Anarchist Discussion Forums

by **Guest** » Fri Jan 18, 2002 2:33 am

In a way, all words are abstractions, but I think it makes more sense to speak of individuals, in all their complex subjectivity, rather than some broad generalization like the "working class". I would much rather discuss people who work (and those who don't, or can't). As the editors at Anarchy point out, we suffer from oppression, alienation, domination, and hierarchy in all aspects of our lives, not just in the workplace, and not just as victims of capitalism. Furthermore, I feel uncomfortable with any talk of "mass consciousness", which I find vaguely authoritarian. As to various struggles going on in the world, economic issues are only one part of the picture, and not necessarily the most important. People are fighting on many fronts - for intellectual freedom, against sexism, racism, homophobia, on ecological issues, etc. No struggle is priveliged above others, and any one of them can lead an individual to a greater awareness of the totality of his or her oppression. By the way, Dogface, have you read the article, Post-Left Anarchy?, on which this discussion thread is based? It can be found at the following address: http://www.anarchymag.org/48/after_leftism.html. I would be interested in reading your analysis of it.

by **Guest** » Fri Jan 18, 2002 9:30 pm

Firstly do you think your feeling of uncomfortableness when people talk of “mass-consciousness” has any rational basis? Are there any reasons to find it ‘authoritarian’ albeit in a vague fashion. Clearly class-consciousness is a particular form of mass consciousness. As for economics, this is perhaps the least important issue to be dealt with. However as it forms the bedrock of struggles on other issues - for intellectual freedom, against sexism, racism, homophobia, on ecological issues – it clearly has to dealt with. Feminists have repeatedly pointed to the fact that women do more work than men, and the debate around housework has been particularly intense. In the seventies there was a book put out by Berlotti which looked at how more time is spent raising boys than girls. Likewise the centre of the struggle against racism continually returns to the fact that slavery, colonialism and imperialism had an economic motive. Certainly when I discussed this issue on the streets of Kingston Jamaica there was a clear understanding of this, as there was that it was economic motives, rather than humanitarian, which led to the abolition of slavery by the British Government. Perhaps it is one of history's curiosities that the British Army recruited a legion of African American slaves into the British Ethiopian Regiment with the promise of freedom. Nevertheless, this was part of its economic war against the Settler State. Of course it is impossible to understand how these events unfurl without understanding the economics. I am afraid I do not go along with this separation of economic from political struggles which ironically was championed by your Mr Lenin. The principle of capitalism is the extraction of surplus labour, which is why the working class organises at the point of production. For many women this has been in the home. Currently in Britain though there is a definite effort to force them out to work, particularly single mothers (i.e. mothers who do not do housework for men) who are being viciously attacked and having their benefits placed under attack. Also I can’t help thinking that in the face of the starvation which so many of the world’s working class face each day that it is a matter of urgency to prevent the resources which are being diverted from meeting even their most basic needs to the maintenance of over-development in the elite garrisons across the world. I hope I am not idiosyncratic about this. At the Hackney Anarchy Week a few years ago I met a person from Green Anarchist who was most upset at the prospect of Europeans dying of starvation but who saw it as quite normal that Africans should meet such a violent death. As for the text ‘Post-Left Anarchy’ it seems to be rooted in ignorance. Before Mr Rotten started his brilliant show-biz career, one of the principle points about anarcho-syndicalism was that it prevented middle-class people having a predominant role. It was a matter of working-class people organising together. At the same time however it often tended to exclude women. But yet when we look at history we find that it is women precisely who play such an important part in struggles; the women who organised the bread riots in Petrograd who were then backed up by the printers who refused to accept less pay for a full stop and a comma than for a proper letter. These decisions were made by working class people exercising a mass-consciousness – they were not directed by a Bolshevik political organisation. Nor were authoritarian rebels in the majority. This is why the Bolsheviks felt it so important to attack the factory committees immediately after they had seized control of the electricity generating stations – which was then to ensure them control of the productive apparatus. Far from the Russian Revolution being an example of significant permanence, the swiftness of the Bolshevik counter-revolution showed how a well organised cadre could place matters in the hands of the middle classes – who could transmute themselves into a ruling class just as the Samurai had in Japan. Anyway McQuinn is simply wrong when he talks about non heirarchical political currents being in a minority: i.e. when the Council communists left the German Communist Party they were in a majority. In fact they could only be supressed by violence and manipulation, eg: by the Freikorps in Germany, the Red Army in Kronstadt etc. (where Trotsky used Siberian troops who did not speak Russian rather than Russian speakers who could communicate more fluently with their class comrades). As for Bookchin’s municipalism, this is a retread of what Paul Brousse got up to in Switzerland after the collapse of the First International. This involved transforming society by seizing control of the local state at municipal level and then federating against centralised state power. In the US it moves into the area of states rights so favoured by Ezra pounds old buddy Eustace Mullins. I don’t know how old McQuinn might be, but I find it puzzling why he should be worrying about whether youth have a respectful attitude to anarchists or not. He then descends into a parody of identity politics leaving the reader to wonder if this is self-conscious or not. Perhaps he wants to be the Louis Farrakhan of anarchism, leading the encircled @ tribe out of the workers movement into the petit-bourgeois world of individualism. Suddenly from being part of the left, there is no enmity between anarchists and the left! In ‘Disarm Authority’ he has @narchist sophisticates who have rid themselves of ideology through some libertarian variant of Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola providing precisely the sort of political leadership apart from a society composed of people paralysed by the spectacle and its internalisation as their so-called character armour. For some reason mass organisations are seen as inevitably involving hierarchy and manipulation. He fails to see that it is precisely the ability of capitalism to mutate and follow trends which has enabled new social layers to emerge when a decadent ruling class shows that it has lost the ability to keep up with the developing productive forces. Let me pose a more interesting bottom line question: do anarchists want to participate with the rest of the working class in a revolutionary movement to challenge and finally do away with the capitalists system or would they prefer to be locked into a discourse community functioning as a political leadership in competition with all manner of Bolshevik splinter groups. I suspect that McQuinn will find it hard to surround himself with admiring youngsters by posing as a pole of regroupment for those individuals who favour the latter.

