The Sparticist League would rather interrupt meetings than hold their own. Well, maybe that's unfair. I've never actually been to an SL meeting. I'm sure they happen. . . somewhere. But once again, last night, they "crashed" a forum held by SPARK (a Revolutionary Socialist Orgnaization) to put forth their "message".

What is their message? Their message is that nobody "gets" Communism quite like they do. After the initial talk by a SPARK member, a talk which focused on Bush's State of the Union speech, one SL member was eager to criticize the "narrow-minded nationalism" of the talk. He must have liked the phrase because he used it twice, but never quite explained why the talk should be characterized this way. He was very upset that there was no "class context" as a frame for the talk. In other words, he was probably dissapointed that he didn't get to hear the
terms "imperialism", "colonialism", "ruling class", and "workers' revolution" 500 times because, after all, you can't be a "real" socialist without the empty rhetoric that SL members lamely cling to.

Then both SL members explained their position on the Iraq war. They say that the SL has taken a "military position" on the war. . . against the US. Okay, so far, no big deal, but this "military position" includes labeling U.S. troops, generally members of the working class who have been ordered to fight in Iraq, as "murderers". An actual soldier who had returned from Iraq was in attendance. This soldier was critical of the war and the US motives, but the SL members could only smirk and shake their heads. I decided not to ask them if a slaughter of 200 US troops tomorrow would be a "victory" for them because I could pretty much guess the answer.

A couple SPARK members did lose their cool, but frankly, it's understandable. They have allowed SL members to "attend" without protest in the past. They just lost their patience with the arrogance of the SL.

Finally, the SL members got up and left, denouncing the SPARK member who gave the talk as a phony, etc. Those in attendence actually clapped and sighed relief as they exited.

Go way, SL. If you are you so sure that your version of "Communism" is better, than you should be confidantly inviting people to your own meetings on your own time, not harrassing people at other organizations' meetings.

who cares. one communist arguing with another communist is about as interesting and relevant as watching paint rust.

Who cares? Take off your ideological blinders for a moment. Now imagine two anarchist groups in the same area with major ideological disagreements. Would one group turn up at the other's meetings, slander them, denounce them as phonies and storm out? I hope not but...

Why this really matter is because communists are people too. Along with everyone else who isn't an anarchist. Some anarchist think the way to achieve an anarchist society is by waiting for everyone else to become an anarchist. Thing is anarchism isn't about card-carrying, it's about practical solutions to the problems of social organisation without imposed authority or heirarchy.

Maintaining respect for other activists reguardless of their theory (or the colour of their underwear) and winning them over with the practicality of anarchist organising methods has given the anarchist movement a level or acceptance, even respect, in the global justice movement that far outweighs its size or internal coherence (mostly non-existent as yet).

Have you ever spent any serious amount of time with a Spartacist? Or someone from the RCP? Or serious WWP cadres? SWP? Or any of the other myriad Trotskyoid groups? Have you ever tried having meetings with them? Or building any sort of serious political organization with them?

I don't know much about SPARK, but judging from their website, they are also some form of Trotskyist group. Now I don't have a problem working with authoritarian commmunists when necessary, even if most of their politics are abhorent - some of them, like ANSWER, get stuff done, even if its in a rather dubious manner. But the problem with most Trotsky-sect groups is that they have no historical concept of the issues facing us today - most just want to redo the Russian revolution, an ahistorical position if I've ever heard one - and they aren't even taking real steps to accomplish that impossible task. Some of them, through their tactics and methods and attitudes, hurt far more than they help.

Most of the time they *are not* active - they are generally talking shops. They see social struggle as a form of revealed religion - as soon as everyone sees the issues in their way then the revolution can begin. They spend endless hours which could be used usefully accomplishing goals dissecting the fine points of Marx and Lenin and arguing among themselves about the proper "line" to take to the "masses." It is all simply absurd - the Sparts are probably the most ridiculous, though the RCP is pretty fucking hilarious in their own way as well. These groups are graveyards and memorial societies, lost to the real movement of history.

I may not agree with every point of anarchist theory (or often lack thereof) but anarchists are the most vital part of current struggles for the precise reason that the Old Left and the Old New Left aren't - they do things, they actually have a practice to fit along with their theory, and they don't see the end all be all of organizing as selling papers and lecturing to students. They make shit happen - and perhaps even more importantly, they try to live the revolution.

The only good Trotskyist is an ex-Trotskyist. I should know, I am one, and only one of many many more.

Theory is dead, long live theory.

One thing Marxists (and neo-marxists) have over "anarchists" is valuing theory. Their problem is that they value theory so much that they aren't willing to consider the possibility that the theory has errors, or that other theories (like those that support Capitalism) have validity.

