In “Who the Fuck is We?” some maladjusted anarchists ask why so many grad students seem desperate to stop striking and get back to work.

WHO THE FUCK IS WE ?
by some maladjusted anarchists

No need to couch it in the corny faux-social justiceTM language of ‘historic’ solidarity and unity, we get it: what you really want is to get back to your oh-so-important teaching and research. To return to the professional career path you were promised. Or ‘earned.’ You see the strike as a way to make that journey just a little bit more equitable. The overwhelming (as- troturfed?) enthusiasm around the (as of the writing of this piece) signed Tentative Agreement says it all. While you might be righteously outraged by the indignities of the ‘neoliberal university’--especially in regards to wages--and perhaps share a low-level commitment to disability and racial justice, you can just admit it. You want to return to work. The only question is: on what terms?

“The loud ‘or bust’ folks need to stop shaming their coworkers. We want to work. We love the deal.”1

Whether you’re an ethnic studies ‘scholar-activist’ teaching about late ‘60s militancy and anticolonial movements, an agricultural scientist working on the next GMO seed to flood the South Asian market, or an economist doing...whatever the fuck it is that economists do, chances are you see the teaching and/or research labor that you do as somehow more special and important that most other peoples’ jobs. Not just your work, but your voca- tion, your career. And of course this idealization of our positions as scholars and educators comes in an infinite variety of flavors indelibly riven with the fissures of race, class, legal status, and gender. There are real material and ideological differences in these positions that undergird their various responses to the strike. For the business unionists and their cronies, this strike is a last resort, a temporary, pragmatic exercise of symbolic power to bring the UC to the table to negotiate a new contract and settle contentions as quickly as possible (as evidenced by their current push for a TA ratifi- cation vote ASAP). For the ‘militant’ rank-and-file, the strike is an oppor- tunity to ‘democratize’ the union, the workplace, and transform relations of power in the University, perhaps with the long-term goal of eroding the power of the bosses and building the power of the ‘working class’, piece by piece, article by article. Either way, ultimately, our attention is turned to the inevitability of returning to work, under a set of more or less conciliatory con- ditions. Any horizons beyond the world of work remain but a dream, lost within a labor movement thoroughly disciplined by Capital.

But it bears repeating--as our friends titled an essay back in Novem- ber--there is nothing special about what we do. This point is more than just pithy polemics. It gets at the heart of a disjuncture; that gap between who we think we are (and the importance of what we do) and the roles we actu- ally play in the reproduction of racialized class society. That despite the fact that some of us might ‘love’ what we do, or see ourselves as ‘the good guys’ dedicated to a stately vocation of pedagogy and knowledge production, at the end of the day what we do is just another job like any other. And the unspo- ken truth is that going to work fucking sucks, even if you ‘like your job’ or whatever you tell yourself to get through the day. So why all the moralizing about wanting to go back?

“WHAT ABOUT SRS WHO HAVE STRUCK WORK HARMING THEIR OWN PROGRESS”2

The latent careerism in our movement has even expressed itself recently as scab apologia; as some argue, even the prospect of shunning or discour- aging various forms of ‘scabbing’ is a step too far. After all, as one of our esteemed ‘comrades’ urged recently on Twitter, grad school is “a time to develop your capacity in your career as much as it is a job to produce for your employer.” They argue that because of the threats of professional re- taliation and the potential impacts of neglecting ‘career defining’ research and connections, we should not shun our ‘comrades’ who cross the picket line--which is becoming more and more of a reality as the strike marches on. God forbid we invite ‘hostility’ into ‘our communities.’(Only a fucking grad student would be so corny as to talk about their programs/workplaces as ‘communities’).

“I cannot believe the nerve of some people denying just how life changing this would be.”3

We all do what we have to do to put food on the table, pay our rent, and provide for our loved ones. And sure, we do find some value in having a space to discuss colonialism, capitalism, race, etc. But it takes a special kind of tunnel vision to assume that the University is the ideal or only place to do that. In a climate of austerity and budget cuts, especially for ‘critical’ fields like ethnic studies, feminist studies, etc., it’s understandable why ostensibly ‘radical-minded’ folks would seek to retreat back into the ten- uous ‘safety’ of their siloed departments. When the production of theory, curricula, and journal articles stands in for actually acting on the irrecon- cilable demands of the movements that birthed said departments, there’s a certain level of recuperation at work. And that recuperation is lucrative. It makes careers, a rare thing in an increasingly austere and hostile Universi- ty. But we know where that road leads.