by **zarfling** » Sat Jan 19, 2002 12:27 am

when someone offers two choices, i usually opt for the third.

by **Guest** » Sat Jan 19, 2002 9:50 am

And what would that third choice be? Dog Face

by **zarfling** » Sat Jan 19, 2002 7:07 pm

there are many more options than the two you seem to think are the only ones. that is what i mean. many anarchists are already part of the working class so there would be no need to join them further. engaging in discourse is not something totally seperate from fomenting revolution, as you seem to imply. --zarfling

by **Guest** » Sat Jan 19, 2002 7:17 pm

It is not that I think there are only two choices, but that I posed an alternative to what McQuinn posed: "The bottom-line question is, can anarchists do better outside the left-from a position of explicit and uncompromising critique, than those who have chosen to inhabit the left have done from within?" What I am suggesting is that defining a political movement by a specific discourse is quite different from engaging in discourse which of course goes on amongst a social movement understood in terms of its social base. I am also suggesting that what McQuinn calls for is to draw anarchists away from class concerns in a similar way that Bolshevik and Social Democrat organisatioins do, whereby party loyalty takes over from class solidarity. I think that when there is an upsurge in class struggle this is hard, but should the struggle decline nostalgia can make such a prospect more enticing.

by **zarfling** » Sat Jan 19, 2002 8:05 pm

i don't think McQuinn is saying that anarchists should move away from class concerns in favor of a sort of party. i think he is saying that anarchists should embrace anarchist principles more fully, rather than chasing after the reforms of the various left groups. following principles one ostensibly agrees with is not the same as following party dogma. if one doesn't believe in non-hierarchy, the abolition of the state, getting rid of all oppressions, then why call oneself an anarchist? if one does believe in those things, why would one work with groups that don't share those beliefs? i think the argument is; the left eventually wants power, and will get in whatever way they can even to the point of screwing their allies. anarchists want to do away with power. the goals of leftists and anarchists are very different, and since it has become apparent that leftists will sell us out, why continue working with them? (in anything but a short term project and with extreeme caution).

