Anarchist Discussion Forums

by **Guest** » Tue Jul 03, 2001 10:12 pm

This is the thread for the "Anarchy after Leftism" discussion. Please see the ground rules on the web page if you have any questions.

by **Guest** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 12:52 am

Hi Chuck, Looks pretty lonely on this board. I think the problem is that Jason's article, which seems to serve as a manifesto for this discussion group, just doesn't have a whole lot of content to it. I've heard you in particular use the word "leftist" in a dismissive way in various forums with the apparent assumption that people know what you mean. They don't. The Left, such as it is, is big, broad, and amorphous. Sure, the authoritarian communists domminated it for a time, but that does not make "leftism" synonymous with authoritarian communism, nor does it make it synonymous with reformism either -- since they've dominated the left on and off as well. I do think of anarchism as being more of a methodology than a ideology, but it still does have ideological and political qualities, as well as ideological and political impact. And ideologically and politically, anarchism falls pretty firmly within the left. I don't see the point of "post-left anarchism" and you're going to have to provide a better explanation than Jason's article, I think, before anyone else sees the point of it either. In Constructive Solidarity, Shawn Ewald

by **Guest** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 8:10 am

Hi Chuck, After reading Jason's article again, further questions are presenting themselves (and I hope I'm still being constructive by raising them). I'm *really* having problems with it -- and I invite Jason to respond to this as well. The underlying message of his essay, really smacks of a creeping vangaurdism to me -- I'm sorry, but there's just no polite way for me to say what I'm getting at. Maybe it's Jason's style and tone in the article, but I think it may be more than just an asthetic issue that I'm having a problem with. Being anarchists, we all agree that anarchism (however we may define that term) is superior to any other ideology or methodology -- it would be pretty silly to call ourselves anarchists if we didn't believe this much about anarchism. Therefore, to imply that anarchism is beyond or outside "leftism" leads to a danger where anarchists might think, by being anarchists, that they *themselves* are not only outside of "leftism" but more evolved and more elightened than the left as a whole -- a la Marxist revolutionary vanguards. That's not a good thing. After all, is not Jason's article intended, in part, to be an argument that the left and "leftism" have held anarchism back or stunted its development, as it were? Is it not also intended, in part, to argue that: "Perhaps it's time, now that the ruins of the political left continue to implode, for anarchists to consider stepping out of its steadily disappearing shadow en masse. In fact, there's still a chance, if enough anarchists can dissociate themselves sufficiently from the myriad failures, purges and "betrayals" of leftism, that anarchists can finally stand on their own." These are very classic leftist arguments, it should be pointed out. Many a newly formed Trot splinter group have made similar justifications for their actions. The implications are not pleasant to think about. But let's take the argument on the face of it. Let's say I agree with all of Jason's points in favor of anarchism becoming a movement seperate from the left. What then? We're still very very small and in fact our growth has occured (as it always has) from *within* the left, not outside of it. How do we continue to grow? You state on the page that leads to this forum that "this is not an argument for abandoning working with leftists on projects, campaigns and activism", but one must enevitably come into conflict (in large and small ways) with the left if we conciously remove ourselves from the left as a movement. "Post-left anarchism" is inevitably an argument for putting anarchism in *contra-distinction* to the left, there's just no getting around that. And, in light of that, I can see nothing much of use to the anarchist movement coming out of such a proposition at this point in time, if ever. But I see much that is potentially destructive of the anarchist movement resulting from such a proposition if it were to be adopted by the anarchist movement as a whole. We are rapidly transforming the left *from within the left*, I think that is enough. We have too much to gain by remaining in the left where we belong (I'll be happy to explain why) and much to loose by leaving it. "Post-left anarchism" is certainly a thought provoking idea, but it is not useful in practice, I think. Solid, Shawn Ewald