“People in my department WANT to return to work! Many departments already HAVE returned to work”4

We’re not saying that you shouldn’t enjoy sharing knowledge and learn- ing about the things you are passionate about. What we’re saying is that you’ve got to to stop confusing your fucking research interests, career goals, and class aspirations with something deeper. To stop operating with the pretension that revolutionary struggle can be waged merely through ‘education’ and ‘research’. Or that intellectual pursuits are somehow insulated from all the bullshit that keeps this world turning over. Even if you think the topics you discuss in class are just *so* ‘transformative,’ even if it pains you not be in the classroom ‘speaking truth to power’ and ‘raising consciousness,’ it bears repeating the late Gustavo Esteva’s reminder that pedagogy--even in its ‘critical’ forms--still functions as a mediator of an oppressive system that reproduces domination and hierarchy.5 This fetishi- zation of being a ‘radical’ teacher engaged in ‘revolutionary’ education serves to exceptionalize the classroom as the premier site of knowledge production, foreclosing the innumerable vernacular modes of reflection, study, struggle, and action within, beyond, and against these ‘ivory tower’ institutions of extraction and exploitation. The picket line, barricade, occupation, riot and other (albeit temporary) spaces of insurrectionary comoción, are crucial sites of knowledge production, relationship building, and learning. Without reck- oning with this, we are left with a particularly annoying form of self-indul- gent careerism billing itself as ‘liberatory’ and ‘student centered.’

“Don’t let labor relations mess up this deal we need it NOW”6

So what happens when the strike inevitably ends, and we’ve gained a new contract? We go back to the classroom. Or the lab. Or the ‘field.’ Slogging away again in our programs, content with our marginally better pay and our positions secured within the ‘safety’ of the University’s warm embrace. And then, ideally on to the greener pastures of overly paid tenure-track or nonacademic ‘industry’ employment. The temporary “poverty” of graduate student life is just a blip on the journey of an otherwise sure to be suc- cessful or lucrative career. That or a lifetime of precarious adjuncting and underemployment. We’re not here to tell you to not want that--a stable job with wages and benefits goes a long way in the fucked up world we live in. But if that’s our horizon, all “we” want, then “we” might not be in the same fight, and we have to stop trying to convince ourselves otherwise.

This isn’t some holier than thou wagging of the fingers--at the end of the day all we still work and study here right? We always have the option of leaving. But what an anti-work orientation7 offers those of us struggling against the University is illuminating the uncomfortable truths about the complete unexceptionality of the ‘work’ we actually do here. If what we do isn’t special or different, but rather the same alienated life activity as any other form of labor, then why are so many of us so loyal to our ‘vocations?’ It urges us to reject not just wages or conditions of the workplaces, but the very category of ‘work’ itself, the bleariness of the life it creates, which is inseparable from the relations and reproduction of the racial regime of capital.

We do not want to return to work. Not because we hate this job in particular, but because we hate all jobs. Not because we think our jobs as graduate students are exceptionally bad, but because we know they are not excep- tional at all, that they are just another form of exploitation like any other. We do not want to return to work because we want the end of the world of work and all its miseries, for ourselves and everyone else. Anything less, any potential contract IS already the concession, no matter the terms. So even after this strike ends, don’t just teach your students, commiserate, plot, study. Don’t just play your assigned role in your PI’s research, slack off, expropriate, scheme. Or don’t, just continue your assigned role as a productive and obedient scholar, educator, or researcher. But don’t pretend your work is more important than the strike itself.

You don’t have to identify with the work that you do. You really don’t.

It’s a road to nowhere. You’re just fucking playing yourself.

(but maybe that’s all most of us want anyway)

1 Zoom Chat, UAW SRU/2865 Bargaining Caucus meeting zoom chat, 12/15/22
2 Ibid.
3 Verbal comment, UAW SRU/2865 Bargaining Caucus, 12/15/22
4 Ibid.
5 Madhu Suri Prakash and Gustavo Esteva, “Escaping Education: Living as Learn- ing within Grassroots Cultures” British Journal of Educational Technology 39, no. 4 (2008): pp. 760-760,
6 Zoom Chat, UAW SRU/2865 Bargaining Caucus
7 See “But We Have to Do it Real Slow” by Noche

READ: https://bit.ly/WTFWE_read
PRINT: https://bit.ly/WTFWE_print

Formatted by Abolish the UC: abolishtheUC@protonmail.com

Comments

anon (not verified) Sun, 12/25/2022 - 11:43

this is an excellent rant. i also find it hilarious that the UC grad students are affiliated with the UAW. workers of the world, relax.

anon (not verified) Sun, 12/25/2022 - 13:31

The UC workers have the power to make things better for everyone else in American academia: they’re so big that they could force an actually good contract that can be used as a bargaining set point for other unions that aren’t as powerful.