by **Guest** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 2:35 pm

I agree with Dogface’s assertion that the campaign for “anarchy after leftism” is a smokescreen designed to conceal another agenda. After all, what does “anarchy after leftism” mean for political practice? Advocates of “anarchy after leftism” identify only one practical implication: that anarchists should not work with authoritarian parties such as the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Worker’s Party (etc.). This is hardly a compelling point (and, besides, who argues that anarchist SHOULD work with these types?). And why single out Marxist Leninists? Shouldn’t anarchists also avoid Moonies, members of the Christian right, and those who believe strongly in life on mars? The political emptiness of “anarchy after leftism” is enough to make one wonder, but does it at least have a coherent theoretical identity? Its advocates falter even on this count. For example, Lawrence mentions that the idea of the left is an inheritance from the French Revolution (which is true), during which the term ‘left’ signified a position within the national parliament (also true). From this he argues that anarchism and the left have nothing in common because anarchism is by definition anti-parliamentarian and the left is by definition parliamentarian. But how can there be a “post-left anarchism” if anarchism has always been beyond the left? (And, if the term ‘left’ only signifies a parliamentarian position, what distinguishes the left from the right, given that the right also participated in the national parliament?) These contradictions arise simply “anarchy after leftism” conceals another agenda, as pointed out by Dogface. However, I disagree with Dogface’s claim that “anarchy after leftism” is an attempt to sneak in the right wing content. Dogface mentions people like Bob Black and the Unabomber, but I don’t think they are rightwingers so much as members of the lunatic fringe. Bob Black has no political ideas that I am aware of and his only goal seems to be offending people he thinks are important. And of course the Unabomber is nuts. I find both characters totally reprehensible, but I do not believe either are ideologically committed to the right. The “Anarchy after leftism” banner conceals a more sustained attempt to influence the debate over the meaning of anarchism that has been ongoing in North America (and elsewhere) since anarchism re-entered political life in the 1970’s/1980’s. The “anarchy after leftism”/Anarchy Magazine crowd are not worried that anarchists will work too closely with Marxist-Leninists (this danger doesn’t exist): what they want to do is separate anarchism from its roots in socialism and, specifically, to destroy the idea that anarchists have a responsibility to formulate a coherent program for anti-authoritarian social reconstruction. They know that if anarchists abandon this responsibility that the ‘movement’ can remain a marginal sub-culture focused on cultivating quasi-religious states of conscious, such as those mentioned by Dogface in an earlier post (this is why they like Zerzan and his silly messianic posturing, Vanegiem and his focus on subjectivity, and people like the Unabomber who they think represents the sign of a new dawn). And, if the anarchist movement remains a marginal subculture, they think there will be an audience that wants to read a bunch of middle-aged, white men droll on about their “subjectivity”, “arming their desire”, and fantasies of animality. I think the debate over the nature of a contemporary anarchism has advanced in recent years, although the Anarchy Magazine types have convinced many there are only two options: a syndicalism dragged out of the 19th century and their mystical subculturalism. This is a false choice and one presented to serve their polemical interests. It is possible to fight for a cooperative, egalitarian society without embracing alternatives that have faded into history. In any case, I think the anarchist movement can make significant advances if it rejects the ploys of the Anarchy Magazine crowd and makes it clear that it really wants to change the world and works to do so. Chuck Morse Mexico City