by **Guest** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:43 pm

I know that this is a difficult idea to get ones head around, but I think it involves important questions that the anarchism and anarchist movement/networks face as we grow into the 20th century. I see the project of "post-Left anarchism" as a process of openly re-evaluating anarchism's relationship to the Left and Left activism. As an activist in the anti-capitalist movement, I more interested in the practical questions about who anarchists should and shouldn't work with. One of the things that I like about the idea of post-left anarchism is the suggestion that anarchism has grown enough that it can set its own agenda. This doesn't mean vanguardism, rather an end to the way that anarchism tails around the causes of the Left, which range from anti-imperialism to death penalty abolition to labor organizing. It's funny, because the shoe is on the other foot already. I hear that the RCP was trailing around the black bloc in San Diego. I wouldn't say that our recent growth has occurred "within" the Left, in fact, it has happened despite the Left. Remember that the Left was a non-presence at the Seattle protests, which was mostly organized by anarchists of other stripes. I think there is evidence that the anarchist movement in the U.S. has grown enough that we have the obligation to start envisioning our own goals and setting our own priorities. We should keep in mind that anarchism often happens outside of the "anarchist movement" and that we should encourage these tendencies as much as possible. At the same time, we need to critically examine the Left projects and campaigns that we have uncritically supported, like the Zapatistas in Mexico. Now I'm all for supporting these people and have no problem with anarchists who support them, but we must be clear about the fact that the Zapatistas are NOT anarchists, although they have strong libertarian tendencies. We should also be wary of signing onto Left anti-imperialist campaigns which excuse the brutal regimes and leaders who oppose the USA. We need to be more outspoken about this as anarchists. A recent example of this is the IAC's excuse-making for Slobodan Milosevic. An enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.

by **Guest** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 3:40 pm

Hi Chuck, What you're saying above just confirms for me that the left is being transformed from within, that we are setting the agenda of the left from within the left. Your statement about the left not being involved in Seattle is not accurate, unless you narrowly equate the left with the authoritarian left, which is also inaccurate. Instead of "post-left anarchism" what is actually happening is "post-marxist leftism" or "post-authoritarian leftism". About the Zapatistas, I'm not really interested in debating whether they are anarchists or not -- I don't believe they are or have ever claimed to be. I support the Zapatistas for simillar reasons that I support Italian Ya Basta! -- neither of these groups are anarchists, but what they are doing is clearly worth supporting. Shawn

by **Guest** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 4:08 pm

The Left is a generic opposition to capitalism. Leftism can also be called socialism, which takes numerous forms; from the left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party; through marxist and non-marxist social democracy; up to leninism; and beyond, into the realm of libertarian marxism. Most types of anarchism, insofar as anti-capitalism is the main criterion, can be included under the umbrella of Leftism. The libertarian variety of Leftism, however, is the smallest minority tendency. Leftist anarchists are content to work as a loyal opposition within a broader leftist current, seeing themselves as the most revolutionary (and perhaps the most misunderstood) tendency on the Left—the left of the Left. However, the vast majority of leftists have always been clear about their statist and authoritarian goals, which can only make antiauthoritarian agitation within leftist territory an irritant. Other anarchists think that a reevaluation of the leftist status of anarchism is long overdue, given the historic failures of authoritarian (and anarcho-) leftism. It is not that anarchists should abandon anti-capitalism; rather, anarchists should abandon their commitment to a political tendency that is no longer—if it ever was—relevant to furthering authentic human liberation. Leftists have consistently agitated for some kind of (mild or radical) restructuring of capitalist economic and social relations, and they are committed to having any and all restructuring take place under the auspices of the state. Whether this happens with workers having more input in production or a total expropriation of the means of production, or through improved parliamentary procedure or direct democracy, such an arrangement is seen as increasing justice—majority control equaling legitimate authority. Anarcho-leftists adhere to this line of argument; therefore many consider themselves extreme social democrats. Other anarchists (a small portion of leftist anarchists included), however, are much more interested in the abolition of all institutionalized forms of authority, “legitimate” or not. Leftist campaigns (for full employment, better access to health care, minority rights, police accountability, affirmative action, abolition of the death penalty, anti-imperialism, ad infinitum) are projects that can only be administered by a state. Abolishing government and the state (the goal of anarchism, remember?) necessitates a rejection of any campaign that is undertaken with the goal of rearranging or improving—and thereby strengthening—institutions of authority and social control. Anarchists need to be clear about what exactly we want and how we can best cooperate among ourselves (and afterwards with others) to promote the unique agenda of an explicitly anti-statist antiauthoritarianism. Setting an agenda of radical social transformation in anarchist terms is the point.

by **Guest** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 11:14 pm

dear chuck, To what i understand and have read on this matter(including the replies from our comrades), is that, as anarchist, the time has come to take the iniatives and 'expand' the movement and strengthening it. Being left of the left, we have seen(and should have learned from) the mistakes of the Lefts and not just spent time on that on academic debates alone. The power of the people have beaconed ever more, direct democracy seen its 'worth' again then its indirect counterpart. It is time, we anarchist, to get at the 'fresh new revolution'(durruti??)... Let us unite all these 'branches' of anarchism build the fresh new revolution. As for Zapatista, it is absurd to abandon them, just because of its ideals(marxism), forgeting the libertarian tendencies that they are practising. From this alone, we should strive not just to support but help strengthen this tendencies, help to build the people there througth the various libertarian methods and plans, that ensures the true humanist progress! Banners alone don't work.

