To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of fucking trolls,
Or to take arms against a sea of deadshits,
And by opposing end them?
See also : Against Me! // Banksy // Dropkick Murphys (March 20, 2007). Tom has a blog too, where he details his illness.
A short while ago, some BANANAs got dropped in San Francisco. The resulting mess has been splattered over several gritty sidewalks on the information superhighway, including anarchistnews.org (see : ‘Post-Immigration March Scuffle Targets National Anarchists’; a re-post of Lauren Smiley’s article from SF Weekly). This fact prompted me — somewhat foolishly, I admit — to have another crack at explaining why it might be considered a good idea for anarchists to distance themselves from both the BANANAs and the other white supremacist groupuscules who’ve recently elected to carry black flags (‘stolen to replace swastika filth rags’) into battle. (See also : Anarchist statement on the New Right, October 21, 2007.)
One commenter, whose contributions I’ve re-published below, argues that this effort is impractical, if not impossible. Instead, readers of anarchistnews.org (and anarchists in general) are urged to “stop using the label of anarchism in public” in order to avoid misunderstanding, and to allow for the articulation of anarchist ideals — minus the er, ‘anarchism’ — through ‘non-branded’ forms of activism.
Or something like that.
Below is the exchange, followed by a final reply. I’ve placed it here rather than on anarchistnews a) because I can and b) because my blog it’s there (and because I think it more likely to be read here rather than there… by which I mean here).
anon:
Idea —
So if you read Bakunin he talks about this entire concept of an invisible dictatorship. Most anti-authoritarians don’t think he’s a closet authoritarian because the “invisible dictatorship” basically meant anarchist radicals and revolutionaries joining up with various social causes out in the open.
But look what happens when we use the term “anarchist”. Face it, there isn’t now (nor has there every really been) any theoretical unity between what different anarchist groups want or stand for. Groups like BANA exploit this. Notice that the SF Weekly did not deny that BANA were anarchists. Notice also that they did not quote the SPLC in pointing out that virtually all “real” anarchist groups (whatever the hell that really means) oppose racial separatism. Notice also that they could easily ignore that active anarchist presence in pro-immigrant organizing, etc. It is very easy to simply discredit what “actual” anarchist groups do, and it is very difficult to argue that BANA is not an anarchist group because every anarchist cult has its own concept and definition of what anarchism is.
Anarchism and anarchy are therefore useless terms when used in public, and probably just as useless when used in private amongst people who “know what you mean” (even though we all know that even within the avowedly anarchist community there are different ideas of what we are all collectively fighting for). In the event that the public were to even finally understand that we are different from the likes of them, they still hate the concept. The idea of abolishing the State and abolishing capitalism, both of which are regularly painted with a good light and only tarnished as oppressive structures when something extreme happens (ie capitalism is bad because of sweatshops; we need more anti-sweatshop laws, beyond that everything is fine. The state is bad when our civil liberties are violated. Call the ACLU, beyond that everything is fine) is not something that appeals to the vast majority of people, including the “oppressed” whatever the hell that means.
So, my conclusion is — stop using the label of anarchism in public. If Yeoman wants to put on a black bandanna and fight alongside minutemen, let him. It won’t be any real skin off our bones if we do organizing work amongst the actual communities affected as an ACTUALLY invisible movement. When it comes time for more radical and violent confrontations, they will not be able to write us off as “those anarchists who were ripping off the peaceful protesters,” they will see us AS the peaceful protesters turned violent at the hands of the cops (which, let’s face it — considering our relative impotence, that’s usually what it is anyway. How often have anarchists you know ACTUALLY done what cops accuse them of doing? You can maintain your innocence or your lack of impotence[?], pick one). We won’t have to worry about the guilt by association. When it comes time to organizing ourselves for a real, collective purpose, our ideas will align us. We won’t have to say “we’re all anarchists” and then suddenly realize upon coming together that we all have different interests, different backgrounds, and different end goals. Our goals, interests, and backgrounds themselves will align us with where we need to go.
