![Spunk Home Page](="https://j12.org/spunk/icons/sp_home.gif"){kind=icon}
![The Spunk Archive](="https://j12.org/spunk/icons/sp_strip.gif"){kind=icon}
![Subject Catalog](="https://j12.org/spunk/icons/sp_sub.gif"){kind=icon}
![Directory Catalog](="https://j12.org/spunk/icons/sp_dir.gif"){kind=icon}
![Up a level](="https://j12.org/spunk/icons/sp_up.gif"){kind=icon}
Our main aim in making this critique is to show that "new ways of organising" which stand a chance of at last moving us positively towards the "emancipation of the working class" depend on a substantial majority of the people, in whatever organisation is formed, first fully agreeing to the following:
(a) that the main enemy of the working class is not the non-existent hence never-defined "Ruling class" (or Boss Class, or Capitalist Class), but is the middle class - not individuals of it, or a section of it, but the middle class as a whole.
(b) that Capitalism is nothing more than an economic system originated and developed by middle class people to ensure and extend their power and domination over us. It is a system that will be ended when we expropriate the middle class.
We read the title of the Final Issue of Class War with considerable misgiving about the usefulness of what was to follow. Those who decided on the title LONG LIVE THE CLASS WAR must have done so whilst looking for some loose marbles. We do not wish long life to the class war. We want the working class to win as soon as possible - the sooner the better. So we want a 'short life" to the class war. However, some of what followed was better than this gaff lead us to expect, but not a lot.
Class War have faced up to the only too obvious fact that despite many decades of struggle and suffering through thousands of strikes, campaigns and demonstrations, as well as the continual daily grind and conflict whether in work or out, the working class is still a dominated class no nearer to real emancipation, to freedom, than ever we were - that therefore they and the so-called "revolutionaries" have failed.
So it's appropriate that (page 2) they call for "new ways of organising that can appeal to the whole working class, young and old, men and women, black and white."1 There are certainly a number of good bits in the Final Issue - for example, the useful and objective discussion about use of violence; their honesty about not knowing why Class War appealed to very few women and no blacks, and admitting they have no clear ideas how to reverse this (page 5); their discussion on revolution not being on the agenda at the present time is unquestionable - up to the point where they cite Capitalism as the reason why (page 6).
However, over the years we have published serious criticisms of Class War and all the other "revolutionaries". Class War have never replied. So when we heard about the wind up, and the Final Issue that would be an honest attempt to explain where they went wrong, we thought such honesty would compel them at last to answer these criticisms. But no - not a whisper.
Some of those involved in the production may not be aware of the criticisms. But others certainly are, and their continued silence does not give us full confidence in claims such as on page 3: "our intention is to be open and very honest."
No doubt this is true in parts. But there are parts where it is not, and the bottom of page 6 is one. It's some time since we"ve seen anything quite so muddled, falsified and contradictory as this attack on the pamphlet "educating who about what" published in 1996 - things like the accusation that it was published anonymously, when in every issue of Class War all articles were anonymous. It is typical sectarian slagging while at the same time claiming (page 4) "we always steer clear of sectarian slagging."
It's not that we ourselves have no criticisms of the pamphlet - and it's useful to mention one here because of its relevance to our critique of Class War. Whereas the pamphlet hits the nail squarely on the head with the statement that 'the anarchist approach to politics is absolutely flawed, irrelevant, outdated, invalid, and of no value to most working class people's lives," this is contradicted in other places where it refers to "anarchists" wonderful ideas," and says "We believe anarchism is valid and desirable."
This leads to our main criticism that the pamphlet has an underlying theme that if the working class are to at last free themselves, we need "real, genuine Anarchism" (unexplained, Ed), and not the bastard, phoney kind propagated by all those who call themselves Anarchists."
We are opposed to the use of the words Anarchist/Anarchism, and our reasons are, briefly, that for some time now "Anarchism" has not had any specific and clearly understood meaning - it's even questionable whether it ever had. There has not been, nor is there today, a single body of ideas and theories called "Anarchism." So it's understandable that groups calling themselves "Anarchist" rarely, if ever, define what it is.
Understandable too that although the words Anarchist/Anarchism appear 21 times in the Final Issue, it is never defined. Partly as a result of this, we find contradictions like where on page 7 they say "as we enter the 21st Century, there could be more support for Anarchist ideas than any of us have ever dreamed of," then a bit later (page 9) they fully agree with the American writer, Bob Black, when he says that "Anarchism as it is now, rather than being an attempt to change the world, is a highly specialised form of accommodation to it."
Perhaps one of the most powerful arguments for discontinuing the use of these words is the fact that most working class people (even the more politically-minded and militant among them) are deterred and turned off by the term "Anarchist" which, for them, has either no meaning, or just a distorted one.
Nevertheless, "educating who about what?" is the most accurate description of the moribund and politically sick state of those calling themselves "Anarchist Revolutionaries" since we first drew attention to the same malaise over ten years ago in our book "Know Your Enemy."
