I've moved to something bigger, better, brighter, shinier, newer...
You are being redirected to http://anarchafairy.wordpress.com/
It seems to be better for blogging and such. I've moved all the posts over.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Clarifying the Creative
Allow me a brief clarification:There are many who prioritise "creative" resistance, but do so by confusing creative with artistic.
Protests that involve the making of puppets, colourful banners, street theatre or pinata are artistic, but they are not creative. Indeed, these protests are wholly predictable, with a set of rituals and roles just like most other protests.
Creative refers those those things "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas". In relation to protests, this would describe scenarios that involve new or innovative tactics, thus offering the hope of getting passed hurdles that have previously been stumbling blocks.
And now back to our normal programme.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Anarcho-Charity, Mutual Aid and Food not Bombs
It's a classic recruiting tactic. The Black Panther Party in the U.S. would give out free lunches to poor kids and as a result built considerable community support. Hezbollah, too, clearly gained popular sympathy through their welfare-type services in the South of Lebanon. And here in New Zealand Destiny Church has been using the provision of similar services to bolster their position and recruit new members.
The provision of social services has even found support amongst anarchists in Aotearoa. At the 2004 anarchist conference in Christchurch there was much talk about providing social services for poor areas of New Zealand in an effort to compete with the likes of Destiny Church. The expansion of Food Not Bombs, especially, was discussed.
"Anarcho-charity", however, is not the same as mutual aid. Mutual aid is a form of social organisation whereby people voluntarily come together to meet their own individual and collective needs based upon reciprocity. This last aspect is critical. Reciprocity encourages egalitarian relations, self-acitivity and genuine solidarity. Charity, on the other hand, creates relationships akin to that of a child to its parents, based on dependency at the expense of their own self-organisation, self-activity and solidarity.
The welfare state is a classic example of this and is renowned for smothering or integrating grassroots forms of mutual aid organisation within its State institutions, whether these be health co-ops, unions, or workers education associations. In New Zealand and elsewhere this top-down provision of services has worked to destabilise and dismantle anarchistic initiatives.
The widespread advocacy of initiatives like Food not Bombs is a curious development and needs to be properly examined. Food not Bombs arose in the early 1980s in the U.S. as part of a rejection of corporate and State spending on military expenses rather than social services. They began handing out free vegan food to the homeless and poor made from dumpstered food from around the city. In addition to the anti-militaristic and pro-welfare perspective, the tactic went onto also illustrate the waste involved in normal capitalist relations.
The rhetoric sounds painfully social democratic but it varies greatly depending on the local Food Not Bombs chapter. Here in New Zealand I've never seen any literature like this so painfully social democratic at an FnB stall; instead they are usually used for general anti-war literature.
But it isn't the literature that makes FnB a poor tactic. It's the form of this tactic in itself. Principally, it isn't based on mutual aid. While there are occasional efforts to get those who are eating to help out, it is mostly a one-sided exchange: take your food and take your literature. It isn't essentially different to the Christian stall that was in town yesterday: free bibles with your free hot dog.
FnB is not based on reciprocity, self-organisation or self-activity. Rather it maintains the split between organisers and eaters and does not encourage solidarity or the collective action of those receiving the free food. It is largely a charitable service whose apparent radical-ness is derived from the fact that it survives off the waste of Western capitalism and distributes radical literature.
Perhaps most importantly, while as a survival tactic it is necessary, it exists within the cracks of capitalism and hardly works to challenge the property relations that are the cause of the poverty we find ourselves in today. Distributing dumpstered food is a far cry from organising against slum lords, self-reduction campaigns or proletarian shopping, for example. As far as I can see, it offers no scope for revolutionary change.
Update
I should stress that there is a world of difference between State welfare/services and services provided by members of one class to members of that same class. Nonetheless, I do believe this does not encourage revolutionary tendencies when it is organised in a service model, rather than a participatory model.
The provision of social services has even found support amongst anarchists in Aotearoa. At the 2004 anarchist conference in Christchurch there was much talk about providing social services for poor areas of New Zealand in an effort to compete with the likes of Destiny Church. The expansion of Food Not Bombs, especially, was discussed.
"Anarcho-charity", however, is not the same as mutual aid. Mutual aid is a form of social organisation whereby people voluntarily come together to meet their own individual and collective needs based upon reciprocity. This last aspect is critical. Reciprocity encourages egalitarian relations, self-acitivity and genuine solidarity. Charity, on the other hand, creates relationships akin to that of a child to its parents, based on dependency at the expense of their own self-organisation, self-activity and solidarity.
The welfare state is a classic example of this and is renowned for smothering or integrating grassroots forms of mutual aid organisation within its State institutions, whether these be health co-ops, unions, or workers education associations. In New Zealand and elsewhere this top-down provision of services has worked to destabilise and dismantle anarchistic initiatives.
The widespread advocacy of initiatives like Food not Bombs is a curious development and needs to be properly examined. Food not Bombs arose in the early 1980s in the U.S. as part of a rejection of corporate and State spending on military expenses rather than social services. They began handing out free vegan food to the homeless and poor made from dumpstered food from around the city. In addition to the anti-militaristic and pro-welfare perspective, the tactic went onto also illustrate the waste involved in normal capitalist relations.
