OscailtOn Anarchist DebateThe prevalence of (ultra-)sectarian and petty-argumentative attitudes, leading to a lack of constructive debate, is doing irreversible damage to the anarchist movement. A basic problem here is the extreme difficulty of consolidating fragments of serious anarchist thought and activity, in a context permeated and distorted by bourgeois ideology...2009-02-06T18:49:22+08:00Anarkismoanarkismoeditors@lists.riseup.nethttp://www.anarkismo.net/atomfullposts?story_id=11811http://www.anarkismo.net/graphics/feedlogo.gifFor a non backyard mentality debate on a proletarian alternativehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/11811#comment108132009-02-06T18:49:22+08:00Jan MakandalTo Kevin
Some of the point you raised in your article Anarchist Debate I, somewh...To Kevin<br />
Some of the point you raised in your article Anarchist Debate I, somewhat, recently responded to in the thread Independent response to the LRP. I do believe the problem of unity and what I call political rapprochement need to be address. Not only among Anarchist but also among all of us that recognizes the historical role the working class needs to play to bury capital. The question of proletarian alternative needs to be address and resolve now.<br />
The fundamental element of that debate is the battlefield.On debate...http://www.anarkismo.net/article/11811#comment108142009-02-06T19:54:52+08:00José Antonio Gutiérrez D.I think Kevin your text is much necessary and relevant.... there's a number of i...I think Kevin your text is much necessary and relevant.... there's a number of issues I already addressed in another article, originally published in Spanish, which is called "La importancia de la crítica en el desarrollo del movimiento revolucionario" ("on the importance of criticism in the development of the revolutionary movement" <a href="http://www.anarkismo.net/article/6854" title="http://www.anarkismo.net/article/6854">http://www.anarkismo.net/article/6854</a> ). This article was written as a response to two attitudes which I feel have damaged and hindered the development of anarchism: whether it is the ultra-sectarian attitude of the comrades which see as "renegades" and "heretics" everyone who dares disagree with their simplistic and dogmatic view of the world, or whether it is the "happy family" mentality of those that reject to discuss because according to them all theories or sets of ideas are equally valid (regardless of their coherence or their approach to reality), these two attitudes towards debate have really hindered the development of the anarchist movement for a while. As a result, our movement has been largely condemned whether to suffer from a lack of solid thought, or to being nothing but a dogmatic sect of rabid fanatics.<br />
<br />
But over the last while, anarchism as you well point out, has had the ability to play an important role in the new wave of popular and revolutionary movements. Our ranks are swelling and an awful lot of activity and prospects are to be found. Yet, inherited practices remain and prove to be a heavy burden for the movement to really take off. One of them is the inability to discuss among comrades in constructive terms, a much necessary habit we need to get used to if we ever want to be a serious alternative that challenges the current system.<br />
<br />
I identify, as with you, a number of problematic issues:<br />
<br />
1. That most discussion remains highly abstract (I would not even say "theoretical"). As you say, debate and action should go hand in hand. Or as Jack Mackandal puts it in a more elegant way, the decisive element on the debate is the battlefield. I often find that discussing with comrades who do not refer at all to reality or to any form of practice leads to a dead-end. Debate needs to come back every time to practical experience. Reality, unfortunately, is absent in many anarchist discussions (or leftist discussions for that matter).<br />
<br />
2. That we do not tend to discuss: whether we shun debate or we "denounce". Denouncing is not discussing. In the Spanish movement, particularly, the dogmatic zeal of some comrades have lead to huge rows were each "party" tries to prove who is the real anarchist and who is the one who has gone "astray". This tendency makes anarchism look more like a religious sect than a political movement.<br />
<br />
3. Another problem is the way some comrades are keen to label others in a way that obscures the debate instead of helping to clairfy it (as you mention, Leninists, Reformists, Hippies, etc.). This labels, there's no need to insist, have no meaning whatsoever and are, if anything, nothing but insults with no explanatory capacity.<br />
<br />
4. The way in which comrades are keen to see political differences not as legitimate disagreements, but turning others into "enemies"... the lack to identiy who the real enemies are lead the zealots to purge the uncomfortable elements in their ranks instead of spending that time and energy against the true class oppressor. (This leads to a further problem, that we do not know how to build alliances with the rest of the left, which we hail uncritically or we dismissed altogether).<br />
<br />
5. Criticism needs to be constructive, but most of the time we discuss to "win" the argument. That is irrelevant. You can win as many arguments as you want and reality will not change because of that. Debate should be used, as Berneri points out, to clarify issues, not to win it over. In the process of debating and defending ones ideas we clarify issues and learn (as our recent discussion on Gaza proved). And if you do not change your opinions, at least you sharpen and strengthen your arguments. When we debate, we need to understand that "truth" do not lie in my or your arguments: we are highlighting aspects of a complex reality and we need to have a better grasp of it.<br />
