Open Letter to U.S. Anarchists from Midwest Unrest

by x356012 Mon May 09, 2005 02:29

yes, i agree.

a good project is
http://www.autonome.org

but has this lapsed?

just a thought. more later.

by x356012 Mon May 09, 2005 05:11

apparently, a message denying access comes up when the autonome site is hit up...

but here's an example of one of their posters. also, there had been a pamphlet (well done) titled "100,000 volunteers needed" that was an excellent primer and introductory piece.

Autonome, where are you?

by Sean S. Mon May 09, 2005 14:45 thegreatwildebeest at gmail dot com

I think its a dangerous thing to flirt with the idea of "needing" mass. Maybe I come from too individualist a strain or something, but I believe that the lack of diversity and an attempt to purify theoretically is a barrier to people who really don't give a damn about people in the 20's and 30's.

I also dislike the dig at so called "lifestyle" anarchists, a straw man without existence if there ever was one, often used by people talking theoretical mumbo jumbo to insinuate why it is that anarchism hasn't somehow sparked some 19th century style worker uprising. Spare us the individualist digs and start working with the so called "lifestyle" people to do work.

I think rather than more high-flouting theoretics, we need more practical skill based zines and book, showing people how they can take their lives back in their own hands RIGHT NOW. Many gardening books and herbal medicine books are expensive, and are ripe to be cut up into zine format and distributed, copyright be damned. I think thats where most anarchist type literature needs to be heading. Getting the tools and empowerment out to the willing.

by Andrew Mon May 09, 2005 19:54

The problem Sean is that we live on a world of 6 billion people and any movement to change the way that world works that is not a mass movement will not be an anarchist movement. Unless you reckon anarchism is something a tiny minority can impose on the majority. So like it or not we need a 'mass' to acheive change.

Lifestylism can be a problematic term if it is used as a catch all to describe people who don't eat meat or have unusual haircuts. But it can also mean something if it is used to describe people who rather than fight to change the world are happy just modifying their own lives. In other words while you can be a vegan punk and a revolutionary being a vegan punk does not make you a revolutionary.

I like to garden and spent the weekend planting but while I think this is useful its not going to make the revolution. Don't forget that we have already had the land taken off us - that was what the enclosures ( http://history.powys.org.uk/school1/agriculture/land.shtml ) were all about. Capitalism in the west has been quite willing to criminalise ( http://www1.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/308800.html ) even the tiny number of people who 'drop out' and this is a trend that is increasing rather than decreasing. And this is in the west - removing people from the land has been a lot more brutal in other parts of the world in recent years.

In other words 'gardening books' will not make the revolution - copyrighted or otherwise. The freedom to choose alternative life styles can be seen as a reform to be struggled for - in the same way we struggle for higher wages or shorter working hours - but we already know capitalism will crush such struggles as willingly as it crushed that for the 8 hour day.

These are technicalities. The reality is that most people would laugh at the idea that gardening books were any sort of solution to their problems. You obviously aiming your sights at the sort of narrow counter culture that the author of the piece was advocating going beyond when she wrote "But, if we can talk with that mom about collectivizing childcare, or healthcare, or improved housing, or, better yet, actually organize with her to make it happen… we might actually have something."

by Cian Tue May 10, 2005 00:32

If I could, I'd like to take the tagline of your piece "Kind of Dangerous" as my starting point. To me, if libertarian activity is "kind of dangerous" to those holding positions of hierarchy, then we're starting to get places. As this activity moves further away from being any real threat to hierarchy, as it becomes more accommodating and reformist, so it also becomes more irrelevant and less likely to bring us closer to achieving the kind of society we want to bring about.

Some distinctions need to be made here to clarify this point, between "Lifestyle Anarchism", "Individualist Anarchism" and "Social Anarchism".

"Lifestyle Anarchism", I view this as the most ineffective of all three.. From this perspective, the person need only make shopping choices like buy fairtrade, listen to anarcho-punk music, wear lots of "crusty" gear, eat only vegan food, grow some dreadlocks, smoke lots of hash and generally assume all the cliched lifestyle choices of supposed "anarchists". Now there is nothing wrong with any, or all of these things, but they are lifestyle choices merely, they constitute a "subculture", even a "market" that products can be aimed at.... they do not challenge cpitalism or hierarchy in any way and they will certainly not bring us any closer to an anarchist society.