The rhetoric sounds painfully social democratic but it varies greatly depending on the local Food Not Bombs chapter. Here in New Zealand I've never seen any literature like this so painfully social democratic at an FnB stall; instead they are usually used for general anti-war literature.
But it isn't the literature that makes FnB a poor tactic. It's the form of this tactic in itself. Principally, it isn't based on mutual aid. While there are occasional efforts to get those who are eating to help out, it is mostly a one-sided exchange: take your food and take your literature. It isn't essentially different to the Christian stall that was in town yesterday: free bibles with your free hot dog.
FnB is not based on reciprocity, self-organisation or self-activity. Rather it maintains the split between organisers and eaters and does not encourage solidarity or the collective action of those receiving the free food. It is largely a charitable service whose apparent radical-ness is derived from the fact that it survives off the waste of Western capitalism and distributes radical literature.
Perhaps most importantly, while as a survival tactic it is necessary, it exists within the cracks of capitalism and hardly works to challenge the property relations that are the cause of the poverty we find ourselves in today. Distributing dumpstered food is a far cry from organising against slum lords, self-reduction campaigns or proletarian shopping, for example. As far as I can see, it offers no scope for revolutionary change.
"Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification.
Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf."
— As We See It
Update
I should stress that there is a world of difference between State welfare/services and services provided by members of one class to members of that same class. Nonetheless, I do believe this does not encourage revolutionary tendencies when it is organised in a service model, rather than a participatory model.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Quote of the Day
"Socialist Worker have often reminded me of a kid with a new toy — until it breaks or they get a better one."
(From a friend with regards to their recent fascination with Venezuela, and now also Bolivia)
(From a friend with regards to their recent fascination with Venezuela, and now also Bolivia)
Psychopathic Fantasies: My Top 10
Being the psychopathic sick fuck that I am, I thought it would be amusing to design a social system that would be the most delightfully tortuous way of life I can imagine. These are the top 10 traumatising rules I came up with for my social system that I think I will call, oh I don't know, shall we say capitalism.- Those who work the hardest and in the most treacherous conditions will also be forced to live in the most poverty, and those who perform the safest jobs with the least exertion will have access to unparalleled riches.
- Legions of the poor will live in prisons and still others will be systematically executed in death chambers. The rich will freely travel the globe.
- There'll be enough food to feed everyone in the world, but a large portion of this food will be destroyed, some will have access to more food than they can eat and the rest will starve to death by the thousands each day.
- The poorest will fight and die in wars of no interest to them, and the richest will never hear a gunshot yet reap the rewards.
- People will be forced onto the street to freeze to death while empty apartments will be defended from would-be squatters.
- People will be forced to endure great hunger and simultaneously be forced to marvel at the sight of tasty delights out-of-reach behind thin glass windows.
- New automated production technologies will promise workers untold riches but then turn on them and force them into unemployment.
- People will either be unemployed, poor and unable to find enough work, or employed and working themselves into an early grave. There shall be no in-betweenness.
- The richest will destroy the planet, but the poorest will starve and die as a result.
- If you don't like these rules then its straight to jail. Don't pass go, don't collect $200.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The Bolivarian Farce and the Anarchist Opposition
It seems many Socialists are getting very wet at the recent news of Venezuela being renamed and the apparent shift left by Chavez. Indeed, Socialist Worker in their last issue of Unity devoted their entire issue to the "Bolivarian Revolution", waxing lyrical over the messianic figure of Chavez.
Since Chavez was re-elected once again for another 6 year term this last week, he has announced that he intends to nationalise the telecommunications industry, the electrical companies, abolish the commercial code which regulates economic transactions and end the independence of Venezuela's central bank. This last change apparently requires Chavez to apply for increased executive powers to the National Assembly which he controls anyway.
But this "revolution" is nothing more than an alternative capitalist arrangement. The strengthening of state power, the nationalisation of industries and the boosting of welfare infrastructure (schools, health, unemployment support, etc.) represents little more than welfare capitalism. Or as the Venezualan anarchist organisation the Comisión de Relaciones Anarquistas (CRA) put it:
The classic anarchist opposition to a "workers' state" was summed up well by the CNT just prior to the Spanish Revolution: "dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship without the proletariat and against them" (from the Confederal Conception of Libertarian Communism). The anarchist revolutionary aims of decentralisation, self-management, free association and the genuine socialisation of property are not only quite different to any notion of a workers state, but are actively opposed.
Of course, as with any class society the separation between rich and poor remains intact and the property of the national bourgeoisie in Venezuela is not threatened:
The main anarchist group in Venezuela, the CRA, continue to oppose both the faux-socialism of Chavez as well as the right through projects such as their national paper, El Libetario.
Since Chavez was re-elected once again for another 6 year term this last week, he has announced that he intends to nationalise the telecommunications industry, the electrical companies, abolish the commercial code which regulates economic transactions and end the independence of Venezuela's central bank. This last change apparently requires Chavez to apply for increased executive powers to the National Assembly which he controls anyway.