<br />
6. This as a whole require a maturation of the movement as such...<br />
<br />
Jaysus, I will try to find time to translate that article into English as I believe it is complementary to some of the ideas you expose here.<br />
<br />
Well done, a much needed contribution. Thanks for taking your time to put it together!on the RNChttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/11811#comment108152009-02-07T02:59:18+08:00reallysubsumedreallysubsumed at riseup dot entThanks for the shout out to the RNC organizing. I just wanted to mention that al...Thanks for the shout out to the RNC organizing. I just wanted to mention that although there has been some negative press and many of our comrades face very serious charges (see www.rnc8.org) one of the best things at the local level to have come out of this is the really great level of solidarity across the relative left. The St. Paul Principles (respect for diversity of tactics, separation of diverse actions in space or time, no working with cops, keep arguments internal to the movement) have held to a great degree. Local progressives, greens, commies, anti-war folks etc have all refused to participate in the 'Bad violent anarchists' game that the state has pulled, often at considerable vulnerability to their own movements. At a recent community meeting about a hundred folks came out to hear anarchists, socialists, and progressive allies speak about how to help the RNC 8, fight back against democrats in city government who have made crushing those to their Left the goal of their electoral campaigns, and build on the solidarities that we forged in the streets and in the nearly two years of organizing that preceded the convention. I think that this event has been helpful in bridging some Red/Green divides in the Twin Cities and encouraging pan-Left dialogue and cooperation that is defying the de-escalation that the Obama camp has hoped for. The value of actually working together as a way to build understanding, rather than arguing to convert others seems to have been on display here in MN. <br />
<br />
solidarity, comrades.<br />
<br />
reallysubsumedDiscussionhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/11811#comment108162009-02-07T05:36:38+08:00akaiComrades,
I see many valid points in both the text and the comments but will add...Comrades,<br />
I see many valid points in both the text and the comments but will add a thought or two for discussion.<br />
<br />
Yes, some debate definitely can go into the wrong direction if there are not specific comments, but also when people are against debate, for whatever reason. Sometimes folks with the "happy family" ideology see this as a potential upsetting experience, sometimes people who are afraid of their authority being undermined also react rather strongly and inappropriately. But there is another problem.<br />
<br />
In the course of debate, sometimes words are used which first, mean different things to different people, and second, serve more to denote disapproval than to communicate a constructive criticism. Often, once started down that road, things simply snowball, as it is unusual to counter insults. perceived or real, in any other way than with counterpunches.<br />
<br />
A quite good example of this was with the slew of criticism against "lifestyle anarchists" with followed Bookchin's pamphlet - many of which did nothing much to convince people, but served rather to reinforce people's one perceptions and mobilize like-minded people. Since this time, people use a lot of labels which are not too-clearly defined or understood by many.... even though many of the readers here will no doubt feel this is an obvious label.<br />
<br />
In this text and comments we also hear another label "sectarian" or "ultra-sectarian" which is poorly defined and mean completely different things to people. But to everybody it seems to mean something negative, a fighting word in fact. The great irony of it is that, as far as I know, this word is most often used by self-described "ecumenical anarchists", or "synthesists", or ones with hodge-podge ideas (or whatever it can be called) .... for platformists. Or for anybody who, in trying to create a more clear anarchist train of thought, might offer criticism of certain trends or currents of anarchism. As a matter of fact, I think that it is so easy to misuse or misunderstand the meaning of the word, that it's counterproductive to even use it , or at least without a text on the topic.<br />
<br />
I think that if any "insurrectionalist" is reading this, they would react quite defensively to the word, which would then not really achieve the aim that you expressed.<br />
Responsehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/11811#comment108172009-02-08T02:02:31+08:00Kevin S.Akai,
I agree with most of what you say. For sure, there are plenty "happy fami...Akai,<br />
<br />
I agree with most of what you say. For sure, there are plenty "happy family" type who are against debate and prefer a kind of mish-mash of everyone's way of thinking, so that there is no coherence and one is led to question what the point of it is in the first place. These people suffer from a lack of critical thinking. In present times, however, I mostly encounter these types in some vague "leftist" groupings other than anarchists. Being not at all a "synthesist," even so I do not think that "synthesist" ideas (except for some caricatured versions) can be quite boiled down to such a starry-eyed attitude.<br />
<br />
