This article is a discussion piece looking at the the centre-periphery model of class struggle presented in FARJ’s "Social Anarchism and Organisation" and De Jong’s "Some Remarks on the Libertarian Conception of Revolutionary Change". This article by one of our members will seek to unpack the centre-periphery model and discuss its relevance to class-struggle anarchists in so-called Australia.
Although the article explains that the metaphor isn’t meant to be literally geographical, I would add that at least in geographic terms there is a third set of people too far / difficult to exploit by the center that thus are mostly outside of the class struggle. This has been explained in the lesser known works of James C. Scott: “The Art of Not Being Governed”. Admittedly, such spaces get smaller and smaller (maybe Mars next?), but they are worth keeping in mind (and the book also is an important reminder of the millennia old and still continuing colonial Chinese empire).
Also, while the article already cautions against “third worldism”, I think it is worth emphasizing that people in the deep periphery might struggle against their exploitation by the center(s), but often lack the awareness (and disillusionment from active experience) of the negative impact capitalism has even on those near the top of the class struggle. Thus usually they still aspire to a western capitalist life-style, which as we now know can not be sustained due to global warming and other constraints on resources. The “working class” from reativey developed countries on the other hand, usually knows full well that the way forward can not be business as usual with them as the benefitters… but of course that also makes them more suspectable to zero-sum kind of fascist mind-sets.
I thought this centre periphery idea was about how close to capital one is.
However iirc, oppression is way more violent in the periphery.
difficult to exploit by the center that thus are mostly outside of the class struggle. This has been explained in the lesser known works of James C. Scott: “The Art of Not Being Governed”. Admittedly, such spaces get smaller and smaller (maybe Mars next?), but they are worth keeping in mind (and the book also is an important reminder of the millennia old and still continuing colonial Chinese empire).
Thanks for sharing.
Although the article explains that the metaphor isn’t meant to be literally geographical, I would add that at least in geographic terms there is a third set of people too far / difficult to exploit by the center that thus are mostly outside of the class struggle. This has been explained in the lesser known works of James C. Scott: “The Art of Not Being Governed”. Admittedly, such spaces get smaller and smaller (maybe Mars next?), but they are worth keeping in mind (and the book also is an important reminder of the millennia old and still continuing colonial Chinese empire).
Also, while the article already cautions against “third worldism”, I think it is worth emphasizing that people in the deep periphery might struggle against their exploitation by the center(s), but often lack the awareness (and disillusionment from active experience) of the negative impact capitalism has even on those near the top of the class struggle. Thus usually they still aspire to a western capitalist life-style, which as we now know can not be sustained due to global warming and other constraints on resources. The “working class” from reativey developed countries on the other hand, usually knows full well that the way forward can not be business as usual with them as the benefitters… but of course that also makes them more suspectable to zero-sum kind of fascist mind-sets.
I thought this centre periphery idea was about how close to capital one is. However iirc, oppression is way more violent in the periphery.
Is this like the TAZ idea ?
As in T.A.Z.?
No, I don’t think there is a direct relation.