Drop the labels, clothes, and masks. Hopefully by doing so, BANA people will drop their labels, clothes and masks as well. They are only doing so now in order to appeal to pissed off leftists.
(You obviously don’t understand Bakunin.)
Anarchism is a living tradition to which anyone is free to associate themselves; racists and fascists, however, do so at their own risk. When fascists choose to adopt anarchist colours, therefore, they should expect to be confronted. That was the case in post-WWI Italy, and it’s still the case in pre-WWIII United States. Obviously, what form this confrontation takes depends upon the context.
A few more points:
Anarchism is as anarchism does.
There has been both unity and division within anarchist movements — the same is true of every other social movement. What BANANA ‘exploit’ is anarchist symbology. Anyone is free to engage in this exploitation, and many do, for all sorts of reasons (mostly commercial). Nonetheless, engaging in this sort of behaviour — that is, dragging the name of anarchism through the mud — also generally has a cost attached to it. Because fascists are, in general, rather stupid individuals, the lesson — sadly for them — is likely one that will have to be taught again… and again… and again. Boo hoo.
Relying upon the ‘SF Weekly’ to make ideological distinctions is silly, especially as the point had already been made by the individuals who confronted the BANANAs.
It’s not at all difficult to reject BANANA’s claim to be ‘anarchist’. In fact, it’s very easy.
Words derive their meanings from their use and their context. In this instance, ‘anarchist’ means confronting racist supporters of the repressive laws in Arizona. Anarchists have a long history of confronting racist and fascist groups / challenging racist institutions / fighting fascist movements / subverting racialist and fascist discourses, and will continue to do so, even — or perhaps especially — if it appears on the street in anarchist drag.
All the best to the comrades who got nicked.
Cheers,
@ndy.
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/
anon:
Considering everything you wrote in this comment (dissected below), I think it’s clear you didn’t understand anything I was advocating for, so I don’t trust you when you say I don’t understand Bakunin.
If you’re going to tell me I don’t understand Bakunin, please explain. I’ve read and analyzed his ideas about the invisible dictatorship several times. Look, for example, at this quote (I pulled it from wikipedia for the sake of time):
…We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists. But, you will ask, if we are anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people’s revolution? By a force that is invisible, that no one admits and that is not imposed on anyone, by the collective dictatorship of our organization which will be all the greater the more it remains unseen and undeclared, the more it is deprived of all official rights and significance…[Secret organizations] would finally have the strength of that close solidarity which binds isolated groups in one organic whole…These groups would not seek anything for themselves…and they would be in a position to direct popular movements…This is what I call the collective dictatorship of a secret organization.
At no point did I suggest that anarchists should or should not confront fascists, racists, etc. I’m aware that fascists and racists do not “fit” in terms of anarchist theory and practice. That is irrelevant to my entire previous comment that surrounded tactics, public perception, etc. Even if we know they aren’t us, the public has no clue and is already pretty clueless about anarchism. Trying to explain the difference when whackos like them are allowed to latch on just by putting on an outfit leaves us in a bad position.
There has been both unity and division within anarchist movements — the same is true of every other social movement. What BANANA ‘exploit’ is anarchist symbology. Anyone is free to engage in this exploitation, and many do, for all sorts of reasons (mostly commercial). Nonetheless, engaging in this sort of behaviour — that is, dragging the name of anarchism through the mud — also generally has a cost attached to it.
Yeah, costs. To anarchists. Now we’re all primitivists, collectivists, bomb-throwers, street-fuckers, Nazis, racists, Ron Paul supporters, “anarcho”-capitalists, left-communists, Leninist tools, angry Democrats, etc. It’s one thing to say social movements have divisions, it’s another when those divisions are so significant that you have groups advocating things that […] are diametrically opposed latching on to the same label. You suggest that BANA exploits anarchist symbology. This is true. It is also the same accusation that every anarchist sect accuses its anarcho-opponents of. Face it, [primitivists] and industrial communists have little in common. Likewise, Benjamin Tucker suggesting that it is a factory-owner’s moral right to break strikes does not have any place in the company of the ideology of anarcho-syndicalists and others who were organizing said strikes. The divisions are so deep that at the end of the day there is a question of whether or not any of these groups really do have anything in common other than the symbology.