Don’t fuck this up, UC workers. Workers around academia are watching you.

anon (not verified) Sun, 12/25/2022 - 15:36

In reply to by anon (not verified)

like other workerists, you seem to believe that negotiations and contracts for workplace docility are a good thing, that unions -- in this case, a notorious business union affiliated to the AFL-CIO -- are an inherently good thing. with one notable defunct exception (the wobblies from 1905-1929), no US union has ever been self-consciously pro-worker to the point of being combative, refusing to sign contracts, and calling for the expropriation of the property of the capitalists. a union-brokered settlement to this strike will guarantee wages and work hours and nothing else. if they're lucky, they'll settle for a shitty COLA agreement as well. there's no way whatever CBA the union members sign off on will be used as a bargaining chip for other unions. the whole point of negotiations is to make sure that never happens, and the union bureaucrats are completely on board with that. that's the devil's bargain the AFL and the CIO made in the 40s and 50s. if you knew anything about how unions have actually tamed and broken the class consciousness of American workers, you might alter your not very radical perspective a little. you might want to take a look at some zero-work writings as well.

anon (not verified) Mon, 12/26/2022 - 08:05

In reply to by anon (not verified)

also look at how the unions squashed the luddite insurrection in northern england, with disastrous consequences for the entire world over. i recommend 'who killed ned ludd?'* by JZ.

*(spoiler: it was trade unionists like OP)

Wayne Price (not verified) Tue, 12/27/2022 - 15:00

I cannot comment on the recent academic strike. But as a general thing, workers who have unions tend to have higher wages or salaries, better conditions and more benefits. This may not impress some high-thinking anarchists, but working people are not so cavalier.

Of course, unions by themselves cannot solve the problems of capitalism. Especially as the capitalist system sinks deeper into crises and decline. Is there anyone who thought they could?

Big business was mostly willing to make deals with the stronger unions, during the post-WWII period of prosperity. But now it has decided that, on balance, it is better off--richer--without unions. So it has driven down the unions, from a third of private employment to about 6%. Union organizing is fought tooth and nail. If unions were good for capitalism--or even neutral--business would not oppose them so bitterly these days.

Comrade Price (not verified) Tue, 12/27/2022 - 15:29

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

I cannot comment on the recent academic strike, although I would love to. But as a general thing, workers (the good people) who live under socialism tend to have higher wages or salaries, better conditions, more benefits like universal healthcare, subsidized higher education, and more stable housing. This may not impress some high-thinking anarchists, but working people are not so cavalier.

Of course, socialism by itself cannot solve the problems of capitalism. Especially as the capitalist system sinks deeper into crises and decline. Is there anyone who thought it could?

Big business was mostly willing to make deals with the socialist governments, during the post-cold war period of prosperity. But now it has decided that, on balance, it is better off--richer--to move business elsewhere. If socialism were good for capitalism--or even neutral--business would not oppose it so bitterly these days.

Wayne Price (not verified) Wed, 12/28/2022 - 19:46

In reply to by Comrade Price (not verified)

"Comrade Price" (chuckle) makes remarks satirizing my own, but your comments only make sense if by "socialism" you mean Stalinist-style countries whose official ideology was state socialism. In practice, such societies (USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, etc.) were what I would call state capitalist. I deny that USSR, etc., were in any way what Marx or Kropotkin regarded as "socialism" or "communism." I have always denied this, as long as I have been political.