by **zarfling** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 5:40 pm

" But how can there be a “post-left anarchism” if anarchism has always been beyond the left? " ---------- some anarchists have always seen anarchism as beyond the left. some have thought anarchism part of the left. that's how. ---------- "After all, what does “anarchy after leftism” mean for political practice? Advocates of “anarchy after leftism” identify only one practical implication: that anarchists should not work with authoritarian parties such as the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Worker’s Party (etc.)." ---------- it is not just that anarchists should not work with authoritarians. it's about not latching onto the whole reformist agenda and thus diluting the anarchist project. why work for ending police brutality when we could be working to end police as a whole? ----------- "what they want to do is separate anarchism from its roots in socialism"... ---------- where is this stated??? that is not anything i read in any of the writing on post-left anarchy. cite your source for this assertion! ---------- "and, specifically, to destroy the idea that anarchists have a responsibility to formulate a coherent program for anti-authoritarian social reconstruction." ----------- (oh boy where to begin with this) responsibility to whom? coherent? why coherent? anti-authoritarian social reconstruction? what about anarchist social construction? are anarchists supposed to be the vanguard, is that what you mean by responsibility? and i ask again, responsiblity to whom? i know what my vision is, but what the reality would be is open until the time comes to actually form it. having a plan, coherent and set in stone, is only an opening to vanguardism and hierarchical structures. ---------- "They know that if anarchists abandon this responsibility that the ‘movement’ can remain a marginal sub-culture focused on cultivating quasi-religious states of conscious, " -------- do you really think this is what anarchist want for themselves?! i should just give up now trying to communicate with you if you seriously think this is true. there are always those who will read into things whatever they want regardless of what a particular text actually says. oh well. --zarfling

by **Guest** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 7:18 pm

Hi zarfling, I asked: " But how can there be a “post-left anarchism” if anarchism has always been beyond the left?" And you replied: “some anarchists have always seen anarchism as beyond the left. some have thought anarchism part of the left. that's how.” You’re just proving my point: it’s not that advocates of “anarchy after leftism” want a “post-left anarchism” but rather a different type of anarchism altogether. This is what I said (and why I pointed out that it doesn’t make sense that they use the terms “post-left anarchism” or “anarchy after leftism”). Now, what would constitute this new type of anarchism? Presumably it would be defined itself by those ‘anarchists’ you site who “have always seen anarchism as beyond the left.” Who are these unnamed anarchists? Of course the only “anarchists” in the tradition’s history that have "seen anarchism as beyond the left” are the anarcho-capitalists and the individualists. And, in fact, they were not particularly concerned about the left: they were anti-socialist. + I pointed out that “Advocates of “anarchy after leftism” identify only one practical implication: that anarchists should not work with authoritarian parties such as the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Worker’s Party (etc.)." And you respond by saying “it is not just that anarchists should not work with authoritarians. it's about not latching onto the whole reformist agenda and thus diluting the anarchist project. why work for ending police brutality when we could be working to end police as a whole?” You just proving my point again: what exactly does this mean in practice? You haven’t specified anything. + what are my sources for this assertion: "what they want to do is separate anarchism from its roots in socialism"... I responded to this above a bit, there are also various writings where the advocates define themselves as individualists, egoists, etc. This can also be deduced from an analysis of their polemics and strategies. + I wrote "and, specifically, to destroy the idea that anarchists have a responsibility to formulate a coherent program for anti-authoritarian social reconstruction." You reply: “(oh boy where to begin with this) responsibility to whom? coherent? why coherent? anti-authoritarian social reconstruction? what about anarchist social construction? are anarchists supposed to be the vanguard, is that what you mean by responsibility? and i ask again, responsiblity to whom? i know what my vision is, but what the reality would be is open until the time comes to actually form it. having a plan, coherent and set in stone, is only an opening to vanguardism and hierarchical structures.” If you believe that a cooperative, stateless, and egalitarian society would be more just and free, then you have a responsibility to yourself and your fellow humans to fight for it. If you are believe racism is wrong, you have a responsibility to fight it. --------- I wrote: "They know that if anarchists abandon this responsibility that the ‘movement’ can remain a marginal sub-culture focused on cultivating quasi-religious states of conscious, " and you reply “do you really think this is what anarchist want for themselves?! i should just give up now trying to communicate with you if you seriously think this is true.” I am not making a claim about all anarchists, just the “Anarchy after leftism”/Anarchy Magazine crowd, and you haven’t refuted this claim. Just read the magazine if you're not sure: what do you think Zerzan is trying to do? Why do you think they republished Vanegeim’s whole book on subjectivity, etc. What do you think this whole thing about “character armor” and “critical consciousness” is really about? Sincerely, Chuck Morse