"Individualist Anarchism" should be distinguished from the aforementioned. It is distinguished by genuine practical activity, usually creating new institutions that fulfill some anarchist goals.
I think the Dublin Co-Op is a good example of a co-operative initiative that fulfils some goals of individualist anarchism.
The Village (A sustainable community initiative in tipperary) is I would say a typically individualist anarchist approach to things. I dont want to pick on it too much, it does seem like a good idea... but it really only looks to fulfil the old hippie ideals of "tune in, drop out". As a model... it's good, its nice if you can afford to join it, but ultimately its no real threat to the current system, and it's not going to change the world. Individualist Anarchists can of course engage in class struggle too, theirs is not the "token" resistance of the lifestyle anarchist and the two should not be confused.

Not a big fan of herbal remedies at the best of times, I'm a bit of a scientific skeptic on that one, but to tell the truth I dont really see the link between that and anarchism....
Gardening books and zines are great, dont get me wrong, I love my zines as much as anybody, but it would be crazy to suggest that if enough people were buying, reading or even creating zines and gardening books this would constitute an anarchist society.
No, the market is gonna stick around right through all that zine-creating... it will probably just open up a new "zine" marketing strategy to cash in on this new trend. Never understimate the power of accomodation in capitalism. Your revolution WILL be bought and sold if its even halfway possible to do so.

Then you've got social anarchism, anarcho-communism, or whatever you might call it. Ultimately, it is this type of genuine "class-struggle" activity, which challenges existing power structures,which alone can bring about the systemic and global change in conditions, which is what I hope we all aim for. Lets not settle for the pale victories of the subcultures....

by x356012 - IWW Tue May 10, 2005 05:59

these three principles have to be looked at by people: autonomy, reality and solidarity.

Autonomy is understood, i would like to think, by most of us. it is the recognition of the particular, the rights of the other, whether that is the self-expression of the individual or of the particular community. Autonomy is also the idea that when anyone comes to the correct decision on a particular thing, that person constitutes a majority of one. Autonomy is also self initiative.

Lifestylists often forget, or never knew in the first place, that for autonomy to be valid in our lives it must be meaningful. just living as you please is irrellevant; unless it is meaningful toward something, it is worthless.

Lifestylists often also disregard the reality of others in situations around them. to choose a particular lifestyle requires no attention or concern for others, it requires no grounding in reality. to say, "live as you please," to let's say, a person of color in the United States today is ridiculous. okay, go live as you please despite obvious, institutionalized racism. yes, not very realistic. only concerted activity, undertaken by people coming together in reality will change the situations we find ourselves in. Thus, solidarity, often mistaken by individualists for some kind of authority.

but more later...

by x356012 - IWW Tue May 10, 2005 06:11

however, i do agree that there should be no myth as to the "magical mass" number that will suddenly bring us to utopia, or wherever. it does not exist.

but the idea of mass does not have to constitute a delusion about action, that is, the belief that gaining numbers actually translates into action being undertaken successfully.

there is no reason why you cannot have the individual and the mass, the person and the society. i see no necessary impediment to that and that is what i understood social anarchism/anarchist-communism to be about; it certainly was never about some doctrinaire marxist delusion.

many individualists i have spoken too see the "masses" as reactionary, consumerist and apathetic. there are instances where i can see a certain point to criticism of society right now, but deriding mass movements, properly understood in this sense as directly democractic, people's movements, as a whole i feel does not give enough credit to the intelligence of people themselves in the end when presented with accessible alternatives and given some hope.

by Sean S. Tue May 10, 2005 11:03

"""You obviously aiming your sights at the sort of narrow counter culture that the author of the piece was advocating going beyond when she wrote "But, if we can talk with that mom about collectivizing childcare, or healthcare, or improved housing, or, better yet, actually organize with her to make it happen… we might actually have something."""