anon (not verified) Tue, 12/27/2022 - 20:37

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Gotta say I'm disappointed in thecollective for deleting my prescient comment of a few days ago about Wayne and his pro-business union cheerleading that was a defining feature of Love & Rage and NEFAC.
Yes, everyone knows that having a union is qualitatively better than not working under a CBA, but only the stupidest so-called anarchists believe that business unions are radical or potentially radical formations. At best they are defensive outfits that fight to slow or stop the shitty proposals and policies of the bosses. Business unions -- and all legal unions are business unions -- have always and will always come down on the side of a continuation of capitalism. Elections monitored and mediated by the NLRB make sure of that, and Taft-Hartley insures that no real strike can ever spread beyond a few shops.
I'm glad I'm in a union but unlike the dopey workerists, I'm under no illusions that my shop stewards (not to mention the union bureaucrats) would be among the first to tell us to go back to work if we ever had the audacity to have a job action.
Last time I checked, revolutionary anarchists were for the definitive abolition of wage labor, the full expropriation of private property without compensation (and a realistic reckoning about the appropriateness of every fucking workshop and industry, with a healthy skepticism regarding their usefulness versus destructiveness), and the destruction of the state and all other institutions of government-- which includes the fucking unions.
Can't wait for more pearls of workerist and business union wisdom dropping from Wayne.

Wayne Price (not verified) Wed, 12/28/2022 - 19:52

In reply to by anon (not verified)

A few comments above, I wrote: "unions by themselves cannot solve the problems of capitalism. Especially as the capitalist system sinks deeper into crises and decline. Is there anyone who thought they could?" So Disappointed writes, "Wayne and his pro-business union cheerleading ... but only the stupidest so-called anarchists believe that business unions are radical or potentially radical formations"

Apparently Disappointed has a problem with reading comprehension. .

anon (not verified) Tue, 12/27/2022 - 20:40

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

"If unions were good for capitalism--or even neutral--business would not oppose them so bitterly these days."

Nice try Wayne. You can make the same argument for voting, and it still won't convince principled anarchists to engage in electoralism.

Wayne Price (not verified) Wed, 12/28/2022 - 20:03

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Does the capitalist class oppose elections, the way it opposes unions these days? True, the Republican party, backed by a significant sector of the bourgeoisie, is working hard to limit elections. But the Democrats, who have more support from big business these days (as evidenced by donations) is for expanding elections. So the class is torn. But also, as we saw during Trump's hapless coup attempt, big business and the establishment (including the top military and national police) did not want to end bourgeois constitutional democracy at this time. It is too efficient for their needs (again: at this time). Representative democracy helps the ruling class to settle disputes and make decisions, without a civil war. So they do not to end voting, which is good for them, overall--for now.

I support the legal right of everyone to vote. (The attack on voting rights is an attack on our limited freedoms.) But I do not advocate voting as a strategy. I do not support efforts to build a third, left, party. I do not urge others to vote. I do not vote myself. I have written on this many times.

anon (not verified) Thu, 12/29/2022 - 10:29

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Even taken out of context, this is self-serving as well as not very anarchist, and barely qualifies as socialist. The philosophical discourse and institutional practice of legality and rights are the cornerstones of the creation, maintenance, and extension of the state and government. Everyone knows this; real anarchists have written on this many times. In keeping with his right-wing socialism, Wayne *voluntarily* continues to support the state's ability to decide who gets to be a citizen and to keep tabs on them, whether through electoralism or militarism. Everyone knows this; he has written on this many times.

Wayne Price (not verified) Thu, 12/29/2022 - 15:12

In reply to by anon (not verified)

What is particularly pathetic here is the avidity with which anarchist comments drop serious discussion and debate. We were talking about whether unions are good for working people and should be supported by anarchists--while pointing to their limitations in dealing with capitalism. I would think this was an interesting and important topic. Other issues came up, such as anarchist views of elections.

Instead, this writer, like others, has two alternate responses: (1) an arcane and abstract appeal to "the philosophical discourse and institutional practice of legality and rights are the cornerstones of...the state and government." What the hell are you talking about? That you do not defend the bourgeois-democratic freedoms (limited as they are) of Black people against discrimination and second-class "citizenship"? That you did not support the fight of Black people in the Civil Rights and Black Liberation movement? Or the freedom of women to get abortions if they chose? I know you do not defend the freedom of Ukrainians to decide their own national fate when invaded! Anyway, you could have explained your views, but chose not to, referring vaguely to unknown "real anarchists."