by **Guest** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 9:46 pm

I question the nature of belief. Just because someone says they are an anarchist does that mean they don't want power. McQuinn is quite candid about wanting to be well regarded by youngsters, wanting to be inspirational - well as far as I can see that is a desire for power. Not the power of working class people as a collective force confronting capital, but a more patriarchal power which demands that young people respect an ideologically defined group of role models. Perhaps people call themselves anarchists because they think its cool. But just as with any other political group trying to sell themselves, they will find that most working class people are skeptical about this. Afterall it is better to look at peoples track record than what they say about themselves. What evidence is there IN PRACTICE that anarchists want to get rid of all these oppressions. e.g. they frequently hold meetings in pubs which do not allow children or their carers to attend. Dog Face

by **Guest** » Sun Jan 20, 2002 10:41 pm

“Mass” consciousness is a concept that readily lends itself to a totalitarian interpretation; a group of people with a collective consciousness seems to surrender, to some extent, the individuality of its members, and becomes more easily manipulable. Human beings are often at their worst behavior when acting as a crowd or a mob. One excellent example of this that I have seen lately is this vulgar effusion of patriotic jingoism that has taken hold in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks. I suppose that one could argue for a more charitable interpretation of mass consciousness in terms of a feeling of working-class solidarity, or a shared sense of purpose; but the fact remains that this sense of solidarity is not an objective fact, but an entirely subjective emotion experienced by individuals, each of whom will feel it to a different degree, and draw different conclusions from it. Clearly, you are right to say that class-consciousness is a particular form of mass consciousness. My own position on this subject is idiosyncratic, as far as I can tell. First, let’s agree on a definition of the “working class”. Is it merely people who work? Well, most people work for a living in one way or another. How about people who work, but do not have any supervisory or managerial duties? Still too broad, since this would include highly-paid professional athletes and other professional people. How about wage-earners, as opposed to anyone on a salary? Are we getting closer to a viable definition? What about people who work for cash, or people who are unable to work for one reason or another? So, let’s say, for now, that the working class includes factory workers, farm workers, clerical workers, domestic servants, people in various trades, etc. These are some of the people who would suffer the most from capitalism. Obviously, working-class consciousness is not something that arises spontaneously in all these people, or else we would have overthrown capitalism a long time ago. Ideally, this working-class consciousness is something that will be developed in the course of worker struggles, but it is far from certain that this will happen in any given case. It seems that the majority of workers are content with bettering their economic status, and have little interest in overthrowing the State or capitalism. Or am I wrong to think that working –class consciousness is necessarily revolutionary? In fact, I’ve met plenty of working people who are downright reactionary, but I try not to generalize. The different struggles going on in the world – in the workplace, on issues of gender and sexuality, racism, the environment, etc. – all tend to give the people involved a particular sense of solidarity, one that can easily cut across class lines, thus making the concept of working-class consciousness less useful for for developing a comprehensive social critique. If you get the sense that I’m pontificating on this, the truth is that I’m “struggling” to make my ideas take some kind of definite shape, so I welcome any thoughtful criticism. Now, I flatly disagree with your opinion of the fundamental importance of economic issues in relation to the various types of social movements I mentioned above, and I didn’t get this from Lenin, as you implied. There are problems with hierarchy, domination, and coercive behavior of various kinds in our world that long pre-date capitalism, and will not automatically disappear along with it. It’s perfectly valid to point out the economic aspects of racial and sexual inequality, but this does nothing to explain why people have racist or misogynistic attitudes in the first place. Each of these different kinds of struggles is important in its own right, and should not be forced into some kind of artificial conceptual framework based on a partial, economic interpretation. In no way am I suggesting that we should not treat basic economic issues like working conditions and pay, housing, medical care, and malnutrition with a sense of urgency; I am only saying that we must not allow ourselves to think that these are the only issues that matter, or that they somehow take precedence over the others. The second part of your post was a little less coherent. I’m not really sure what Johnny Rotten, Ignatius Loyola, or Louis Farrakhan have to do with anything we’ve been discussing, except give you an opportunity to exercise your rhetorical skills; and as for Murray Bookchin, McQuinn clearly has as little use for him as you do. Your suggestion that McQuinn or the other writers at Anarchy magazine are trying to create some kind of cult of anarchist “sophisticates” is absurd, and merits no further comment. Finally, as to your “bottom-line” question, which mimics the one that McQuinn posed at the end of “Post-Left Anarchy?”, the “choice” you offer me is clearly not a real choice at all. The revolution, as I envision it, will go far beyond any narrow working-class ideology, and will embrace all aspects of our lives. Care to join me?