Actually, I wasn't, nor do I think my ideas, which are much broader than the mere ideas I just threw out mostly as an idea of what I think would be practical as far as propoganda publishing is concerned. I think collectivizing healthcare is important, as well as food production and other such things,, but I think that the personal autonomy found in the ability to see with your hands what you feed yourself and heal yourself with, is incredibly empowering.

"""Not a big fan of herbal remedies at the best of times, I'm a bit of a scientific skeptic on that one, but to tell the truth I dont really see the link between that and anarchism....
Gardening books and zines are great, dont get me wrong, I love my zines as much as anybody, but it would be crazy to suggest that if enough people were buying, reading or even creating zines and gardening books this would constitute an anarchist society.
No, the market is gonna stick around right through all that zine-creating... it will probably just open up a new "zine" marketing strategy to cash in on this new trend. Never understimate the power of accomodation in capitalism. Your revolution WILL be bought and sold if its even halfway possible to do so."""

I never said it was, nor insinuated as much. Again, blowing up a strawman to knock it down. The simple fact is that people taking their own food production and medicine into THEIR OWN HANDS, and away from giant agribusinesses is a great thing. It deprives said corporations of more money, while at the same time helping to augment and bolster individuals and community. How is this in anyway able to be "bought and sold"? The do it yourself ethic is a must if people are going to wrest control back of their lives, and free themselves from the produce/consue mentality thats currently at play in the world.

"""If I could, I'd like to take the tagline of your piece "Kind of Dangerous" as my starting point. To me, if libertarian activity is "kind of dangerous" to those holding positions of hierarchy, then we're starting to get places. As this activity moves further away from being any real threat to hierarchy, as it becomes more accommodating and reformist, so it also becomes more irrelevant and less likely to bring us closer to achieving the kind of society we want to bring about.""""

When I said kind of dangerous, I didn't mean kind of dangerous to hierarchy, I meant kind of dangerous to other people, and to attempts to work together.

Clearly there is a fundamental disagreement between me and most of the people on this website. If I indentify with any school of thought, its probably the post-left/primitivist school, but really, thats no here no there. Identifying strains of anarchism is pedantic at best, elitist at worst. I have no problem with most anarcho-communists, or syndicalists, or any other of the more class oriented forms of anarchism. I hope to work on important projects in the future with a broad range of anarchists, and I really like the fact that, as seen on this website, interesting and exciting work is being done by anarcho-communists and other platform-esque individuals. But don't insinuate some "you're not practical enough", or "your message won't appeal to the mass" type bull, which sounds like some tired, hackneyed accusation lobbied years ago by Lenin and Marx against the anarchists of old. I think thats absurd and insulting, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding that should be in place between people who are all very interested in ending things how they exist.

by Andrew - Anarkismo Tue May 10, 2005 21:42

Sean there is not much point in getting insulted because people answered the points you raised. The is an anarchist-communist website so they were probably going to be answered.

Also have a look at what you wrote because its you who said "I think its a dangerous thing to flirt with the idea of "needing" mass". Maybe this isn't quite what you think but it is what you wrote. And comparing anarchists with leninists is simpy trolling of the worst sort.

All that aside I think what you say shows the familar problem with primtivism/post leftism. That is while it can be an interesting critique of current society it provide no believable program for how that society can be changed. Anything that points this out is never answered - instead there is a retreat into the sort of insults you post above.

Something like half of the worlds 3 billion people are city dwellers and many of those have been driven off the land in the last couple of decades either by the expansion of industrial agriculture or more simply by poverty. Advocating that they grow their own food simply fails to understand the processes that are at work here. The only places where this has happened as a solution (Chiapas, parts of Brazil and India) have been on the basis of mass organised movements of poor people seizing land, sometimes at the point of a gun.

Herbal medicine is both a western fad that no one really takes seriously and a last resort of the worlds poor who have nothing else. Yes some of it is better than nothing but the point is that people must have the freedom to choose their medical treatments. For most of the worlds workers this is not a reality - even in the USA. Our medical choices are imposed on us by our ability to pay.