But this "revolution" is nothing more than an alternative capitalist arrangement. The strengthening of state power, the nationalisation of industries and the boosting of welfare infrastructure (schools, health, unemployment support, etc.) represents little more than welfare capitalism. Or as the Venezualan anarchist organisation the Comisión de Relaciones Anarquistas (CRA) put it:
...no doubt the Chavez regime tries to impose state control mechanisms everywhere, but being such a corrupt and inept government, blinded by thinking that is building solid popular support turning part of the poorest people into clients dependent on the state’s dole, it’s going to cost them plenty to make any advances in that contradictory chimera that it calls “XXI Century Socialism”, which is nothing but an underdeveloped capitalism of the XIX Century. *Poverty will likely be reduced, and a basic quality of life will increase, but the day to day reality for most people will be completely unchanged: they will still be subject to wage slavery, subject to the dictates of bosses or government bureaucracies, still faced with the eternal threat of poverty, harassed by the forces of the State, and rendered just as impotent as ever as to the creation of their own lives and the direction of their communities.
The classic anarchist opposition to a "workers' state" was summed up well by the CNT just prior to the Spanish Revolution: "dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship without the proletariat and against them" (from the Confederal Conception of Libertarian Communism). The anarchist revolutionary aims of decentralisation, self-management, free association and the genuine socialisation of property are not only quite different to any notion of a workers state, but are actively opposed.
Of course, as with any class society the separation between rich and poor remains intact and the property of the national bourgeoisie in Venezuela is not threatened:
...property rights and the structure of the economy remain intact, largely because the government does not want to impede its revenue, prompting relief from the elite and grumbles from the radical left who want greater redistribution of resources. *And with Venezuela's nationalisation the national bourgeoisie have in fact become richer, quite content with Chavez's changes. From an on-the-ground report:
The fruits were on display at a Caracas expo of luxury vehicles and speedboats. Staff at six stands interviewed by the Guardian all said business had never been so good.
"It's ironic, this revolution. The rich are even richer now," said Rene Diaz, who was selling Humvee-type 4x4s which cost up to $150,000. *
The main anarchist group in Venezuela, the CRA, continue to oppose both the faux-socialism of Chavez as well as the right through projects such as their national paper, El Libetario.
They see themselves as participants in a tri-polar struggle of their own, and have long positioned themselves in opposition to both the Chavez regime and to the US-backed opposition, borrowing the phrase popularized in Argentina in recent years: Que se vayan todos!, which translates roughly as Get rid of all of them! *However, despite feeling that the anarchist movement there is undergoing a resurgence not felt in decades they still only occupy a marginal position and are absent from many key sectors of social struggle.
The Violence of Compulsory Heterosexuality
Hearing about the death of Stanley Waipouri has made me pretty upset. It seems quite likely now that he died at the hands of straight-but-not-so-straight men who sought to re-establish their heterosexuality through the ultimate act of killing a sexual deviant. At his funeral a friend recalled that he "had a thing for straight men", which could get him into trouble.
This is the most extreme form of compulsory heterosexuality that, I assure you, is particularly widespread in New Zealand. It ranges from the psychological oppression of the moralists, those that would attack you verbally, social isolation growing up and in school, the media, etc., to the more physical oppression of bullying, being beaten, shoved and tripped up in school hallways, chased down urban streets at night, and in the worst cases killed.
I remember how the only guy at my high school to come out, in 4th form, was abused and beaten and quickly forced to drop out. This was a lesson for me. I learnt not only to behave as if I were straight for fear of this abuse, but I also learnt, just like every straight boy at that school, to police other people's sexuality for instances of anything remotely deviant.
The story of Jeff Whittington, especially, was the first and most terrifying instance of violence against gays I remember, and taught me the risk of being gay in a straight society. He was murdered only a couple of km from where I am right now, in fact, on the 8th May 1999. Jeff, who apparently looked a bit too gay, was picked up by two guys at a local petrol station under the pretext of giving him a ride home. Instead, they drove him to a secluded area and proceeded to punch him and kick him in the head, stomping on his head at least once. They later went home and bragged that they had "fucked up a faggot and left him for dead" and that "the faggot was bleeding out of places I have never seen before". Jeff later died in hospital from brain swelling and perforations to his bowel. His attackers thought he was 20 (and thus it was OK?) but when they later learned he was only 14 years old they turned themselves in.
This is one of the more extreme cases, but I can think of at least five murders since that have been motivated by sexuality and literally hundreds of instances of unreported low-level violence that happens everyday. This is the violence of compulsory heterosexuality.
This is the most extreme form of compulsory heterosexuality that, I assure you, is particularly widespread in New Zealand. It ranges from the psychological oppression of the moralists, those that would attack you verbally, social isolation growing up and in school, the media, etc., to the more physical oppression of bullying, being beaten, shoved and tripped up in school hallways, chased down urban streets at night, and in the worst cases killed.
I remember how the only guy at my high school to come out, in 4th form, was abused and beaten and quickly forced to drop out. This was a lesson for me. I learnt not only to behave as if I were straight for fear of this abuse, but I also learnt, just like every straight boy at that school, to police other people's sexuality for instances of anything remotely deviant.
