarchist", so to speak. Meanwhile, the people who suffer in this world have to rely for help on people who work within society - the "hypocrites". An aid worker in Africa may not be doing anything to question the system which causes famines, but s/he will still be save more lives.

by Eoin Dubsky Wed Aug 11, 2004 19:29

Thanks for the many thoughtful comments above, and apologies to anyone who felt that I was trying to speak from some 'high horse' or ideologically pure anarchist den. The first sentence of the summary should be in "quotes" (though I'm not sure those were exactly the words used). I just ran in an election folks, I'm not an anarchist. I'm just trying to work this thing out, and I wanted to share my thoughts here with you because some of you are older and more experienced at balancing the work-job-activism thing. Iosaf's got it in one: I'm looking for work. :-)

I've worked before - mostly in the non-profit sector, but when I was 18 I did six months in a call centre for Microsoft. The browser wars were raging at the time, and we knew that we were corporate whores. I think it would be different if, as I said, we had been working on helping the company reach EMAS environmental management certification or something.


1. Reply to Chekov re personal attacks:
My dig at Chekov was unnecessary and probably counter-productive (sorry man!). I wanted to write about what iosaf calls an "ethical crises that effects many people when they first enter the 'grown up' job market and leave university...". It's not just for first-timers though. I chose the example of Chekov's work to illustrate the sort of 'anarchist as corporate whore' situation because I
(a) read about it in The Phoenix,
(b) heard Chekov speak to me about it in person backstage on Eamon Dunphy's tv3 talk show, and
(c) remembered it yesterday, remembered feeling a little hurt and quite confused when Chekov made his personal attack on me over my EP election candidature, and thought "oh I'll use this example... sure why not?" *insert evil laugh*

In a comment above Ray jokes about getting a sweet job at the WSM, but groups like Sustainable Ireland (a workers cooperative) have taken the challenge and are slowly getting somewhere with it. Moonwolf accepts a lower salary to do work that matters. I'm not an anarchist, and it doesn't effect only anarchists. I think though any activist should concern themselves with this issue, and not try and brush it off by pretending as if all jobs are the same, and because people need to work it shouldn't matter what they do exactly.


2. Reply to Terry re greenwash:
People working in "nice jobs" for "bad people" (like the Environment Officer at Coca-Cola say) face a more nuanced ethical crisis I guess (Greenwash, etc., as you point out). But there's surely a difference between that and working in, say, the PR department, human rights desk, no?


3. Reply to Ray re cooperation with capitalism:
As others have pointed out here, you've godda live. Before getting into the possibility of complete non-cooperation with capitalism and the ethics and practicalities of that, I'm interested in dealing with the simpler, more real-life question of balancing work-job-activism. Think of this as like a discussion about the ethics of live animal exports. We'll talk about veganism later! :-D

4. Finally, it's not about absolutes:
It's not about whether you work at all or do nothing all day. I'm not saying that. Moonwolf puts in a days work at the shelter. Others might put in a days work at some computer company or the local health authority. Someone else might use their knowledge to work for some multinational corporation to make more profit or whatever.

by Enterprising Anarchist Wed Aug 11, 2004 22:19

If you don't like working for a large company, and you won't/can't work for an individual, then why not do your own thing?

Make or find a produce or service that gives people real value and that is also ethical and progressive, then go for it.

Sitting and whinging about working for a corporation is a waste of a good life and just helps the corporations.

Its true that there are many valuable things that people won't pay for (from political action to poetry). But there are also many valuable and ethical things that people will pay for (from organic food to public transportation). In fact, there are many ways that you could make money by helping people escape from the clutches of corporations and become more self-sufficient.

Every time you spend money somebody is working for you. Why not give something valuable to other people so they'll pay you?

Don't be dependent on the state, or dependent on a corporation, or dependant on somebody with a bit more enterprise than yourself. If you're a true anarchist you'll do your own thing your own way.

After all, there's only one you.

by fat cat Thu Aug 12, 2004 00:07

Another proof - if it were needed - of the resilience of capitalism ......

by fat cat Thu Aug 12, 2004 00:13

"The attempted assassination had no effect on labor conditions at Homestead Works, though Berkmann and Goldman were able to use the resultant publicity to become anarchist spokespeople. They were deported to Russia in 1919. Berkmann committed suicide in 1936."

by utterly ridiculous Thu Aug 12, 2004 09:35

This discussion shows how utterly self-absorbed and ridiculous some of the people posting here are. Its fine for students to muse about how awful big corporations are. Other people need to work to live. Even government welfare is paid for by working tax payers.