In the preamble to their attack on it ("educating who about what?") Class War know who are working class and who are middle class because they say "middle class people are involved" in Class War. What is particularly shocking is that they go on to clearly imply their belief in what we, years ago, condemned the Solidarity group for when they stated: "there can be no victorious revolution without a union between working class and middle class activists."
So if this really is their position, why don't they come out and openly say so instead of asking silly questions like "how do you know who's working class and who's middle class?" and "Do you have a class-based means test?"
And why do they later accuse the pamphlet's author of "making no attempt to define middle class or working class"? They obviously do know the difference or they wouldn't ask "How does Class War relate to middle class people who are committed and have proved themselves?"
Leaving aside the big questions of what "committed" and "proved themselves" mean, we must draw attention to what they go onto say: 'this problem has become an obsession with some people..." (Actually, as obsessions go, this might not be such a bad one to have.) However, they add that "it is a red herring we get tired of having to deal with." To dismiss the discussion of who the class enemy really is as an "obsession" and a "red herring" is bad enough, but it's also a discussion they"ve never seriously dealt with, and one which should have been given the greatest prominence in the Final Issue.
A statement on page 7 suggested they were getting near to agreeing with us: "Millions of working class people have just voted for Blair and his cronies. But how many really believe in them? How can you believe in something which is in effect a bunch of upwardly mobile middle class people who think themselves eminently qualified to run our lives for us?" We don't know how this bit managed to get past the censors, but it certainly supports what we"ve been saying for years - that, one way or another, the middle class run our lives.
However, our jubilation was short lived, for in the rest of the Final Issue they still say that the main enemy of the working class is a trinity of Capitalism, The Ruling Class, and The State. We put them in this order because Capitalism would appear to be the one they consider the most satanic - it is referred to as our enemy 39 times (The Ruling Class: 6 times - The State: 5 times). Examples are:
Page 4: "Our goal - a working class revolution that sweeps away Capitalism."
Page 8: "Our task is still one of getting rid of Capitalism."
Page 9: "Our goal is to bring an end to the global domination of Capitalism."
It's ridiculous, almost unbelievable, that we find ourselves again having to point out that Capitalism is not some kind of humanoid, or some devil incarnate, whom we should first religiously expend most energy trying to destroy. Surely they must know the unequivocal fact that Capitalism is nothing more than an economic system originated and developed by middle class people to enrich mainly themselves and extend their power and dominance. Obviously, this system will end when we expropriate the middle class.
The second member of the trinity, The Ruling Class, is referred to far less than is usual for Class War. One such is the slogan "Death to The Ruling Class" (page 16). The term "Ruling Class" is a Marxist one, though, paradoxically, not because Marx used it. One of the ways it came into the parlance of the "revolutionaries" was through the often quoted statement taken from the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels in 1848 - in German of course.
"Die herrschenden Ideen einer Zeit waren stets nur die Ideen der herrschenden Klasse." 2 The translators of the Manifesto for reproduction in English were always middle class, and always translated the word "herrschend" as ruling. Therefore, the statement has always appeared as:
"the ruling ideas of an age were always the ideas of the ruling class."
But the correct translation for the word "herrschend" is "dominant". So when correctly translated the statement reads:
"the dominant ideas of an age were always the ideas of the dominant class."
The dominant class was, and still is, the middle class. Therefore, by mistranslation, they were/are able to imply that their class were/are not the main enemy of the working class, but that it is a third, separate class of people - The Ruling Class - over whom they have no control.
This term to describe our enemy was taken up with some enthusiasm by the Left, including the so-called revolutionaries. Why? Part of the reason is similar to that of the translators: the middle class people among them (who, incidentally, dominated these organisations, and still do today) seized upon the misnomer, Ruling Class, because it enabled them, not just to alleviate their feelings of guilt, but to avoid naming their class as the main enemy of the working class.
Another part of the reason that a number of them habitually use the term: it has become jargon - a kind of left-wing vernacular. It doesn't seem even to occur to them that they should define this Ruling Class and say who they are. On the rare occasions when Class War felt pressed to do a bit of defining, they"ve come up with nonsense - like page 3 of the Final Issue, the Ruling Class is described as 'those such as James Goldsmith, Anita Roddick, Richard Branson and Cedric Brown.
Talking recently with a member of the SWP, he kept rabbiting on about the Ruling Class, so we asked him who the Ruling Class are in, for example, the nuclear power industry. He blanked out. Eventually, looking a bit glassy-eyed, he said he didn't know about the nuclear power industry, but they are people like James Goldsmith, Richard Branson, and Cedric Brown... Had he been reading Class war? Or did he get it from the Socialist Worker?
Correctly denouncing the Trotskyists for their destructive influence on the working class struggle, they say (page 7) "Maybe we can snatch Marx back from these worthless Leninist usurpers to make what use of him we can." We obviously agree, having done a bit with the Communist Manifesto. But we are certainly not any kind of Marxists - for KM said a number of things that were crap. However, some of what he said could be used by working class revolutionar ies. for example, in the Communist Manifesto, he refers many times to the middle class being the dominant class: that the working class must, through revolution, dispossess the middle class, expropriate their power and property. We certainly agree with that. But Class War doesn't!