The story of Jeff Whittington, especially, was the first and most terrifying instance of violence against gays I remember, and taught me the risk of being gay in a straight society. He was murdered only a couple of km from where I am right now, in fact, on the 8th May 1999. Jeff, who apparently looked a bit too gay, was picked up by two guys at a local petrol station under the pretext of giving him a ride home. Instead, they drove him to a secluded area and proceeded to punch him and kick him in the head, stomping on his head at least once. They later went home and bragged that they had "fucked up a faggot and left him for dead" and that "the faggot was bleeding out of places I have never seen before". Jeff later died in hospital from brain swelling and perforations to his bowel. His attackers thought he was 20 (and thus it was OK?) but when they later learned he was only 14 years old they turned themselves in.
This is one of the more extreme cases, but I can think of at least five murders since that have been motivated by sexuality and literally hundreds of instances of unreported low-level violence that happens everyday. This is the violence of compulsory heterosexuality.
Homo-hatred Alive and Well in NZ: Gay Man Murdered
Little reported in the media, this murder in Palmerston North last week was in fact of a gay man, and rumour is that it is yet another instance of the most extreme form of homo-hatred that is all too common in New Zealand (I refuse to use the word homophobia — it is NOT about fear).
I'll report more if I find out.
I'll report more if I find out.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
The Liberalism of Cop Watch, and an Alternative
This is the beginning of the documentary Cop Watch: These Streets are Watching (available via bittorrent — I'll be seeding for a week or so). Cop Watch grew out of the defence of homeless people in a number of American cities against police harassment by monitoring, documenting and filming any and all police interactions with the public. Protected by various American constitutional rights to observe and film the police, Cop Watch aims to ensure that the police stick to the law and to provide footage for defence of those arrested in court.
Radical Youth, in their latest issue of Outraged also advocated the use of Cop Watch here in Aotearoa, and it got me thinking about how useful this tactic actually is. Cop Watch certainly reduces the worst extremes of police brutality. The law allows them to get away with a lot of legitimate violence. It does, however, provide limited constraints on this violence and it seems that, based on the U.S. example, filming and documenting police behaviour makes them more likely to limit themselves just to legitimised violence. Cop Watch is also important in the way it encourages tendencies of community cohesiveness and organisation in opposition to the forces of the State. Grassroots and community organisation is important in any revolutionary project that aims at the eventual eclipse of this form of organisation over State-based organisation and direction from above. The fact that this form of organisation is in opposition to the State works well to crystallise notions of class division and opposes any perceived alignment of the interests of community and the State.
The tactic, however, is also seriously limited. It is, after all, merely attempting to get police to obey the law — laws which only serve the interests of the powerful and still allow for the legitimate violence of the police, breaking of pickets, abuse of protesters, harassment of the poor and Maori... I could go on. Cop Watch is at best a defence against the worst exigencies of the State. Equally as important, the discourse Cop Watch is part of is thoroughly liberal: it is rights-based, legalistic, assumes the law is essentially good, legitimises legal police violence, legitimises the justice system and seeks only a reformed State (a la the liberal utopia).
And watching the video, I really don't think I could merely video police violence without actually trying to do something to stop it.
The Polynesian Panthers had a variation on Cop Watch which I think overcomes these problems: they documented the police, but not to force them to adhere to the law, rather so that they could fight back. When police were carrying out early morning raids to seize immigrants deemed illegal, the Polynesian Panthers would react by carrying out early morning raids on the homes of police officers responsible. These tactics are in opposition to liberal discourses and recognise that even the legitimate violence of the State must be abolished.
Aboriginal Rebellion Seeks Justice
Reminiscent of the events of Redfurn, Australian filth (aka police) in Queensland seized and kidnapped a 22 year old Aborigine who later "fell ill" while imprisoned. Members of the Aboriginal community rose up and sought to free the man first from the police station and later from the health clinic to which he was moved. Unfortunately, they proved unsuccessful, only trashing a couple of police cars.
The state has now declared a 2km radius around the police station an "emergency zone", a softer version of martial law by the sounds of it, which gives police powers to commandeer resources, exclude people from the area (I assume this means anyone looking a bit too black) and various other "extra powers".
The Australian media, however, having only last week made the transition from velcro to grown-up shoes, couldn't quite figure out what might have prompted the attempt at popular justice ("riot").
In other news, Guantanamo prison is only the tip of the iceberg with 400 of an estimated 14,000 prisoners held by the U.S., the U.S. made a precision strike in Somalia killing only 27 innocent people this time, and here in NZ the class war continues as landlords (and the government) seek to publicly shame "bad" tenants through a new website.
This last bit is especially annoying personally as friends are currently being kicked out of their house because the bourgeois scum — sorry, landlord — is seeking to renovate the place so he can charge higher rent. Of course, the law is hardly any defence, giving my friends only a slight reprieve with a 90 day buffer. I think some proletarian justice is due...
The state has now declared a 2km radius around the police station an "emergency zone", a softer version of martial law by the sounds of it, which gives police powers to commandeer resources, exclude people from the area (I assume this means anyone looking a bit too black) and various other "extra powers".