Nobody has provided any guidlines on how people should survive if the cant do x,y and z jobs.

by Paul in Cork Thu Aug 12, 2004 13:03

Sex workers have a difficult enogh time of it , often badly paid, subject to police harrassment and not protected from violent punters because can't report attacks, not unionised, despised by many, etc etc.
One time when Emma Goldmann was campaigning against landlords' vicous exploitation of people she couldn't find a landlord who'd rent her anywhere to live. She ended up living in a brothel and helping the women working there to organise.

Check out the website of International Prostitutes Collective :

http://www.allwomencount.net/EWC%20Sex%20Workers/SexWorkIndex.htm

"Since 1975, the International Prostitutes Collective has been campaigning for the abolition of the prostitution laws which criminalize sex workers and our families, and for economic alternatives and higher benefits and wages. No woman, child or man should be forced by poverty or violence into sex with anyone. We provide information, help and support to individual prostitute women and others who are concerned with sex workers’ human, civil, legal and economic rights.

The English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) and the US PROStitutes Collective (US PROS) are part of the International Prostitutes Collective. We are in touch with sex workers all over the world. The situation of those of us in Third World countries and those of us who work the streets, often Black women, other women of colour and/or immigrant women, has always been our starting point. We are members of the International Wages for Housework Campaign"


Most people don't have enough choices to enable them to find a way to survive that is completely ethical. My own way has been mainly State benefits, which isn't ideal, and neither is working for a multinational, but the whole way work in society is organised is irrational and destructive.
Beyond extremes like working for an arms dealer ( even then you might be able to smuggle out useful information) I think we should avoid putting our vaulable energy into personal attacks on each other.
I was once very shocked to have to defend people who beg to a comrade at an activist meeting. You don't know the whole of anyone's story and you don't know what you might have to do someday to survive

by Ety my shorts Thu Aug 12, 2004 13:42

Not another word police merchant.
I can't fucking stand prissy word merchants.
And the context was 'corporate' whore.

by jeejeejee Thu Aug 12, 2004 14:52

Chomsky works for MIT.
And Michael Moore sits in on job interviews for the CIA.

by Uncompetitive Thu Aug 12, 2004 16:40

If you gotta job you can be an agent
You can work for revolution in your place of employment
If you work in a factory throw a spanner in the works
Internal sabotage, hit them where it hurts

Subvert - Subvert - Subvert - Subvert

If you gotta job
Where they treat you like a slave
Where they treat you like a zombie
In their corporate grave

If you work in a office making tea for the bosses
While they are getting richer on ten time your pay
They may think you're stupid but you're working undercover
You've got the potential to disobey

Subvert - Subvert - Subvert - Subvert

If you've got a job
Cos there's nothing else to do
Where they think they've got you trapped in
The boxes that they choose

If you've got a job you can be an agent
If you work in a kitchen you can redistribute food
If you are a policeman ordered to arrest me
You don't have to do it, you can refuse

Subvert - Subvert - Subvert - Subvert

by John Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:15

I was lookin for a job
And then I found a job
And Oh I'm miserable now

by Ciaron Sat Aug 14, 2004 13:49 Away in OZ

"The church is a whore but she's our mother!" Dorothy Day...which I guess could translate as "The church is our father but he is a mercenary!"..or one could accept the notion of male whores and female mercanieries and avoid the translation.

US Catholic Workers refer to operatives in the charity business as "poverty pimps".

Yep it's problematic surviving in Dublin town. But the end of the day the anarchic ethical economic question should be - have I taken too much, have I given to little? And we can all take direct action on that one- and share it around. "When you give to the poor,first apologise for having more than your fair share!" St Vincent de Paul.


Yeah we could all cut down on the poisonal attacks.(Thanx Phoenix for printing my letter P.23 on the orgiinal P. 5slander re the rocky road to Dromoaland castle.

"The internet is an abrupt medium!" anarcho-poet Stephen Hancock.

Yup and don't confuse work with having a job!

by Pamela Sat Aug 14, 2004 15:00

Those who post here should understand that it is possible to be an anarchist - at least of the non-evangelical/syndacalist variety - and work/pay taxes/have babies et al.

It has been through the very experience of being 'working people', in most instances, that has inspired anarchists of each generation.

The twee cant of the keepers of 'right-on' orthodoxy is truly sickening to behold here.

