RE: Anarchists and Leninists

[ermadog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Craven, Jim wrote:
>
> And Joan Cameron wrote:
>
> My general impression is that North American popular culture is infected
> with a particularly virulent form of petty bourgeois individualism
> (there's that label again!)[snip]
>
> Response (Jim C): Personally I think Joan is on to something here. Being
> petit-bourgeois refers not to one's class or strata origins, but rather to
> one's present-day positon, interests, values, lifestyle and mindset. The
> typical anarchists, like the typical petit-bourgeois, are caught up, IMHO,
> in a whole culture of narcissism, instant-gratification,
> ultra/methodological individualism, theatrics = action, quantity = quality
> and immersion "in the moment".

Geez, Jim, I woulda said that if I'da thunk it. Now I'm jealous and have
to go off and sulk.

There, I'm done. I thought all Marxists knew this. People who insist on
seeing this dispute as some kind of generation gap just don't see the
point. I didn't like these people when I was their age and I don't like
them now. Not that I can't get along with them when we have common cause,
it's just that their whole outlook presents a very real barrier to
communication and I cannot assume full burden for communication that has
to go two ways.

I was basing my original remarks on impressions I have gained seeing
interviews of activists involved both in the Seattle demos and in Quebec.
These were not canned sound-bytes. I stayed glued to Avi Lewis's
Undercurrents on CBC during the Quebec demos and for a whole week after,
and observed many round table discussions with activists. I saw the same
anti-authoritarian attitude that I have been accustomed to seeing in
student activists throughout my life, and which Louis Pr. referrenced in
his discussion about the origins of the SDS. I also attented a meeting at
which anti-globalization documentaries were presented.

I have nowhere suggested that we have nothing to do with these people. I
don't see that these attitudes represented any hardened sectarianism,
impossible to overcome; these are just young kids playing with new toys -
new ideas picked up at university. Anyone with a tough skin, some common
sense, and a bit of sensitivity can talk to them (with persistence).

However, they certainly do seem to have some illusions as to what
democracy looks like. All their talk of "having no centre" sounds like the
same old "open discussions" I've seen in the New Left, the feminist
movement, the organic food co-op movement and so on. There's nothing
democratic about it: the people with the loudest voice, snappiest wit, or
biggest axe to grind dominate the meetings. They act in undeclared blocs,
operating behind the scenes along lines of personal ties, and then get all
moralistic about authoritarianism in more formal organisations. I've been
to a bazillion and three such meetings. My impressions were confirmed by
Phil Feguson's discussion of the anti-globalization meeting he attended
(and one other post).

For Mac to be unaware of the significance of these manifestations of petty
bourgeouis individualism, having worked much closer with these activists
than we, and for him to not recognize the differences between the Black
Bloc and other activists in this movement, caused me to wonder just how
closely he'd been observing the whole phenomenon. His demand that we
solidarize unconditionally with the whole kit and kaboodle was just
unrealistic.

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the whole discussion about the Black
Block was over the moment Louis Pr. pointed us to the manifesto of the
urban75 bloc, who boasted about their ability to escape from police,
leaving other activists to be gassed and clubbed by police, while at the
same time being not at all shy about fighting with parade marshalls, and,
furthermore, equating the "repression" by parade marshalls with repression
by the state (in Seattle).

Solidarizing with these people is entirely different from solidarizing
with the anti-globalization movement in general, and, as far as I'm
concerned, it's not actually on my agenda in the near future. As soon as
I develop a masochistic streak wide enough to accommodate these guys,
I'll let you know.

> Then we hear
> the stuff about TUBs and not wanting to be near any demos run by TUBs (are
> all the workers there also unworthy of attention and linking up with?; maybe
> they don't go near real workers because many of them lack the experience of
> having had a real job next to real workers and/or are wrapped up so much in
> their own rap and self-created personnas and therefore not able/willing to
> talk to--and more importantly listen to--real oppressed workers and other
> oppressed groups).

I come from the same petty bourgeouis background as some of these
anarchists and I know of the personal difficulty in adjusting to the
discipline of the workforce. It took me a lot of years to learn to "Stick
and stay and make it pay; and live to fight another day." But I don't
confuse my own personal experience with political understanding.

The workers I've hung out with most of my life - fishermen, longshoremen,
loggers, call-centre workers - don't have a lot of tolerance for
self-promotion, which is how they view the endless expounding that
students in general like to embark upon. This was the meaning of my
suggestion to Mac that he come down and organize my place of work, but to
leave his rhetoric behind. He'd have to learn to discuss, instead of to
expound in ultimatum.

I see from his 39k post last week that he continues in his confused
thinking. He seems mesmerized by the ability of the TUBs, as he calls
them, to strangle struggle a-borning. Nevertheless, this is where the
anti-globalization movement happens to be at the moment: in the unions,
the peace groups, the NGOs - in a movement much wider than the student
activists, and organized by non-revolutionaries. To develop a proper
orientation to these groups requires a critical analysis of the array of
forces involved - which means, in part, to recognize that the TUBs are by
no means a monolithic whole.

Ultimately, it means understanding this new phase that world capitalism is
in. If the whole house of cards is indeed as shaky as it appears, the
whole bogeyman of reformism will become impotent. Reformism requires time
to work its evil and it requires a deliberate allocation of resources to
buy-off schemes by the capitalists. Do they have much room to maneuver? If
the Black Block spent half as much time trying to answer this question as
they do smashing windows, we might be getting somewhere.

Joan Cameron