by **zarfling** » Mon Jan 21, 2002 1:05 am

chuck, perhaps what i should have said is that some anarchists have thought that working on the leftist agenda is the way to go and some anarchists have thought that the leftist agenda is just reformism and not worth persuing in the long run. i think that for the most part anarchists have known that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is just another form of power, and not really liberatory. most anarchists, if pushed, will know that the leftist agenda is just another quagmire, but they don't know what else to do. the post-left discussion is about opening up the critique, to allow that there is more to anarchism than extreeme leftism. i would disagree that "the only “anarchists” in the tradition’s history that have "seen anarchism as beyond the left” are the anarcho-capitalists and the individualists." i'm reading Bookchin's book on the anarchists in Spain and it is clear that they were against mere reformism, even to the point of being against worker's cooperatives because cooperatives only make capitalism more palatable. and they were not individualists or anarcho-capitalists (whatever the hell that is). (just a slight contradiction in terms there). "You just proving my point again: what exactly does this mean in practice? You haven’t specified anything." yes i have; end police, not just police brutality. how one could do this should not be discussed in a forum like this, for obvious reasons. my point is that leftists call for ending police brutality, do they succeed? not really. anarchists should call for ending police, will we succeed in that, i hope we will, but it probably won't be tomorrow. the point should be what one advocates, not the short term success of the project. the point is that as anarchists we should at least be advocating for an anarchist agenda, not petitioning the state for mere reforms. working on electoral politics, identity politics, reformism etc. that is leftist. anarchists have a different vision. "What do you think this whole thing about “character armor” and “critical consciousness” is really about?" i think this discussion is about liberation. if you don't see how thinking critically can be of help in the liberatory project, what does liberation really mean to you? if you don't see how personal psychology fits into the picture what is liberation? it is all of a piece. some of us see liberation as more than just owning our workplace and being able to decide which pothole gets fixed this week. oppression is more than not having control over the surplus value of one's labor. oppression is more than not having enoiugh to eat. i have read AJODA, each issue since #17. i think Zerzan is trying to broaden the scope of what we see as oppression. one does not have to agree with everything he says to understand that looking critically at everything is a valuable exercise. just to take at face value what this fucked up culture hands us is to lose the battle before it starts. the only way to topple this system is to attack it's underpinnings, how can you do that if you are unwilling to look at what holds up the system? --zarfling

by **Guest** » Mon Jan 21, 2002 10:57 pm

Hi Zarfling, I don’t think you’re seeing the extent to which the Anarchy Magazine crowd uses the “anarchy after leftism” campaign to render anarchism sub-cultural and, more generally, to attack the socialist roots of anarchism. For example, you argue that petitioning the state for reforms is the cardinal definition of leftism. I don’t think this is a good definition of the left but, regardless, who has ever argued that anarchists SHOULD petition the state for reforms? I can’t think of anyone –certainly not any anarchists - and I’m pretty sure you’d be hard pressed to come up with any but the most marginal examples. So, then, who is Anarchy Magazine crowd polemicizing against? The immediate object of their campaign is Murray Bookchin, whom they have attacked on countless occasions. And of course the phrase ‘Anarchy after Leftism’ is also the title of Bob Black’s book against Bookchin. Their campaign against Bookchin and Black’s work appeared after the publication of Bookchin’s Lifestyle or Social Anarchism. In Lifestyle of Social Anarchism Bookchin argued that anarchists must fight for genuine social reconstruction and criticized anarchists for a turn towards private, sub-cultural concerns. Anarchy Magazine object to this and thus began their campaign against Bookchin. But their desire to make anarchism sub-cultural is also why they publish Zerzan, who is utterly contradictory. If Zerzan really believed in his own views (against language and technology) he would stop writing. But Zerzan’s views also have no political implications, outside of some apocalyptic collapse. This is also why they celebrate terrorists such as the Unabomber: that is, because terrorism is totally destructive and a dead end politically. Put differently, if anarchists embrace theoretical positions that are absurd and incapable of being realized in practice (Zerzan) or political strategies that will never realize anarchist ideals (terror), what will anarchists have? A politically impotent sub-culture. I just want to make one final point. Your distinction between fighting police brutality and fighting to end the police is still not concrete. You’re really talking about ideals – a world without police – rather than a social form you want to realize. It’s a little like saying “we’re fighting for freedom”: this sounds good, but you also need to spell out what you mean by “freedom” and how you intend to realize it. Obviously ideals and values are good, but anarchists need to specify exactly what kinds of social relationships they want to create. Ok, that’s all. Chuck