Please, if you need to have a dig at an opponent (which I suspect this is) just call him a prick, or tell him his nose is too big or his dick too limp or his ears too much 'about in society' - it would be no less infantile than what you have placed on this site.

by Uncompetitive Sat Aug 14, 2004 16:36

Ah c'mon John, cheer up.
Let's do the subversive boogie!

by R. Isible Mon Aug 16, 2004 19:43

As you well know Inydmedia.ie is supposed to be for the dissemination of news. Your post is not news. It's a call for a bulletin-board style discussion centered on your personal animus with one of the active indymedia editors.

You've been around the site since the beginning and are aware of the published guidelines and the ethos which seeks to move away from personal, petty stuff like this. The only reasonable conclusion is that you've decided to push ahead with this disruptive, non-informative topic in despite of your knowledge of how most of the editorial list feel about this sort of stuff.

Thanks a bunch. If I'd seen this earlier I'd have deleted it as "not news - not a bulletin board".

by Eoin Dubsky Tue Aug 17, 2004 18:13

R. Isible, and everyone else here who's told me off for my dig against Chekov above are probably right for doing so. And I think I acknowledged that in my earlier comment above. Looking at the original post, I think almost every other sentence was in the form of a question. Not the stuff of "opinion / analysis" articles, you're right... more of the bulletin board post variety. Okay, sorry.

by ReluctantVoter Thu Aug 19, 2004 14:50 US

Reading the article and replies I got the feeling this is about some anarchists being too committed to liberty, direct democracy and socialism to vote (fine whatever), but unwilling or unable to apply the same principles when job hunting (shame).

by community worker Thu Aug 19, 2004 15:24

The reality is that everyone has to feed themselves, put a roof over their heads and have a quality of life that doesn't mean that they have to stay a relative prisoner to a fuckin mortgage.

In this wonderful capitalist shithole you sell your labour in order to live. If we had a socialist/communist/anarchist society then all the above necessities would be automatically a right for people.

The ngo world that I work in tends to reflect the capitalist society we live in. Your employer is dependent upon funding from various sources therefore there can be strings attached. The whole community sector is currently under the microscope from the DCRGA (a core funder for many groups) and its embarrising to see the pathetic lenghts that some groups are going to to gain the approval of minister o cuiv. Many working for ngo's find that their working conditions are far worse than the given norm in the business sector

Alright, personally I draw the line at working for the arms industry or the Garda. But in the past people with a social consence have become whistle blowers - exposing the work activities of these institutions.

That lad from Israel is a good example. He exposed the nuclear capacity of Israel to the world.

Take work wherever you want - its up to you.
I would work for any company that pays decent wages, has decent holidays, has a good working environment.

by Me too Thu Aug 19, 2004 15:40

What Community worker says sounds fair enough. Would you ever vote?

by Joe Hill Thu Aug 19, 2004 16:25

If anarchists don't apply the same standards when deciding to vote or not, or when looking for a job, it's because those are completely diffferent things. Apples an oranges.
Everyone agrees that we have to work to get paid, right? It's a capitalist society, so to earn a wage you need to sell your labour to someone.
However we don't all believe that you have to vote. Even people who do vote can tell you that it doesn't change much.

by Joe Hill's ghost Thu Aug 19, 2004 17:28

my work ethic:

Your goal as a revolutionary worker is to do the following:

1) Maximise your pay to provide funds to revolutionary causes and to minimise the economic surplus that your boss extracts from your labour
2) Minimise your working time so that you can devote time to revolutionary activity.
3) Spread class-consciousness and workers self-organisation among the workforce, towards a final goal of taking over the management of production.
4) Spread consciousness about the purely inimical nature of some jobs in capitalism and encourage workers not to accept these roles (eg cops, military researchers, managers, HR staff, politicians).

It is up to each individual to figure out which available job will allow them to fulfill as many of these aims as possible. There is often a trade-off involved, but in maximising one you should never directly contradict any of the other aims by, for example, accepting a higher paid job as a manager.