Because fascists are, in general, rather stupid individuals, the lesson — sadly for them — is likely one that will have to be taught again… and again… and again. Boo hoo.
They are most definitely not stupid. They are very good at organizing, they know how to exploit public ignorance, etc. In all the areas of political organizing that require intelligence, they know what they’re doing regardless of how shitty their ideology is. The fact that you like kicking fascists’ asses once again says nothing about my argument nor anything about how to promote anarchist ideals to a public that largely sees us as trouble-makers, bomb throwers, and idiots.
Relying upon the ‘SF Weekly’ to make ideological distinctions is silly, especially as the point had already been made by the individuals who confronted the BANANAs.
Ideology is the main function of mass media. There’s a reason SF Weekly doesn’t care to correct itself. The individuals who confronted BANA are in no place in the article labelled as anarchists or anti-fascists. They sound instead like pissed off immigrants’ rights activists (which is A) a fitting description, B) a good thing for anarchists to sound like, and C) exactly what I am advocating). If SF Weekly is not going to distinguish between anarchists and non-anarchists (something anarchists themselves largely fail to do), then why call ourselves “anarchists”? For the fashion?
The remainder of your comment seems irrelevant. I’m aware they aren’t anarchists, that anarchism has a definition, etc. But even in the name, anarchism now and always has only focused on what anarchists are opposed to (essentially, rulers). What anarchists are in favor of is very different depending on which group. As such it’s a useless and damaging label. Why be “anarchists” against BANA instead of pissed off pro-immigrant folks against BANA? Why be “anarchists” for Palestine instead of activists for Palestine? Why be anarchists for civil liberties instead of just people for civil liberties? IMO [it] seems that being an anarchist doesn’t say much to most people, and whatever it does say is very easily corruptible. I don’t call myself an anarchist anymore, at least not publicly, but I’m still engaged in addressing a lot of the same causes.
OK.
So…
1) Bakunin
I’m not really interested in discussing what Bakunin ‘really’ meant by the phrase “invisible dictatorship”; rather, I’m disputing the apparent use to which this “Idea” is being put in the context of the apparently confrontational approach taken by some anarchists to some BANANAs on May Day in San Francisco. That said:
• An Anarchist FAQ — J.3.7 Doesn’t Bakunin’s “Invisible Dictatorship” prove that anarchists are secret authoritarians? — has further disco on the spectral dimensions of Bakunin/ism, including in reference to Mikhail’s letter to that cheeky monkey Nechaev, dated June 2, 1870, and from which the quote is derived. (See also : ‘Review Essay : The Russian Revolutionary Movement: The Intelligentsia and Populism’, T.R. Ravindranathan, Studies in History, Vol.6, No.2, 1990 | Philip Pomper’s review of Violence dans la violence by Michael Confino and Michel Bakounine et ses relations avec Sergei Nečaev, 1870-1872 by Arthur Lehning, Russian Review, Vol.33, No.4, October 1974);
• the Idea that anarchists should seek to exert influence upon current events / ‘join up with various social causes’ is hardly noteworthy, but insofar as Bakunin’s “invisible dictatorship” has relevance in this context, it would seem to be by way of providing a precedent to your argument that anarchists should be seen, but not heard… or at least, not as ‘anarchists’.
With regards this latter point, which I think forms the crux of your argument:
2) Invisibility
I think that, while in some circumstances (and leaving aside the potential circularity of this argument), the conscious decision by some anarchists to not describe themselves, their ideas, or their actions as peculiarly ‘anarchist’ may be appropriate, as a general strategy — especially when conceived of as being a means of surmounting broader public ignorance of or hostility towards anarchism — this attempt at becoming invisible is mistaken.