(2) You resort to personal attacks on me. If I defend the right of everyone to vote, then, you claim, I "support the state's ability to decide who gets to be a citizen and to keep tabs on them," Naturally! (I thought I was *opposing* the right of the state to determine who should be a citizen.) If I defend my views, it is "self-serving." Of course! If I lay out an anti-electoralist statement, then I am for electoralism. What else? And somehow "militarism" gets thrown into the stew, although not a topic here. And of course, after I state that unions cannot solve the problems of capitalism, and that I oppose participation in elections, you cite my supposedly well-known "right-wing socialism." Which is a lie and a slander.

anon (not verified) Thu, 12/29/2022 - 17:05

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Then I guess I can expect a summons to small claims court where you will make your case that I've slandered you. Throw in a defamation of character while you're at it. You love bourgeois democratic rights (civil, electoral, medical) so much that I have to presume that you'll be happy to use the enforcement arm of the state to defend yours as well as your public reputation. By the way, your Leninism is showing: actual anarchists tend not to make such fine distinctions when discussing the oppressive nature of the state. I have yet to read at hear any reputable anarchist invoke bourgeois democracy as something that provides certain social safety nets and that therefore it is something to appreciate (presumably in contrast to bourgeois or military or religious dictatorship or corporate democracy or whatever other pointless category of distinction you prefer); but someone like you with your Trotskyist and neo-platformist past (but is it really in the past?) will happily toss around such weasel words as distractions from the inherently oppressive nature of the state. Maybe because somewhere in your imagination, you still want you and your leninoid friends to sit in the seats of power to implement your fake anarchist programs.

Wayne Price (not verified) Fri, 12/30/2022 - 13:05

In reply to by anon (not verified)

So, let's see: In this thread I have denounced state socialism, declared that unions cannot solve the problems of capitalism, stated that I do not believe in voting, setting up parties, or any other electoral strategy. From this, you conclude that I am a "right-wing socialist," a supporter of the state, who wants to "sit in the seats of power." This is pretty weird logic.

If I say that it is (obviously) better and more useful to live under bourgeois liberal democracy than under fascism or Stalinism, you announce that I am ignoring the evils of any kind of state. From your point of view, I don't see how you can be for an anti-fascist movement; anti-fascism focuses on fighting fascism rather than fighting all variants of statism. (But anarchists point to the connection between fascism and bourgeois democracy and we argue that liberal democracy cannot really defend against fascism in the long run).

To you my big crime is my supporting the freedom of everyone to vote if they want. Under Jim Crow, Black people did not vote. This was not because they were anarchists or anti-electoralists. It was because white supremacists prevented them, by law and by the Klan. I look forward to the day when most Black people decide for themselves not to follow the electorialist strategy--while they are free to make their own choice. But I was never on the side of the white supremacists who put obstacles in their way. Are you? I support all oppressed and marginalized groups (Blacks, women, immigrants, youth) in having all the "rights" and freedoms of everyone else in society. Do you? I do not counterpose the fight for greater freedom under this state to the fight for anarchism.

If you really think this is "right-wing socialism" then make the most of it!

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/31/2022 - 14:30

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I write that Black people should have the right to vote or not vote, as they please, despite white racists or current-day Republican vote suppression. But, as an anarchist, " I look forward to the day when most Black people decide for themselves not to follow the electorialist strategy--while they are free to make their own choice."

To which you interpret me as being authoritarian and telling people what to do. "Until that day I am glad we have {Wayne] to decide for us!" Typical corkscrew logic. I suppose you (who writes on an anarchist site and supposedly are an anarchist) have no opinion as to whether most Black people should decide for themselves not to follow electoralism?

anon (not verified) Fri, 12/30/2022 - 13:58

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

as many others have pointed out consistency and continually after ever time you post something accusatory and inflammatory, your logic (such as it is) is predicated on strict binaries. if anarchists refuse to take sides between bourgeois democrats (there you go with your trot category again) and fascists, if we refuse to participate in various legislative and state-sponsored/enforced campaigns for "rights" and "freedoms," then we cannot possibly support "all oppressed and marginalized groups." ever heard of Direct Action? that's when we do things for ourselves together without the mediation of the state and its agents. you do remember that not all of the Black folks involved in the civil rights struggle were focused on electoralism, right? but if any anarchist brings that up, you have already implied quite strongly that we are "on the side of white supremacists." fuck off with your vulgar dialectal bullshit.

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/31/2022 - 14:10

"Fuck off with your vulgar dialectical bullshit" is not a phrase I would have ever expected to run into. I wonder what you mean by it, aside from the fact that you disagree with me.

BTW, the biggest Direct Actions of the Civil Rights movement were around the "right" to shop wherever Black people wanted as well as the "right" to vote. I am not discussing whether anarchists would have joined these actions (a matter of tactics and priorities) but whether we would have supported these actions and been in solidarity with the demonstrators.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
W
K
V
&
)
Z
X
2
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.