The idea that you can escape from the logic of capitalist exploitation by taking a job in a apparently caring role is patent nonsense. Such jobs are only available to the very privileged and the problems of capitalist exploitation can only be tackled on a class basis - or do you think that every worker in the world could really choose to become a charity worker???

by Deirdre Clancy Thu Aug 19, 2004 18:52

Eoin, you have a mobile phone, so you're supporting the mobile phone companies. I think this posting is a bit harsh. I am sure the university you attended is hugely funded by industry, which has made your acquisition of certain marketable skills possible. Yes, all those skills can help in activism, but I do suggest everyone looks at their own lives and complicities before they go criticising others for their choices of career. The world of work and activism is a lot more complex than this posting suggests. Often, the most humanitarian-seeming jobs, such as work for certain types of charities, are the most conservative, because they're based on an implicit acceptance of the status quo as it is, and on a smug sense of superiority to the individuals in society that are being targeted by such charities (we've all seen this phenomenon). As someone who has worked for a mobile phone company myself for a short while several years ago, I don't feel guilty. Much of the money I earned in that capacity went into supporting my activism afterward. I am sure much of the money you earn in whatever multimedia job you get will do the same. We're all complicit in capitalism in one way or another. University professors wouldn't have their salaries if it were not for the sponsorship of big business keeping universities ticking over, despite the fact that they may give radical semiars about the up-coming revolution and feel superior to employees of private companies on whom they are dependent for their living. It may not be as overt with certain occupations, but you can't live in the Western world without such complicity. Our main task is to at least try to use our skills and resources to change the system in which we unavoidably exist and try to set certain sensible ethical boundaries about work we're willing to do and not do (for example, not working for arms companies; not working for Nestle).

by Frankly Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:58

"Even people who do vote can tell you that it doesn't change much"

It changes more than not voting though.

by Golden Rule Fri Aug 20, 2004 14:08

Is there a Golden Rule against working for the military and police? While some people will blacklist the arms trade, many more here seem to be saying that being a soldier or a cop is also out of bounds. How come?
If all that "we're all implicated" stuff is true, then surely it doesn't matter whether you're the Irish soldier stuck at a checkpoint in Kabul or Pristina, or just someone working for a company which is part of the system which creates these wars (in fact the soldier might possibly be able to help someone on the ground). Same goes for police.

by paulc Fri Aug 20, 2004 16:03

cos computers programmers don't carry guns (batons) and an attitude...

by Bad Attitude Fri Aug 20, 2004 16:11

Computer programmers don't have an attitude? You should meet some of the dickheads in my work.

by James O'Brien - WSM (per cap) Sat Aug 21, 2004 14:16

Lots of good stuff in the comments on working for NGOs, I’ll only add that the same old hierarchy and high salaries and bossing is to be found there as anywhere else in society.

There is a strand of anarchism, like Prodhoun’s mutualism, that sought to develop co-ops that would undermine capitalist enterprises and gradually usher in a free society. However, since the 1860s, a long time!, this has been very much a minority strategy, though we’d wish each individual project the best of luck. Around that time, anarchists developed the idea that a clear break – revolution - with capitalist society was necessary. The difficulty with the gradualist approach of Prodhoun et al was that each enterprise was unable to compete with capitalist ones in more than niche markets. Thus there are never likely to be more than islands in the sea of capital, and islands which over time come closer in practice to the capitalist enterprises they seek to replace.

Anarchism is a social movement that seeks change for everybody, it’s not a personal lifestyle philosophy that focuses solely on the quality of life for one’s good self. In fact, as Bakunin argued, full freedom isn’t possible unless everybody can share in it, so retreating from social struggle would be self-defeating. Obviously, as has been pointed out in the comments, there are limitations on what a consistent anarchists should do, for example, refrain from exploiting others.

Libertarians have been wary of “dropping out”. While it may lead to a more pleasant life for oneself – if you’re into that - by virtue of its exclusive nature it isn’t going to win the mass of the population to the idea that radical change is both desirable and possible.

Mass involvement is necessary for such change, so anarchists have got to go, in Bakunin’s phrase, to the people. Which means working alongside people the same as everyone, and not as an activist leader (see below). Also, anarchists have long held that control of production was crucial for establishing a free socialist society, so that if anarchist ideas aren’t influential amongst workers (and they’re not!) then we won’t have an anarchist society (which we don’t!). So to get where we want, we have to go the work-place,

I disagree with a hidden assumption of Eoin’s that working for companies is inherently bad. The assumption is that the fruits of the labour are: the enrichment of the owners, the degradation of the environment, the exploitation of others. Unfortunately, these do occur, but much good also emerges from working; namely
nice useful things like bread, bicycles, a postal service, computers, telephones etc etc. (Not to mention you meet nice people there). Labour and production are in themselves good. Society needs these things to go exist. The problem libertarians have with work as it stands is that it is organised in an exploitative manner, not with the notion of work per se. Eoin’s quote of Ciaron O’Reilly’s comment sums this up quite neatly.