The Australian media, however, having only last week made the transition from velcro to grown-up shoes, couldn't quite figure out what might have prompted the attempt at popular justice ("riot").
In other news, Guantanamo prison is only the tip of the iceberg with 400 of an estimated 14,000 prisoners held by the U.S., the U.S. made a precision strike in Somalia killing only 27 innocent people this time, and here in NZ the class war continues as landlords (and the government) seek to publicly shame "bad" tenants through a new website.
This last bit is especially annoying personally as friends are currently being kicked out of their house because the bourgeois scum — sorry, landlord — is seeking to renovate the place so he can charge higher rent. Of course, the law is hardly any defence, giving my friends only a slight reprieve with a 90 day buffer. I think some proletarian justice is due...
Bookchin and the Agents of Revolution (Hint: It's not the factory worker)
This short interview from Murray Bookchin about how he became an anarchist is from a little-known 1981 documentary called Anarchism in America (available via bittorrent). The documentary is interesting in some parts, notably this interview with Bookchin and it was interesting to see real life footage of Emma Goldman too, but bizarre in that it seemed to meld anarcho-capitalism with the rest of anarchism and also tried to portray the American character as inclined towards an anarchist outlook — a peculiarly nationalist perspective for an anarchist movie!
In any case, Bookchin's interview is interesting. I can see how he became so popular — he's not only a good writer but clearly a lively and engaging speaker.
The most interesting aspect though, is his thesis that the factory and proletarian existence par excellence is not a revolutionary force, as the Marxists have always made out, but rather a domesticating force, inclining workers towards a reactionary work ethic rather than a desire for fundamental change. This is a thesis Bookchin also advanced in his book Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution: The Heroic Years (vol. 1 — sadly there is no vol. 2). In this book, Bookchin goes onto observe that it is instead the newly transplanted peasants, the hobos, the unemployed, youth and generally those least integrated (and most alienated) into the regimen of the capitalist mode of existence who, time and time again, are the ones to spark rebellion and call for revolutionary change.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Anarchist Organising and Informal Power Dynamics
We've been joking about it for a while now: the different power blocs in the Wellington and national activist scene, the different levels of social power individuals and blocs have. It's kinda funny, but also extremely worrying, especially considering the anarchist commitment to horizontal structures is being undermined by these developments.
In her classic 1970s article The Tyranny of Structurelessness, Jo Freeman argued that the near-total lack of structure in the early consciousness-raising feminist groups she was involved in allowed for informal leadership and hierarchies to develop among, for example, those heavily involved in organising, or those with social power on the outside of the group, or even just among close groups of friends.
Freeman proposed as a remedy (!) not the abolition of this leadership and power, but rather its formalisation within "democratic" structures of power. Of course, to anarchists this is unacceptable and not a solution in any sense whatsoever. Instead, we have since attempted to create processes that actively undermine informal power: clear and open lines of communication within groups, clearly structured consensus procedures, equalisation of talking time at meetings, rotation of jobs (eg. media spokes), sharing of skills, etc.
In the groups I'm involved in, informal power, as far as I can tell, is arising in at least two main ways. The first, and most dangerous, is the blatant bypassing of group process: media releases are written and approved by only a few, meetings between close friends are bypassing open group meetings, quiet and shy people in meetings aren't being encouraged to speak, people's opinions are being ignored by central group members and consensus processes are being smudged. These are just a few examples, but they are also the most easily fixed, and this must be done.
The far more difficult informal power is the social power that exists within the anarchist and activist community in Wellington and across Aoteaoroa. This is the power of influential people, influential tight-knit groups of friends ("power-blocs"), sociable people versus unsociable people, people with university degrees, charismatic people, etc. And this can't be fixed with careful processes: the activist community is not a coherent organisation, there are not and cannot be clear boundaries of membership, groups of friends can't be forced to hang out less and charisma is not something one can learn or unlearn.
It seems, as far as I can tell, the only way to deal with this latter instance of informal power is to blatantly and explicitly acknowledge it. We need to blatantly acknowledge the power blocs, the charismatic people, those whose intellects gain them respect (or fear), those who are sociable and have their fingers in many pies. And once we blatantly acknowledge this, perhaps we can more clearly combat it. This can't easily be a formal process by the nature of the amorphous activist community, but it could become a conscious ethic. There are also formal things that can help: the Magnetic Fridge Diary is a good one, and open and constant reports of activities could also help.
I feel something needs to be done soon. I'd hate to see the sort of power-mongering and ego building of the old NZ left — the likes of Matt McCarten, CORSO, Arena etc. — repeating itself amongst the anarchist and anti-Power left of today. And I'm serious about this last bit. I know that recently I have been feeling more and more competitive with other activists to get my day in the sun, stroke my ego, and its not healthy — it'll tear our community apart if we're not careful.
In her classic 1970s article The Tyranny of Structurelessness, Jo Freeman argued that the near-total lack of structure in the early consciousness-raising feminist groups she was involved in allowed for informal leadership and hierarchies to develop among, for example, those heavily involved in organising, or those with social power on the outside of the group, or even just among close groups of friends.