There are several reasons for this.
The first concerns the obligation to be open and honest with others. That is: if my actions are informed by my ideas and my ideas are, in general, and in an ethico-political context, those which, it may be argued, constitute or are drawn from a particular political tradition known as ‘anarchism’, then it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise — even if by being frank there is some added risk of being misunderstood. That’s a general principle. With regards anarchism in particular, it should also be noted that, historically speaking, it’s been under cultural and ideological assault from its inception, as a mass movement, in the late nineteenth century (see, for example, William M. Phillips, Nightmares of Anarchy: Language and Cultural Changes 1870–1914, Bucknell University Press, 2004). Of course, context is important, as is the possibility of ongoing dialogue. In a context in which there is no possibility of ongoing dialogue, it may make sense to avoid reference to ‘anarchism’. At the same time, the reasons for avoiding such terminology are of general applicability; that is, they are not confined to this or that term, but instead derive from more general considerations of intelligibility and understanding. It may also, and more simply, not be important to identify some thing as ‘anarchist’. Or, more frequently perhaps, the line of argument being pursued, or the action being undertaken, may not be peculiarly ‘anarchist’ in any case. Arguments against ‘racism’, for example, usually proceed from more general ethical considerations — regarding, say, some concept of human equality. By the same token, forms of capitalist exploitation, instances of state oppression, civil rights violations, police violence, and so on, are the subject of numerous social analyses, none of which are necessarily ‘anarchist’, or even sympathetic to anarchist opposition to capitalism and the state, but which may, nevertheless, be utilised by anarchists in their own political projects.
Secondly, I think it worthwhile conceding to others the ability to think: in this case, to critically explore anarchism / anarchist ideas / anarchist activity / anarchist history / anarchist movement. What distinguishes an anarchist from a non-anarchist is not smarts. Further, despite the frequently absurd claims of tabloid media, there’s nothing terribly secret or especially mysterious about anarchist organisation or its history. At the very least, these certainly present no difficulties which an individual with a genuine interest in learning moar (and the time and energy to do so) would find insurmountable. Thus, if you or I or some other person is aware that fascists and racists do not “fit” in terms of anarchist theory and practice, it’s not because we’re especially clever; nor does this incompatibility render Bakunin’s anti-Semitism or Proudhon’s sexism any less real. Rather, what it does is point to the logical constitution of anarchist philosophy; further, the many examples of opposition to organised fascism that may be drawn from anarchist history.
Thirdly, and on a more general level: why call ourselves anything? Partly, because we have to.* The moment somebody speaks they are engaged in the act of naming: the alternative is silence. An appeal to those-with-anarchist-ideals to refrain from naming themselves as anarchists, it seems to me, means essentially abandoning the field to others, whether pin-headed racist BANANAs, lazy journalists, or bourgeois historians. Ideas no more drop out of the sky than do cities: history is what’s happening.
3) Anarchism, ideology, ‘mass’ media
Ideology is the main function of mass media…
Hmmm… yeah, I suppose so: depends what you mean by ‘ideology’, I guess. Leaving those questions aside: ‘why call ourselves “anarchists”?’ Well, I call myself an anarchist because it’s the political philosophy — or ideology, if you prefer — to which I feel the greatest affinity. (What that philosophy consists of is something which can be elaborated upon, and I do so at some length — on my blog, obviously, but in conversation, and in other forums.) In any case, the point I was attempting to make was not that the SF Weekly was not ‘ideological’ (hence incapable of making “ideological distinctions”; therefore “silly” to rely upon it to actually do so), but to draw attention to the fact that such journals routinely publish uninformed opinion, and poor reportage on the subject of the BANANAs is therefore unremarkable. Beyond this, the political economy of the mass media has been famously, and I think credibly, dissected by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky — their ‘propaganda model’ is reviewed by Jeffery Klaehn in ‘A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model” (European Journal of Communication, Vol.17, No.2, 2002 [PDF]). In terms of reacting to corporate hostility, An Open Letter to Glenn Beck (kate, Revolution by the Book: The AK Press Blog, May 14, 2010) details how AK Press has responded to Glenn Beck’s drawing attention to one of their publications; a response which, while acknowledging Beck’s ideological confusion, does not arrive at the conclusion that anarchists — “the actual ideas they espouse, the real work they do” — and anarchism must therefore be abandoned.