If everybody was a human rights officer or whatever, nobody would actually produce anything. Society would collapse. There is another assumption of Eoin’s in his idea that activists should work in these position, namely that activists comprise a separate layer to the rest of the working population. This I’d be very uncomfortable with, as it replicates the division of leader and led. It inevitably leads to an activist leadership who think up the policy, take the risks, go to the meetings, and the rest who more or less passively endorse the leadership. I’d be dubious about “activists” who switch on political activity when appropriate; better perhaps to do a little in tune with many others and remain firmly embedded with them.

Finally, anarchists have refused lucrative careers in jobs in order to be true to themselves. It’s not that they’re reduced to absolute poverty or anything. In any other context than this thread this would be not worth remarking upon as it’s no different from what everybody else does.

by Robbie Sun Aug 22, 2004 00:40

The DUP say that Northern nationalists are Irish till it comes to taking the British dole. This argument is a willful misunderstanding on the part of a culture of domination, of the ‘other side’s’ position, and a deliberately irrational obfuscation of the economic conditions which lead to ‘unemployment’, especially among ‘Tadhgs’, traditionally speaking. Principles, such as those in the New Testament read by DUP-members, are often used to disguise reality.

An occupation is only ‘work’ if you don’t actually like what you’re doing. Pay and profit are part of the capitalist system. Some people get paid lots for doing harm, or nothing all day (bosses and many civil servants for example), and others get the dole for doing lots from morning till night. There are many variants of the co-efficient along the lines of those co-ordinates, but anyone in a state of prolonged cerebral inertia can’t be all that happy.

The whole point is that anarchy is not about absolutist rules, but about people, deciding for themselves, in a community context. Anarchy involves a healthy disrespect for authority, and treating others as you would like them to treat you in the same situation/circumstance. Above all, it’s about feeling good about thinking for yourself, rather than taking pre-packaged opinions and cliched ideas of ‘principle’. In this way, anarchism is to be found in most places, and is inside everyone (if only waiting to get out most of the time). It is the splendour of reason and the white heat of empathy.

Humanity and society are not a mathematical equation; and 1+1=2 means nothing without a context, anyway. Reclaim the power to think, and debate in a realm of honesty. Why be bogged down in principled rhetoric or rhetorical principle? Point-scoring jousts may be entertainment for the cheap seats, but an introspective waste of time, and unproductive otherwise.

by Bored Sun Aug 22, 2004 23:07

"Point-scoring jousts may be entertainment for the cheap seats, but an introspective waste of time, and unproductive otherwise."
Erm... So why labor the point? Quit responding to this debate, keep it off the "latest comments" page, and the introspective waste of time will end there.

by Too Shay Mon Aug 23, 2004 00:35

Breaindead boring,If you understood what you responded to, you'd see that (to synopsize) 'to work' and be an anarchist are not incompatible. Ergo, to criticise an anarchist for 'working' is point-scoring rather than dealing with the meat of the issues. Therein lies an informative point.

You seem quite concerned with what's on 'latest comments' - trying responding to issues you are actually interested in and understand.

by NoNike Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:44

Runners that won't cost you much.

by Bob Black - Inspiracy Press Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:54

(This essay originated as a speech in 1980. A revised and enlarged version was published as a pamphlet in 1985, and in the first edition of The Abolition of Work and Other Essays (Loompanics Unlimited, 1986). It has also appeared in many periodicals and anthologies, including translations into French, German, Italian, Dutch and Slovene. Revised by the author for the Inspiracy Press edition.)


(Post a link, not an entire essay - ed)

by Gavra - The Pie Foundation Wed Apr 19, 2006 13:39

I find hemp clothing really chaffs and can't afford lovely fairtrade cotton goods. Is it right I buy 'second hand' designer? Even though it was made by a child in a veal crate? If you own a nokia mobile its also worth bearing in mind they make misile guidance systems. Fanta (which is mmm delicous) was invented exclusively for Nazi Germany. Sir, its a mine field of nasty out there good luck!

by guydebordisdead Wed Apr 19, 2006 13:48

Eoin dubsky, what a mess. If I remember correctly he apologised for this "outburst" and then stuck out his hand for us to pay his fine.
Would being an MEP not count as a job that is at odds with your "activism"? If you don't think so I suspect you might just be a careerist.