by **Guest** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 10:29 pm

hi all i haven't considered myself a leftist or an anarchist for quite a while. i now just describe my political beliefs as communist or if pressed autonomist marxist. communist (not Communist) necessarily means being against the state. we need to be clear that the left, which includes some anarchists, is the left wing of capital. but at the same time anti-leftist anarchists should be prepared to recognise that it is not only anarchists who have rejected leftism but also various marxist currents, primarily autonomists and situationists. we seem to be seeing something of a convergence between anarchists and libertarian marxists lately but it would be a shame to see this convergence stopped by the dogmatic anti-marxism of some anti-leftist anarchists. BTW from my fairly limited reading of Anarchy magazine i get the feeling that they use leftist as a generic, loosely defined term of abuse directed against those anarchists who disagree with them. in solidarity pete

by **Guest** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 5:06 am

Support and work with the Italian Ya Basta?!!?? This is a perfect example of who we shouldn't work with. Not only do they run in elections (in order to "be where the decisions are made", in their words) but they have continually tried to suppress initiatives and actions that they can't control! How are anarchists supposed to work with groups that suppress their activities? This is exactly why we must continue to be critical of the left (the left-wing of capitalism), and this is exactly why we need to create our own projects.

by **Guest** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 5:52 am

I'm sorry, this makes no sense. Anarchists march with greens and other reformists and yet fly off the handle when libertarian marxists run for local office? What's the big shocker about libertarian marxists running for local office? As for Ya Basta! trying to control things, you'll have to substantiate that claim. Shawn

by **shawn** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 7:14 am

"The Left is a generic opposition to capitalism." That's about right, more or less. "The libertarian variety of Leftism, however, is the smallest minority tendency." That is quickly becoming less and less the case. If we're talking about the part of the Left that is actually relavant, then it's not the case at all. I happen to like the fact that the Left, such as it is, is generic and all over the map -- in case you hadn't noticed, anarchism is all over the map as well. We are not going to accomplish much by making abandoning the Left any kind of priority, in my opinion. Furthermore, what does it mean to make a movement that is divorced from the Left? It's an interesting thought expirement, but not really as useful as people think for the reasons I've stated above, which no one has adequately responded to. Shawn "Hey you big bully! Stop picking on that little bully." --Groucho Marx

by **Guest** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 3:52 pm

I thought that terms like "left" and "right" defined statism and the type of state one wanted to see. Since anarchism is anti-state, isn't anarchism outside of the realm of left and right as well? After all, though anarchists may agree with the left when they say that the state has no business putting people in prison, anarchists agree with the right when they say that the state has no business keeping guns out of our hands. The left-right dichotomy is strictly for statists, isn't it?

by **Guest** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 11:22 pm

i wasn't asking people to support Ya Basta and i'm not a supporter of them myself. while Ya Basta are certainly influenced by Italian autonomist marxism they have rejected a lot of it. the original italian autonomists (antonio negri, sergio bologna, mario tronti et al) did not completely break from leninism. however the english language autonomists who have been the biggest influence on me (Harry Cleaver, Aufheben magazine, Midnight Notes) are resolutely anti-party.