For most of the six billion people on the planet neither growing our own food nor herbal medicine is any answer to the problems we face. For some of us it may be a personal choice and may even help with our day to day needs. But any real solution for all of our needs lies in mass struggle. Mass politics isn't a choice - its a necessity.

by Sean S. Wed May 11, 2005 03:36 thegreatwildebeest at gmail dot com

'''Also have a look at what you wrote because its you who said "I think its a dangerous thing to flirt with the idea of "needing" mass". Maybe this isn't quite what you think but it is what you wrote. And comparing anarchists with leninists is simpy trolling of the worst sort.'''

I do think that flirtation with mass, in a monolithic sense, is dangerous. I think time and time again that this is exactly what happens in situations of mass movements, which inevitably break down into warring factions and a deep desire to purge those who are of a different bent than others. I'm wondering if you have any ideas on how to incorporate primitivists into a broader mass movement? What would you say to a primitivist who strikes out at industrial society, even if said component is worker controlled? What about those who suggest that whole concept of work is essentially wrong, as well as the produce/consume mentality?

'''Something like half of the worlds 3 billion people are city dwellers and many of those have been driven off the land in the last couple of decades either by the expansion of industrial agriculture or more simply by poverty. Advocating that they grow their own food simply fails to understand the processes that are at work here.'''

I think this is a situation of trying to make a cure to a disease we invented, regardless of the existence of capital or not. I don't think anyone would say that industry, as it is today, is in anyway environmentally sustainable. And I think its a stretch to suggest that centralized living arrangements like cities can be sustainable as far as production and distribution goes. Cities would need radical revising in order to keep them from having to rely upon or coerce those who work the fields whose surplus would provide food for city dwellers. I also see no inherent reason why worker controlled production would not have anti-environmental tendencies.

'''All that aside I think what you say shows the familar problem with primtivism/post leftism. That is while it can be an interesting critique of current society it provide no believable program for how that society can be changed. Anything that points this out is never answered - instead there is a retreat into the sort of insults you post above.''

I think key here is your use of the adjective "believable", and shows that it isn't that post left anarchists and primitivists don't have a plan (or rather plans), but that you simply choose not to believe them. That is fair enough, but don't suggest that somehow post left anarchists are running around lobbing negativity and have no constructive plans just because you don't think the ideas offered are not valid or not "realistic" enough. The idea of a gift economy, the abolition of work and division of labor, a sensible mistrust of the high-religion of science and Progress. These are all ideas and critiques that have come out of the post left and primitivist traditions. If you don't believe in them, or accept them as valid criticisms, thats perfectly fine, but don't insinuate were running around without our heads because we are not more theoretically coherent or are "un-realistic".


'''Herbal medicine is both a western fad that no one really takes seriously and a last resort of the worlds poor who have nothing else. Yes some of it is better than nothing but the point is that people must have the freedom to choose their medical treatments. For most of the worlds workers this is not a reality - even in the USA. Our medical choices are imposed on us by our ability to pay.'''

I think thats absurd, and borders on insulting to the indigenous and dare said, primitive communities that have existed for thousands of years, and of which under modern industrial society, are being wiped out. They seemed to have no problem using traditional healing methods for so many years, until industrial civilization caused the rest. Modern western medicine is nine times out of ten a cure to a disease we invented by constructing the surroundings around us. Suggesting we maintain those structures while simply expanding access to the cure strikes me as slightly ridiculous.

I would suggest as readings that probably better say what I'm trying to suggest would be Bob Black's Abolition of Work (available here: http://inspiracy.com/black/abolition/part1.html ), as well essays by John Zerzan and Derrick Jensen.

by Andrew Wed May 11, 2005 04:08

You do realise that BB just recycled some rather old anarchist and even marxist ideas and sold them to the ignorant as 'new'. Try for instance http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/ written by Marx's son in law back in 1883.

Thats the problem with the primitivist stuff - its based on pretending some very old ideas (not least the myth of the 'noble savage') are all shiny and new and thus selling them to the MTV generation. They are also a return to the ideas on which the modern state was founded not least the idea that civilisation was the only way to control the 'war of all against all'. Anarchism was actually formulated as an answer to such nonsence - to insist that freedom and civilisation was what we needed to fight for - not one orthe other.