4) Stoopid BANANAs
They are most definitely not stupid…
Calling the BANANAs “stupid” was a cheap shot, yes; perhaps I should have written ‘obstinate’ instead. Nevertheless, two things. One, they are notclever; two, they don’t appear to be any more, or less, capable of capitalising upon public ignorance than any other white supremacist groupuscule. Further, I don’t believe that they are “very good at organizing” but, being a relative concept, and not knowing the criteria by which you judge such matters, you may be right (at least in your own terms): I dunno. Beyond this, I agree that whatever mischief a handful of BANANAs may be capable of, and whichever method is used to reinforce the contradiction between anarchism and BANANA, is a relatively trivial matter when compared to the other ‘public relations’ issues which present themselves when considering anarchism and its public reception. That is, on the one hand, there is an argument, of sorts, regarding ‘what is anarchism?’; on the other hand, ‘how might anarchist ideals best be promoted to a hostile public?’.
5) Anarchywhatfor
Anarchism now and always has only focused on what anarchists are opposed to…
I don’t agree. That is, I don’t think that the only thing which has united ‘anarchism’ during the course of its history is its opposition to rulers.
Or pencils.
Rather, ‘anarchism’ describes an historical movement, or series of movements, which have not only ‘opposed rulers’, but sought to construct society upon a new basis, and in doing so developed a wide range of ideas, organisational modes, practices, institutions and cultures. These movements emerged during the nineteenth century as one of a range of popular responses to (and formed one of the conditions for) a newly-developing, global, capitalist order. This history has been the subject of a number of popular, and many not-so-popular, accounts, which identify leading thinkers and organisations, pivotal events and actions, motivating ideas and philosophical frameworks: I won’t list them here, but a recent account which seems appropriate to draw attention to is Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism, CounterPower Vol. I by Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt (AK Press, 2009).
Finally, similar questions could be raised with regards the meanings of what are assumed to be the straightforward terms which, it is suggested, could be substituted both for ‘anarchist’ but also — and moreover — the various things the nominated ‘activists’ are said to be in favour of. In other words: what does it really mean to be “pro-immigrant”? Or to be “for civil liberties”, or “for Palestine”? Like ‘anarchism’ and ‘anarchist’, the meaning of these terms are contested: historically-situated; politically-loaded. These meanings, in other words, are not fixed, and are rarely transparent. So too anarchism…
See also : Which Anarchism? Which Autonomism? Between Anarchism and Autonomist Marxism (Heather Gautney), January 7, 2010 | Al-Qaeda and Anarchism: A Historian’s Reply to Terrorology by James L. Gelvin, May 6, 2009 | Anarchy: Against Capital, Against the State, June 23, 2007.
I was totally with you until you bringing up Black Flame. I didn’t realize you identified with the revisionists…
A!
Funny how this line of argument seems to almost always come out of the US, as if US @ists have absorbed the exceptionalist ideology promoted by their ruling class and their intellectual lackeys.
I have always found political labels rather silly. When these political labels are used by “anti-authoritarians” it gets even sillier. Anarchism in my eyes is distinct in its internal spirit or tendency towards destructive thought. Such aggressive existence is far removed from abstracted political philosophy. A radical skepticism of power, an anti-ism, is what I prefer to see anarchists standing for.