Marxists, even the ones I like a lot, are always out to prove that the intellectual class "are really the working class". Some Anarchists even argue this, especially anarcho-syndicalists (oy, there's an impractical anarchist sect). Neither want to entertain the idea that perhaps the intellectuals form a group of their own, with specific issues, and can be radicalized based on those specifcities.

Any class conflict, when heightened, will become that of the working class versus the owner class, but this occurs only because people must pick sides and make compromises. Anarchism's (and neo-marxism's) edge is that it takes seriously the need to develop a class consciousness before that conflict.

Look at this supermarket strike. The problem with it is that took this extreme conflict to cause "wannabe middle class" grocery workers to wake up and side with the working class. Why didn't they identify with the working class before the conflict? If they had, perhaps the big conflict would have been avoided because, as a group, the workers would already have been politicized to ally with other groups of workers, and the union would have been operating differently.

What is the material reality of life today?

Marxists, for all their historical materialism, aren't always working the numbers. A single person might require 9000 a year in rent, and another 1500 in food, and 500 in clothing... this is a meager life, but it's below minimum wage. Life in America is not about survival, but about the money spent beyond survival.

Likewise, class consciousness for the first $11k is implicit - if you make 11k, you're working class. The money above the 11k is what you use to purchase an identity. As long as there is affluence, it will be an impediment to class consciousness.

There is no evidence that grocery clerks are any more "middle class wanabes" than, say, water main repairers or assembly line workers. Almost everyone in the United States has been indoctrinated with the idea that we all belong to something called the "middle class." That idea is nonsense, and looking at the situation objectively grocery workers are and important segment of the US working class. Workers, remember, maintain not only the means of production but also the means of distribution. And if ever a group occupied a crucial sector of the means of distribution, that group is the grocery workers. They are not battling for frills, but for the right to medical care. If they are defeated it will be a massive defeat for the working class as a whole and for all residents of the US who do not belong to the economic elite. On the other hand, if they win it will be a massive victory over the corporate forces who are trying to roll back the gains that working people have made since the late 1940's and to restore a society in which most people are expected to go through life accepting the label of losers and failures and gratefully accepting whatever crumbs the rich let them have.

The issue of health care is interesting, because I don't think people feel an entitlement to health care. This is an impediment to class consciousness, in a big way. So many people are saying things like "well, I have to pay for mine, and they should for theirs", and "the cost just keps going up."

If people start thinking of health care as a right, and not a bonus, more people will start to identify as working class. That's because the "floor" for a working class income will go up, to around $14k for a single person, and a lot more for a parent.

Working class identity politics...

Many marxists, and many anarchists, often say "we are really working class." This often involves a shedding of another identity, of being "middle class." Back in the Industrial Revolution, this didn't happen; people in the working class knew it, because they were making just enough to make ends meet. Likewise, today, if you're in that situation, you know you are working class. But, many people who study marx or anarchy have a little more money than just enough to live on. (I'd guess around half do, in my experience. The other half are working class people.)

I think that the dominant politics today is identity politics. In the 80s and 90s, identity politics, especially gay and lesbian identity politics, but also race and feminism, took over from class politics of the 70s. Within the terrain of identity politics, the idea of "working class" becomes an identity.

That $14k floor of minimal existence is like a base upon which an individual would build his/her identity. Suppose someone makes $22k a year. A meager living. With the $8k above and beyond the bare existence, this person is buying some kind of identity. Most likely, it's a car.

It's also things like going out to dinner, hanging out, dating, watching movies, owning a TV, and so forth. What's interesting is that this last $8k will have more impact on a person's identity than the first $14k.

Moreover, suppose someone makes $30k a year. They'll have a $16k "bonus" they'll use to construct their identity. At that income, some people will consider themselves "middle class." Some may even call themselves "capitalists" if they are delusional enough.

The reason why people identify as middle class or even capitalist is due, partly, to a widespread propaganda campaign by the (true) capitalist class. I was flipping through some old magazines from the 1950s, and came across a great ad. It showed two hardhat construction workers eating lunch, with the caption (paraphrased), "these are American capitalists."

The ad went on to explain that stock brokers were making it possible for working people to practice "democratic capitalism" and enter the middle class. They were creating "capitalist" and "middle class" identities, and saying that you could buy into them simply by purchasing a little stock in some company.

Obviously, this is still happening today.

There is no equivalent for the construction of a working class identity. Marxists (and maybe some anarchists) would argue that it's not necessary, and that all that's required is to lose your illusions and see the truth that we are all working class. It sounds compelling, but, given that the most effect proponent of radical left politics in the past decade was Rage Against the Machine, a rock band... it's possible that their idea is wrong.

I have seen them do this over and over again. I really do wonder if they are really agents who are there to invalidate revolutionary work and spartacus too.

If they aren't then they are just ridiculous. Don't seem to know the difference between protesting injustice and just bothering people.