I say this not to insult you but to suggest that you really need to research the assumptions you have swallowed whole. The idea that so called 'primitive' people do not want access to (or benefit from) modern medicine would be a good place to start.

Apart from that your response strings together a whole list of things I didn't say so you can 'answer' them. I don't beleive I've expressed any opinion here for instance on how sustainable current industry is are what form medicine would take in a post capitalist society.

Also its not the primtiivist critique that is unbelievable - it is the program (or lack ot it) for the future. At its core it is an ideology that requires the death of 95% of the worlds population but is incapable of even answering the question as to how this will be 'acheived'. It's an exercise in intellectual nothingness - not a revolutionary strategy.

by Seed Wed May 11, 2005 07:36

The main problem with "post-left" or primitivist theories and methodologies is that they fetishize the particular as representative of something greater than it actually is and in the process, they end up contradicting or undermining themselves.

The individualists, post-leftists, primitivists (nice to see y'all on the internet, by the way, glad you got that modem to work...it does more than crush walnuts) who tend to get completely wrapped up in particular micro-focused projects like planting herb gardens or dumpster diving or eating roadkill or whatever fail to realize that they are pursuing a "mass" strategy as well. The only way, short of a comet hitting the earth, that primitivist ideas could ever be fulfilled is by everyone adopting those values on their own; hello! That's mass. When you convince another person to adopt your ideas, that's organizing for a "mass" movement, even if you refuse to call it that. Of course, you can always go it alone, but you'll never be successful beyond your personal sphere of influence--in other words, you will cease to be an agent of revolution and instead simply become a drop-out. So, rejection of mass means a rejection of revolutionary objectives.

At the same time, even if you got 500 people to make their own clothes and do all those things in accordance with the proper "lifestyle," it would still be nothing more than that. Unless you actually challenge the fundamental structure of the dynamics within society, then you have not done anything revolutionary. If you abandon the other slaves on the plantation while you run away on your own into the woods, then you are not working toward emancipation; you're just selfish or short-sighted.

As for herbal gardens/medicine or other lifestylist things: they are fine and good. Indigenous people have been self-sufficient for centuries, but don't fetishize the act. The fact that certain indigenous peoples were self-sufficient and relied on natural remedies is not what defines them as indigenous. First peoples are first peoples by nature of their existence, not by virtue of what some wingnut white kid learned from a zine. I find that personally offensive.

One person can live in harmony with the earth and it does nothing to change the fact that others disrespect it and the people living on it; only by reaching out to people as a whole and recognizing that yes, we are part of the "mass" that is the earth simply because we are living humans can we ever stand a chance of changing things and putting a stop to capitalist and authoritarian exploitation. So if you do things on your own, if you distrust technology for its own sake or distrust the masses of people inhabiting this planet, fine. I don't care.
But don't for one second think you are a revolutionary anything. Pull your head out of the dirt and get to work. And politically, grow-up.

PS: use your Bob Black writings for something more useful next time you are out in the woods, and spare us.

by oliver - capital terminus Sat May 14, 2005 08:52

'What would you say to a primitivist who strikes out at industrial society, even if said component is worker controlled? '

Well, those are vague terms. If you mean someone performing terrorism against people living in a society, that's pretty reactionary. And if it's a libertarian communist society, it's downright counter-revolutionary.

If those aren't what you mean, it was not clear.

by nike chiapas Sun May 15, 2005 07:00

It is now.

by zebediah Thu May 19, 2005 08:11

"They are individualists, not in the sense of an exaggerated respect for the individual which, however it may be disguised, is a form of authoritarianism, but because they are supporters of communism for the very reason that it guarantees every individual the greatest physical, intellectual and moral development." - Anarchist Communist Manifesto: 1st Italian Section of the International Anarchist Communist Federation

Not that anyone here has suggested differently but jets not forget strong invididuality is key to critical thought and freedom. It's important to always question the will of the mass, it's the only way you'll ever have answers.