Freeman proposed as a remedy (!) not the abolition of this leadership and power, but rather its formalisation within "democratic" structures of power. Of course, to anarchists this is unacceptable and not a solution in any sense whatsoever. Instead, we have since attempted to create processes that actively undermine informal power: clear and open lines of communication within groups, clearly structured consensus procedures, equalisation of talking time at meetings, rotation of jobs (eg. media spokes), sharing of skills, etc.
In the groups I'm involved in, informal power, as far as I can tell, is arising in at least two main ways. The first, and most dangerous, is the blatant bypassing of group process: media releases are written and approved by only a few, meetings between close friends are bypassing open group meetings, quiet and shy people in meetings aren't being encouraged to speak, people's opinions are being ignored by central group members and consensus processes are being smudged. These are just a few examples, but they are also the most easily fixed, and this must be done.
The far more difficult informal power is the social power that exists within the anarchist and activist community in Wellington and across Aoteaoroa. This is the power of influential people, influential tight-knit groups of friends ("power-blocs"), sociable people versus unsociable people, people with university degrees, charismatic people, etc. And this can't be fixed with careful processes: the activist community is not a coherent organisation, there are not and cannot be clear boundaries of membership, groups of friends can't be forced to hang out less and charisma is not something one can learn or unlearn.
It seems, as far as I can tell, the only way to deal with this latter instance of informal power is to blatantly and explicitly acknowledge it. We need to blatantly acknowledge the power blocs, the charismatic people, those whose intellects gain them respect (or fear), those who are sociable and have their fingers in many pies. And once we blatantly acknowledge this, perhaps we can more clearly combat it. This can't easily be a formal process by the nature of the amorphous activist community, but it could become a conscious ethic. There are also formal things that can help: the Magnetic Fridge Diary is a good one, and open and constant reports of activities could also help.
I feel something needs to be done soon. I'd hate to see the sort of power-mongering and ego building of the old NZ left — the likes of Matt McCarten, CORSO, Arena etc. — repeating itself amongst the anarchist and anti-Power left of today. And I'm serious about this last bit. I know that recently I have been feeling more and more competitive with other activists to get my day in the sun, stroke my ego, and its not healthy — it'll tear our community apart if we're not careful.
Heterosexism and Wellington Anarchists
I'm currently trying to write an article on male homosexuality and resistance, and it's not going very well. But in the meantime I thought I'd write on an instance on heteronormativity within the anarchist scene here in Wellington that really quite pissed me, and made me realise my isolation in the scene when it comes to queer male issues.
The A-Men is a group for anarchist men to discuss issues of masculinity, feminism, and their relation to women. It's a good idea and I'm glad its happening. They recently held a consent workshop to discuss issues of sex, consent and rape. A few days before one of the guys part of this group decided to let me know that it'd be quite heterosexist... it was nice of him to consider me but in reality it was a mere afterthought. You know, "I spose we better let the token gay boy know this might not be very useful to him". The rest of the group had given absolutely no thought to the fact that the workshop was going to be entirely about boy-girl sexual relations with no space for boy-boy relations.
In the end I didn't go: I really didn't want to have to struggle to be heard amongst those guys, especially since it would probably have been quite disruptive to something which is after all a really necessary move on their parts. But a couple gay anarchists did go. They quickly learnt that it was solely about boy-girl relations, with no consideration for any other sort of relationship. The workshop organisers insisted that it is the boy's responsibility to ask for consent, and when it was asked how boy-boy consent should work they apparently shrugged it off as not worth considering.
They had no idea of the issues in boy-boy relations, which obviously include consent, but more importantly probably to those within the anarchist community would be issues of rape. In many urban gay scenes, rape is prolific and often laughed off. We're assumed to be so hungry for sex, with such demanding sexual appetites, that surely we must welcome rape as just another opportunity to get off. A workshop covering homosexual relations would surely then also have to deal with defence against rape, but the organisers had absolutely no clue this was even an issue.
I wouldn't have minded if this was advertised as a workshop on heterosexual consent for men, but it wasn't. It was assumed it was heterosexual by default, with only having to make a partial disclaimer to me in person. Homosexual relations were ignored, sidelined and totally not understood.
The A-Men is a group for anarchist men to discuss issues of masculinity, feminism, and their relation to women. It's a good idea and I'm glad its happening. They recently held a consent workshop to discuss issues of sex, consent and rape. A few days before one of the guys part of this group decided to let me know that it'd be quite heterosexist... it was nice of him to consider me but in reality it was a mere afterthought. You know, "I spose we better let the token gay boy know this might not be very useful to him". The rest of the group had given absolutely no thought to the fact that the workshop was going to be entirely about boy-girl sexual relations with no space for boy-boy relations.
In the end I didn't go: I really didn't want to have to struggle to be heard amongst those guys, especially since it would probably have been quite disruptive to something which is after all a really necessary move on their parts. But a couple gay anarchists did go. They quickly learnt that it was solely about boy-girl relations, with no consideration for any other sort of relationship. The workshop organisers insisted that it is the boy's responsibility to ask for consent, and when it was asked how boy-boy consent should work they apparently shrugged it off as not worth considering.