In the Final Issue they refer to the middle class 28 times - but not once as our main enemy. In fact, very few of these references could be called even mildly critical. There's something seriously wrong here.
The third member of their trinity is 'the State." Like in all previous issues of Class War, they still call on us to 'smash The State" (page 16), yet without any explanation as to what The State is, what it comprises, what its true role is, and how you go about smashing it. So not surprising they get it wrong with statements like on page 3: "We"ve had 18 years of increasing attacks on the interests of working class people by the State..." It is not by the state! It is by the middle class! By them through their state.
The State is different from the other two members of the trinity in that it does have substance - several substances, in fact. It comprises, for example, the armed forces, police, prisons, the judiciary (judges, magistrates, courts, etc.) and the civil service. The State does not just appear from nowhere. In every country of the world, it is created. And it is always created and built up by the dominant class - the middle class. It is managed, controlled, and continually being maintained and strengthened by them for very specific reasons: to run things in a way that they believe ensures their continued dominant position in society.
True, the forces of The State have to be defeated. But that is something that will be synchronous with the fight to expropriate the middle class. That is to say, we shall not have to 'smash' /defeat The State first, then turn to settling the hash of the middle class. For whenever they fear themselves to be under attack from our class, they use one or more sections of The State against us. So when we do seriously threaten their power, their dominant position, when we begin actions that can lead to our freedom - revolutionary actions - the middle class will use all sections of The State against us, probably quite ruthlessly.
Some bits of this piece are OK, but it is marred by the kid-gloved way it deals with middle class people's role in the so-called feminist movement. Hence, the blame for the plight of working class women (the only ones that matter!) is laid on an abstract - the economic system, Capitalism.
"Capitalism's motto is: if you want to shell out less money and make more profits, employ women - they"re worth less." "Capitalism still pretends that women's wages are "pin money"." "One of Capitalism's strategies for reducing wages is to take what has traditionally been "man's work" - manufacturing etc. - automate the plant and then bring in unskilled women at a lower rate of pay." The statements only make sense if the word "Capitalism" is replaced by 'the middle class." The fight against male dominance is as important as the fight against middle class dominance. They must both be fought with equal ferocity. Yet on pages 13 - 14 there is no sign of this being understood.
In conclusion, we must emphasise some of the points already made. The big boast on page 16 is that, despite what is said in the Final Issue, their politics have not changed. Yet if "new ways of organising that can appeal to all working class people" is to have a chance of beginning a positive move forward on the road to freedom, a crucial change in politics is essential to put an end to the hitherto debilitating confusion that has brought our struggle to this impasse. It's this: at last to recognise and clearly name our true enemy.
How can we organise, in any way, to defeat an abstract - an economic system? How can we organise to defeat a non-existent class - the Ruling Class? The middle class is the enemy. Their domination of every activity in this society affects all of us. Our task is to curb and eventually end this domination. We do have some ideas about how - including "new ways of organising." But it would be a total waste of time discussing them with people whom Class War accuse (page 16) of 'spouting the same tired old shit", and who are not prepared to make this crucial change in politics.
We all need to discover who is prepared to make this change. To this end, we put forward three statements and urge all to agree with them.
But it is important that individuals and/or groups who do not agree with them, do what they"ve hitherto avoided: send in detailed counter-arguments. All of these can then be reproduced and circulated to all on the mailing list before the first full conference initiated by ex-members of Class War. At this conference, these three statements should be the first items on the agenda for discussion.
(1) The main enemy of the working class is not the non-existent hence never-defined Ruling Class (or Boss Class, or Capitalist Class), but is the middle class - not individuals of it, or sections of it, but the middle class as a whole.
(2) Capitalism is nothing more than an economic system originated and developed by middle class people for their material benefit, and to ensure and extend their power and dominance. It is a system that will be ended when we expropriate the middle class. (3) We must cease (a) calling ourselves Anarchists, and (b) all references to Anarchism. To continue to do so will ensure continued isolation from the very working class people we need to involve to at last begin a positive move towards freeing ourselves from the domination of the middle class. Address for sending counter-arguments: PO Box 3241, Saltley, Birmingham, B8 3DP.
Andy, Lee, Mark, Paul SPLAT Collective
1) Incidentally, we called for this over ten years ago in our book "Know Your Enemy" - to be re-published shortly.
2) Verlag Philipp Reclam jun. LEIPZIG
--
The Final issue of the Class War paper can be obtained from PO Box 3241, Saltley, Birmingham, B8 3DP The text from it can be found in the spunk archive (http://www.spunk.org)
The people who produced it issue a discussion bulletin called Smash Hits (Issue 1 October 1997; Issue 2 Spring 1998) which can be obtained from BM Box 5538, London, WC1N 3XX
They had a conference in Bradford on May 2-4 1998. Details from PO Box HH57, Leeds, LS8 5XG or http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/mayday98.html