by **Guest** » Sun Jul 22, 2001 2:22 am

I actually would tend to give "anti-state communists" (councilists or Bordigaists attacked in Lenin's "Left-wing communism, infantile disorder" ) credit for the idea of left and right wings being the opposed to authentic revolutionary movement. Was it Bordiga who said "the left is the left-wing of capital" - anyway, I think it was one of those guys. Another good slogan from that time was "The struggle against fascism begins with the struggle against Bolshevism." So the idea of being opposed to left and right has a long history. Anyway, anarchism escaping the left is a cool thing. I'd just be bit skeptical whether anarchists are going far enough in doing this. That's one thing. But really, I'd disagree that the left is vanishing. Like unions, the left is shrinking but like unions it's unlikely to go away and might even get something of a new lease on life through the present activism. By the same token, there are going to always be leftist calling themselves anarchists. The question isn't whether the entire "movement" can escape leftism - it basically can't - the question is whether enough people can understand and escape leftism without dependence on the "anarchist movement." One of the weaknesses of the current anarchist effort to escape the left is that anarchist don't have much of a clear definition of the left they are escaping. So, I'd like to throw-in a text I wrote recently - it was published in Wolfi Landstriker's Willfull Disobeidiance as well my up-coming zine (ASAN #6). Perhaps it could help people to imagine an opposition to more than just the political or opposition to those who don't use the label anarchist. Activism in representational democracy is a big part of leftism. Though I don't focus on it, it's easy to see how this is an extension of leftist moralism. What Is A Militant? What is the left? Leftists altogether could be defined as the international association of specialists in oppression. From racism to sexism to agism to class-oppression to lookism to homophobia and so-forth, leftists study, quantity and aspire to own each different sort of oppression. A racial nationalist who presents him or herself as the only authority on the feelings, ideas andaspirations of black or hispanic people is one classic example of a leftist. A feminist academic who presents her or himself as the only authority on the feelings, ideas or aspirations of women also a classic leftist. As specialists in oppression, leftists act by noticing, intensifying and managing feelings of powerlessness. From welfare workers, to unionistst to national liberation armies, leftists seek to establish themselves as the sole representative of one or another type of oppression. They then sell their control of this oppression to the highest bidder. Professed feminists work in the child-protection -service agencies which terrorize poor families by stealing their children. The leftist militant gets their need for constant action from their cultivation of guilt. This need for action and cultivation of guilt soon over-whelms any consciousness of a larger purpose for their action. Soon, the domination of leftism, of guilt politics, becomes more important than any positive outcome of their activity. Since the leftist specializes in particular oppressions, their main tactic is spreading an awareness of the feelings of oppression. From Christian twelve step programs to Maoist “Criticism self-criticism sessions,” leftists cultivate a feeling of powerlessness to increase their influence. Because of this, the leftist work to increase dishonesty, fear and irrationalism. Secret or controlled meetings, and a controlled and stilted language are a natural way for leftists to impose they ideology. The gulags of Soviet “communism” are a good model of a fully developed leftism. For the abolition of capitalism, militantism and moralism. ---------------------- Also, Hopefully, I hope it's clear that I'm calling for mass struggle against all of capitalism as the alternative to leftism, rather than simply negating leftism while offering no alternative. ASAN www.webcom.com/maxang

by **Guest** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 4:27 pm

Ya Basta! is an uneven group (apparently having a lot of autonomy from each other based on city?). For every few denunciations coming from them concerning anarchists, there's one amazing statement about real solidarity: look at the response from the Wu Ming folks in Bologna (on the news site here under the Genoa stuff). As to the specifics of Shawn's attempt to link marching with electoral politics... it's no "big shocker" that marxists (libertarian or otherwise) would run for local office. Marxist principles don't stand in the way of using whatever tactics and strategies they might feel are appropriate for achieving their goals. Anarchists (at least the ones who know enough about the history of anarchist theory and practice) are opposed in principle to electoral politics. Anarchists are not opposed in principle to marching at demonstrations--even if they can't control who marches in the demo besides anarchists. This is almost a no-brainer, Shawn. If you think that the libertarian segment of the left is not the minority tendency, you'll have to provide some examples. I am referring to the history of the left from the time of the First International. In terms of being "divorced" from the left, it's more an issue of not hanging around where you're not wanted. The history of the left--including the recent events in Genoa--shows quite abundantly, if you listen carefully, that leninists still hate anarchists. I would agree that left and right are statist terms; and I agree that anti-state communists were probably the first to come out and say it that way. Anarchists by that time had become pretty inward in the early '20s and '30s. Further, I think that ASAN is right in saying that most anarchists don't really have a grasp on what left they are trying to get away from, which is another reason that left anarchists are quick to dismiss this discourse. I tried to make it clear exactly what left I was referring to in my original post here and in the essay I wrote for the post-left anarchy issue of Anarchy magazine.

Anarchist Discussion Forums

Anarchy after Leftism

Anarchy after Leftism

Re: Anarchy after Leftism

Still being constructive, I think.

Re: Still being constructive, I think.

Re: Still being constructive, I think.

post-left anarchy

Re: Anarchy after Leftism

Re: Anarchy after Leftism

Re: Still being constructive, I think.

Re: Still being constructive, I think.

Re: post-left anarchy

Re: post-left anarchy

Re: Still being constructive, I think.

Anarchism, The Left, And All That

ya basta!

Who is online