They had no idea of the issues in boy-boy relations, which obviously include consent, but more importantly probably to those within the anarchist community would be issues of rape. In many urban gay scenes, rape is prolific and often laughed off. We're assumed to be so hungry for sex, with such demanding sexual appetites, that surely we must welcome rape as just another opportunity to get off. A workshop covering homosexual relations would surely then also have to deal with defence against rape, but the organisers had absolutely no clue this was even an issue.
I wouldn't have minded if this was advertised as a workshop on heterosexual consent for men, but it wasn't. It was assumed it was heterosexual by default, with only having to make a partial disclaimer to me in person. Homosexual relations were ignored, sidelined and totally not understood.
The Failure of the Anti-Civ Ideology
I just received a copy of Green Anarchy (issue 23) today — an American "anti-civ" journal.
Now, I must admit before going any further that I used to call myself something of an anarcho-primitivist. The images of going back to a simpler, more peaceful, "wild", undomesticated existence really did something for me, and in many ways they still do. But I think anti-civ anarchists have really lost the plot, and I'm really not surprised that this is a current largely confined to the US (and a little to Britain).
Anti-civ anarchists are strongly influenced by insurrectionalism, though they probably don't know it as they religiously claim to be "anti-ideology". This critique of insurrectionalism applies very well the anti-civ crew. It seems the anti-civ fetish with small-scale militant direct action, their perceived social isolation and their perceived backwardness and brainwashing of the majority of people are very much a reflection of their desire for radical change in the face of ecological destruction but the lack of mass struggle. I can understand their rejection of mass organisation, but not their rejection of mass movements. They seem to be very much trapped in the American individualist tradition and quite out of touch with popular struggles in North America (excepting their fetishising of indigenous struggle... they're wild peoples, you see). In fact, they remind me a bit of the desperation of militant groups in 1970s US, like Weather Underground, who became more militant the more apathetic the general population became.
The other major point of critique has to be questioning exactly what the fuck "civilisation" is. Having read a lot of this, I know that the definitions of this are all over the place. It seems bizarre to reify such a vacuous concept and create a whole political ideology seeking its abolition. They claim they seek the end of domestication, while "leftist" anarchists merely seek the destruction of the State and capitalism. What do they mean by domestication? Well, at times it refers to human domestication, at other times it refers to animal domestication and at other times to all forms of domestication of life, including plants. Surely the first is the aim of any anarchist project, and the second the aim of any anarchist project with the slightest of an animal-lib tinge. The third is more bizarre, and obviously aims for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle simply not possible in a lot of countries (NZ included) and not possible with current population levels. Their reasoning for it is based in Marxism and some recent, rather weak, anthropological studies that point to the domestication of plants and the resulting surplus as the seed of domination. This fails to take into account all the anthropological evidence, from the likes of David Graeber, that show that hunter-gatherer societies come in both authoritarian and non-authoritarian varieties, as do horticulturalist societies. See Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology for more on this (he takes a particularly vicious swipe at John Zerzan).
John Zerzan, while we're on the topic, also seeks as part of his abolition of civilisation the abolition of time, language and symbolic thinking. Go figure. Thankfully most of the anti-civ peeps haven't taken this on board.
Anti-civ anarchists go to great lengths to characterise other anarchists as latent authoritarians, going so far as to claim that after our revolution 99% of social life will be the same. Well I certainly hope not. I would imagine the destruction of the State, capitalist relations, patriarchy, ecological domination, etc. would mean a quite major shift in daily life for most people.
Now, I must admit before going any further that I used to call myself something of an anarcho-primitivist. The images of going back to a simpler, more peaceful, "wild", undomesticated existence really did something for me, and in many ways they still do. But I think anti-civ anarchists have really lost the plot, and I'm really not surprised that this is a current largely confined to the US (and a little to Britain).
Anti-civ anarchists are strongly influenced by insurrectionalism, though they probably don't know it as they religiously claim to be "anti-ideology". This critique of insurrectionalism applies very well the anti-civ crew. It seems the anti-civ fetish with small-scale militant direct action, their perceived social isolation and their perceived backwardness and brainwashing of the majority of people are very much a reflection of their desire for radical change in the face of ecological destruction but the lack of mass struggle. I can understand their rejection of mass organisation, but not their rejection of mass movements. They seem to be very much trapped in the American individualist tradition and quite out of touch with popular struggles in North America (excepting their fetishising of indigenous struggle... they're wild peoples, you see). In fact, they remind me a bit of the desperation of militant groups in 1970s US, like Weather Underground, who became more militant the more apathetic the general population became.
