AUT: Defending Anarchism

[Jamal Hannah <jah@xxxxxxx>]

This Message is a reply to L. Blisset's erlier message about anarchism.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 21:59:57 +0000
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jamal Hannah <jah@xxxxxxx>
Cc: anarchy-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

hello all

just a few comments... Feel free to forward.

<snip>

> Anarchism functions in different ways. On one level it is a rhetorical form
> embracing a range of minority political viewpoints each demanding the
> liberty to express themselves in the market place of political ideologies.

Not sure about this. Perhaps we should have a monopoly ideology? But I
imagine he means having no ideology as such, which I agree with. We
should have theories, not ideologies -- No fixed ideas (as Marx
borrowed from Stirner).

<snip>

>         However as people develop their politics, some drop out all
> together, others develop a more precise viewpoint and others remain
> 'anarchists'. As is common with many anarchists, on the one hand you want
> to defend brand @ anarchism from sectarian attack, at the same time as
> pretending @narchism is so diffuse that it has no ideology (whereas it is a
> cornucopia of ideologies).

Nice to know -- and having differing perspectives a BAD THING? No I
don't think so. While we do agree on certain basic positions, anarchism
should be diverse -- it is how it grows and develops.

Likewise as soon as the founding Fathers of
> @narchism are criticised, we are told that some anarchists don't like them
> anyway. Yet they continually pop up as icons of the history of @narchism.

Actually, what we say is that we are *not* person-ists (i.e. not
Bakuninists,
Proudhonites, whatever). We do not think them icons nor do we call
ourselves
after them. What we do is take what is useful and reject the crap. As
any movement should do. And the history of anarchism is about those who
called themselves anarchists and influenced the movement. Perhaps this
is a call to re-write history, writing out all those who do not meet
the exacting standards of the ideologically correct? How boring a
history that would be!

> Let us be clear, Bakunin with his 'invisible Dictatorship' was just
> authoritarian as Engels with his 'On Authority'. This is merely a
> difference in style.

well, I would say that Bakunin;s term has been misrepresented
continually
and is not as authoritarian as many make out. But that is another
story.

As for Proudhon he clearly has more in common with
> nazism than Leninism. Indeed much of his work is so embarassing that
> anarchists like Benjamin Tucker did not bother to translate it all.

How does he know this? Has he contacted Tucker from beyond the grave?

Whilst
> English workers faced destitution rather than work with confederate cotton,
> Proudhon was arguing for support of the confederacy.

Actually, he argued that the political structure of the confederacy was
better than the centralised Union. In the Principle of Federation he
stated that slavery was not compatible with federalism. Oh, and Bakunin
supported the North (like Marx). What does that imply for anarchism
other than the anarchists are human and say and so things other
anarchists
disagree with.

He was an anti-semite
> and white supremacists who idealised the soldier above any other
> profession.

Yes, he was an anti-semite (Marx was anti-slav -- why is that never
mentioned?). Not sure about the white supremacist bit. As for
"idealising the solider" -- thats probably a reference to War
and Peace, whose title Tolstoy used for his novel. Perhaps Blisset
forget to mention Proudhon's conservative turn in the 1850s when
this work was written?

> The fact of the matter is that most @narchists know as little about
> @narchism as they do about Marxism.

The same could be said of MArxists.

@narchism does not foster an inquiring
> mentality but a smug complacency whereby the @narchist can imagine
> themselves as part of a moral elite which has raised itself above the mass
> through an ill conceived notion of personal enlightenment.

actually, I've discovered quite the reverse. Perhaps Blisset is saying
that anarchists don't bother to read every work by people like Proudhon,
Bakunin, etc. Thats probably because they don't worship everything
they wrote -- they take what is useful and ignore the rest.

Of course many
> @narchist militants are not happy with this, and indeed start to transgress
> the boundaries of @narchism before breaking with it.

Usual patronising Marxist crap. The old "anarchists are anarchists
because
they are ignorant" line put forward by Bolsheviks in Spain to make them
feel better about being ignored by the working class.

<snip>

 The fact that only choose to respond that it is "sectarian
> and dogmatic to attack anarchism this way" when anyone criticises @narchism
> perhaps expresses the weakness in viewpoint more thananything else.

Perhaps if criticism's of anarchism are relevent (rather than attacks on
individual anarchists for being less than perfect) we would pay them
more
concern. After all, saying "Proudhon was an anti-semite" hardly is a
meaningful
critique of anarchism. Who would take "Rousseau was sexist" as a
critique of
democracy? Or "Marx was anti-slav and made racist comments" as a
critique of
Marxism?

But them again, thats the sort of level most marxists operate. And they
wonder
we don't take their comments seriously. Perhaps if Marxists were more
concerned with discussing anarchism rather than anarchists and did so
with
some concern for comradely debate rather than insulting anarchists, some
debate would be generated that would be worthwhile?

I get the impression Marxists judge us anarchists by their own
standards.
After all, being MARX-ists there have to worship the holy texts and
quote
the masters. Anarchists, in contrast, have their writers and we take
what
we find useful and reject the rest. With Proudhon, Bakunin, etc. we do
not worship everything they said or did -- rather we read them and take
what is relevent. Being anarchists and not Bakuninists (or whatever) we
can do that -- perhaps marxists are jealous of this freedom and wish
they could do the same with marx? But they cannot, being MARXists.
Little
wonder Marxist theory is so slow to adapt to new ideas and situations
(and those that do are a small minority and generally end up sounding
like anarchists -- not a coincidence).

Iain



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---