There are also those, as you say, who are afraid their authority being undermined -- this being the case with some "synthesists" (stubbornly clinging to useless ideas as "valid"), but more ordinarily they are (pseudo-)Leninist bureaucratic types. Sometimes it these this sort who starts up labeling other viewpoints, as an effective both to discredit those viewpoints and to distract the argument from hard-hitting critique of any viewpoints -- very effective for maintaining the status quo. This is an extremely common practice in certain (not all) Marxist circles, and also as you mentioned it was used against the Platform as way to alienate its supporters and keep the "scene" more-or-less as it had been.<br />
<br />
You are, of course, right in saying "sectarian" and "ultra-sectarian" are vaguely defined, like so many words. What I referred to was a "sectarian attitude" obstructign serious debate. Take the last example above, for instance. The practice of labeling and denouncing in order to avoid serious debate in the movement -- that is a harmful sectarian attitude. There is not a sort of "guidebook" on when a thing is sectarian and when it isn't, and "sectarian" itself should not be used as another label for denouncing this or that group (as it often is). So, for instance, I made the example of insurrectionary anarchists versus platformists, where I have seen accusations of sectarianism and a slew of other things (Bolshevism, "insurrectional jerks" etc. etc.) thrown up on both ends. To me, it obscures the real debate and has anarchism eating itself.<br />
<br />
Now, I do not think a critique of "sectarianism" should mean everyone joins into one big organization (be it "synthesis" or "Platform"), which would create a lot of big problems and achieve very little if anything. But anarchist *debate* is necessary for improving ideas, coming to agreement or uncovering disagreement, and developing an effective line of action. Sectarian attitudes, whether leading to no discussion at all or to simple denunciations lacking serious critical content, are a danger that one has to be aware of. But it also can't be turned in paranoid Stalin-esque way into some invisible enemy being detected everywhere (effectively shutting down criticism or debate).<br />
<br />
Side note ... on the "insurrectionalist" label, I don't know if someone would take issue with that, but certainly "insurrectionary anarchists" (a longer term which I also used) call themselves such and this substantially no different from "insurrectional" or "insurrectionist." Besides which, I specifically used the word "insurrectionalism" in reference to platformist arguments, which nearly always use that term. I don't see what the issue could be, especially sinces I clearly stated I myself am heavily influenced by some insurrectionary thought (e.g. Bonanno).notes on insurrectional practice and thought (to be made indistinct)http://www.anarkismo.net/article/11811#comment108552009-02-18T16:27:20+08:00Liam SionnachI appreciate the gesture and would hope others would find it both caring and sed...I appreciate the gesture and would hope others would find it both caring and seductive. Critique is so limited by paternal forms of power, often evading thresholds and the potentially pleasurable experience of locating friendship and enmity. Debate <em>can</em> produce such spaces, but is practiced, as you said to win, and which we might say is not simply for the fight, or in another case the chance to commensurate. <br />
<br />
Kevin, you mention the terms "insurrectional, insurrectionary, and insurrectionist" as terms with the same meaning and translation. Although, some may use them in this way, I believe such people miss the point of an insurrectional practice. I cannot speak for Bonanno, or Wolfi, but I will say, that the similarities between their thought and that of Walter Benjamin on the topic of "the state of exception" and "pure means"; the thoughts of Debord on the concepts "detournement" and the contemporary, Giorgio Agamben's contributions to the mentioned and to his own refinement of detournement with "profanation" is no mere coincidence. Insurrectional anarchist practice (or methodology) is neither ideologically anarchist nor simply concerned with "the insurrection", but it does make rupture its fetish object, or should we say "situation." Perhaps the English translators silence on the topic, and the loud "post-leftists" did some a disservice by refusing to see any nexus between post-structuralist, communist, and anarchist thought and that of those who might like to riot more than usual, but the similarities and the practical applications cannot be denied. Insurrectional discourse has among its qualities a non-teleological, almost post-Heideggerian notion of time and event, it is an ontological anarchy--an almost "way of being-anarchy", but more recently insurrectional discourse in the US and in Europe is being refined through Deluzian notions of "becoming," and the influence of the French texts "call" and "the insurrection to come," among others. It practices a "becoming-anarchy" through making the civil-war of global capital into social war, a partisan-war, that does not concern its self with a dead messiah (as hope for revolution) nor morn the dead messiah (as post-workerism), but simply forgets in practice as an interruption of the linear continuum of history. <br />
<br />
There's a lot of theoretical baggage that I unfortunately am skipping over that may interest you, but the above is good place to start if you want it like I want it and like a lot of insurrectional comrades want it. The first part of having a conversation is sharing a language and like history, we are in language because we are doing language (and I am only communicating the potentiality of communicability). Sorry about the opacity, its how it is for me.<br />
<br />
kisses,<br />
-Liam Sionnach<br />