The other major point of critique has to be questioning exactly what the fuck "civilisation" is. Having read a lot of this, I know that the definitions of this are all over the place. It seems bizarre to reify such a vacuous concept and create a whole political ideology seeking its abolition. They claim they seek the end of domestication, while "leftist" anarchists merely seek the destruction of the State and capitalism. What do they mean by domestication? Well, at times it refers to human domestication, at other times it refers to animal domestication and at other times to all forms of domestication of life, including plants. Surely the first is the aim of any anarchist project, and the second the aim of any anarchist project with the slightest of an animal-lib tinge. The third is more bizarre, and obviously aims for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle simply not possible in a lot of countries (NZ included) and not possible with current population levels. Their reasoning for it is based in Marxism and some recent, rather weak, anthropological studies that point to the domestication of plants and the resulting surplus as the seed of domination. This fails to take into account all the anthropological evidence, from the likes of David Graeber, that show that hunter-gatherer societies come in both authoritarian and non-authoritarian varieties, as do horticulturalist societies. See Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology for more on this (he takes a particularly vicious swipe at John Zerzan).
John Zerzan, while we're on the topic, also seeks as part of his abolition of civilisation the abolition of time, language and symbolic thinking. Go figure. Thankfully most of the anti-civ peeps haven't taken this on board.
Anti-civ anarchists go to great lengths to characterise other anarchists as latent authoritarians, going so far as to claim that after our revolution 99% of social life will be the same. Well I certainly hope not. I would imagine the destruction of the State, capitalist relations, patriarchy, ecological domination, etc. would mean a quite major shift in daily life for most people.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Insurrectionalism, Tactical Fetishism and the Critique of Mass Organisations
I've been meaning to write an article on Insurrectionalism for a while now. At first, this branch of anarchism appealed to me, for its maximalism, urgency and tinges of ultra-leftism. But having read this convincing critique recently by José Antonio Gutiérrez D., I'm having to reconsider.
Insurrectionalism is an anarchist tendency that was at first articulated in Italy but has since been taken up in other areas of the globe, especially Greece. It prioritises action over organisation or propaganda, attack over "movement-building", critiques mass organisations and rejects historical determinism, among other things.
I think Jose makes an especially important contribution by pointing out how insurrectionalism is in many ways a desperate response to a low ebb in social struggle, where militant movements are non-existent and yet great injustice is being wrecked. Coming out of eras of high class struggle or seeing and consuming images of militancy, yet being trapped in an era of seeming apathy of many people, insurrectionalism, he argues, is a quite natural response.
But that doesn't mean its tactical, and quite opposed to insurrectionalism, Jose counsels that, indeed, there are times to wait, to quietly build or revert to defensive operations. I agree largely with this. What I think was important that insurrectionalism offered in this regard was that we simply cannot know the outcomes of struggles and we should try to push each to its fullest extent. At the same time, there is a difference between pushing a struggle to its extreme and engaging in loner-type extreme actions in a superficial attempt to emulate times of high class struggle.
I think I agree with much of Jose's points, but I think he certainly missed the critique of mass organisation offered by insurrectionalism. Insurrectionalists like to point to tendencies in mass organisations towards bureaucracy, permanence (outliving the original goal), self-preservation (serving the existence of the organisation over its intended goal), to attempt to synthesise, and thus reduce, all struggles within a single organisation, and critically a separation between organisers and members.
I think Stuart Christie's critique of the FAI and CNT in We, the Anarchists! was a brilliant example of these exact tendencies of mass organisation in action and their role in betraying the Spanish revolution.
Jose is right that insurrectionalism is in many ways a fetishisation of a tactic without reference to contemporary political and social realities, but I think the critique of mass organisation should be at the fore in any revolutionary strategy.
Insurrectionalism is an anarchist tendency that was at first articulated in Italy but has since been taken up in other areas of the globe, especially Greece. It prioritises action over organisation or propaganda, attack over "movement-building", critiques mass organisations and rejects historical determinism, among other things.
I think Jose makes an especially important contribution by pointing out how insurrectionalism is in many ways a desperate response to a low ebb in social struggle, where militant movements are non-existent and yet great injustice is being wrecked. Coming out of eras of high class struggle or seeing and consuming images of militancy, yet being trapped in an era of seeming apathy of many people, insurrectionalism, he argues, is a quite natural response.
But that doesn't mean its tactical, and quite opposed to insurrectionalism, Jose counsels that, indeed, there are times to wait, to quietly build or revert to defensive operations. I agree largely with this. What I think was important that insurrectionalism offered in this regard was that we simply cannot know the outcomes of struggles and we should try to push each to its fullest extent. At the same time, there is a difference between pushing a struggle to its extreme and engaging in loner-type extreme actions in a superficial attempt to emulate times of high class struggle.
I think I agree with much of Jose's points, but I think he certainly missed the critique of mass organisation offered by insurrectionalism. Insurrectionalists like to point to tendencies in mass organisations towards bureaucracy, permanence (outliving the original goal), self-preservation (serving the existence of the organisation over its intended goal), to attempt to synthesise, and thus reduce, all struggles within a single organisation, and critically a separation between organisers and members.
I think Stuart Christie's critique of the FAI and CNT in We, the Anarchists! was a brilliant example of these exact tendencies of mass organisation in action and their role in betraying the Spanish revolution.
Jose is right that insurrectionalism is in many ways a fetishisation of a tactic without reference to contemporary political and social realities, but I think the critique of mass organisation should be at the fore in any revolutionary strategy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