by **Guest** » Tue Jan 22, 2002 12:24 am

Forgive me for barging into your discussion with zarfling, Chuck, but I found this exchange very interesting, and just wanted to make some brief points: (1) In your first post, you stated that the danger of anarchists collaborating with Marxist-Leninists doesn't exist. Well, I have seen this happen time and time again over the last few years here in Chicago, and it is still going on. They collaborate on anti-war issues, anti-racism, police brutality, Mumia Abu Jamal, and so on. Any time an anarchist questions this policy of collaboration with authoritarian leftists, he or she is accused of being sectarian. (2) You still have not answered zarfling's challenge to prove your assertion that the writers at Anarchy magazine are trying to "separate anarchism from its roots in socialism". (3) In your second post, you said the following: "If you believe that a cooperative, stateless, and egalitarian society would be more just and free, then you have a responsibility to yourself and your fellow humans to fight for it. If you are believe racism is wrong, you have a responsibility to fight it." So what is your point here? What makes you think that the people at Anarchy aren't doing exactly that? Do you have any proof that they aren't? (4) As for your claim that Anarchy's goal is to create a marginal sub-culture, how exactly do you arrive at that conclusion? Simply because they publish Zerzan? As to the Unabomber, there is hardly a consensus of opinion on him among Anarchy writers, as far as I have been able to tell. Therefore your claim that Anarchy promotes terrorism is way off base. As you may have noticed, they publish a variety of articles, including reviews of anarchist literature and periodicals, and updates on various anarchist movements and actions around the world. (5) You keep insisting that anarchists "spell out" exactly what kind of society they want to create, as if they hadn't already made it clear enough. We are anti-capitalist, opposed to hierarchy and domination in any form - economic, political, or otherwise - and believe in a society based on egalitarianism and mutual aid, without any kind of coercive social institutions such as government, police, etc. What part of that is unclear to you? If you are insisting on some kind of blueprint for what a future free society would look like, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what anarchism is all about. It is clear that you object to Anarchy magazine's attempt to extend their social critique beyond capitalism and the State. zarfling put it very well in his last post: "i think this discussion is about liberation. if you don't see how thinking critically can be of help in the liberatory project, what does liberation really mean to you? if you don't see how personal psychology fits into the picture what is liberation? it is all of a piece. some of us see liberation as more than just owning our workplace and being able to decide which pothole gets fixed this week. oppression is more than not having control over the surplus value of one's labor. oppression is more than not having enoiugh to eat. i have read AJODA, each issue since #17. i think Zerzan is trying to broaden the scope of what we see as oppression. one does not have to agree with everything he says to understand that looking critically at everything is a valuable exercise. just to take at face value what this fucked up culture hands us is to lose the battle before it starts. the only way to topple this system is to attack it's underpinnings, how can you do that if you are unwilling to look at what holds up the system? "

Anarchist Discussion Forums

Anarchy after Leftism

Class Consciousness

Re: Class Consciousness

Re: Class Consciousness

Re: Class Consciousness

Re: third choice

Re: third choice

Re: third choice

Re: Anarchism and Leftism

Re: Anarchism and Leftism

Re: Anarchism and Leftism

Re: third choice

Beyond Class Consciousness

Re: Anarchism and Leftism

Re: Anarchism and Leftism

Re: Anarchism and Leftism

Who is online