Suffice to say you won’t find my interpretation of anarchism upheld by the far more organized and “active” anarchists. To them anarchism is a clear set of principles, a culture, an organized political movement and a concept easily represented in banners, slogans and historical figures. This is hypocritical stuff. You’re an anarchist, but you’re not. All hail Bakunin! Eager little activists forming anti-fa clubs, web-rings, journals and unified think tanks. This (very grass-roots socialist inspired) means of anarchism requires platforms to rally the troops under a common ideology. Kind of tastes like authority. In order to be productive, individuals have ceased being anarchist.
Hence why I don’t use the term publicly. I prefer to just phrase things in an “anti” sense. Anti-consumerist, anti-globalization, anti-patriarchy, anti-racism and anti-whatever. This clearly states my point of view with little baggage.
To be transparent, I am also moving away from the term in the private expression. I’ve grown to understand that politics/activism is far more complicated and that sources of authority are a little more ephemeral. Culture, language, philosophy and other far less graspable enemies underpin oppression and require very different approaches to change. This requires a different way of thinking politically than the “smash the state, smash the church, smash capitalism” ghosts of radical past.
To me it’s pretty easy, but we made our first foolish mistakes a good half century or more ago when we failed to stop the so called “anarcho-capitalists” from misappropriating our terminology and symbols, and this makes it harder now.
Like anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-fascism is a term with an internal contradiction. It represents a concept that has no coherency and ultimately an ideal that can never exist.
Anarchists are people who oppose unjustified authority. It’s really all there is to it.
Because of that, anarchists are bound to oppose capitalism, the state, unequal relationships domestically.
So an anarcho-capitalist can’t really exist. It doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense that you can be anarchist yet also approve of the domination of man over man by capitalists.
You’ll note I used the term unjustified. Sometimes, very rarely, some force becomes necessary. Chomsky gives the example of restraining his grandchild from running out in front of a car. Another justification might be having to use force to protect your community, family or self from fascist thugs.
Thus you can see where groups like BANA simply are not anarchists, don’t belong anywhere near the tradition, and the duty anarchists (and their comrades in the anti fascist-movements) have to confront them and run them out of town.
BANA support racial separatism and nationalism. Bam, right there. Not anarchists. Racial separatism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing or whatever you want to call it, are anti-anarchist ideals because they are about using force to run people out of communities for no justification other than colour of skin, or cultural creed.
BANA bitch and moan that denying people the right to live in an all white community is, uh, authoritarian. No, evicting the local POC folk is authoritarian. What the fuck did they deserve to be ethnically cleansed?
National anarchism is not an anarchist philosophy, it is in its full analysis a form of neo-nazism or fascism, and BANA should just drop the faux anarchist bullshit and just admit that they are just another bunch of boorish boneheads.
Great post. I haven’t finished reading Black Flame but I’ve really enjoyed it so far and I think it makes a compelling case in the opening chapters for circumscribing anarchism.
Aragorn!
“I didn’t realize you identified with the revisionists…”
Neither did I, to be honest. I mention Black Flame because it’s recent, and interesting. I also confess to only having read extracts. Thus, I suppose I could’ve referred to Robert Graham‘s anthologies, or Uri Gordon’s Anarchy, or some other tract, but it didn’t occur to me. Anyway… I like yr new (to me) blog, especially the May Day photo:
dj
Yeah. But it has other sauces, of a slightly different nature, perhaps, and more allied to a more general disco re the nature of ideology. Otoh, it does seem — w the stress on ‘seem’ — to be a line of argument encountered most freq in a Yanqui context.
Jarryd
Morrissey once sang that ‘Shyness is nice, and / Shyness can stop you / From doing all the things in life / You’d like to’; Bob Black once noted that ‘anarchism’ is a label, not a warranty. Which, believe it or not, is another, rather peculiar, way of claiming that: a) the use of labels, whether ‘political’ or not, is a project fraught with danger and; b) the act of labelling is itself ‘political’. Indeed, many political battles are fought over this territory. Further, to the extent that language is necessary to communication, such conflicts, both silly and moar serious, are inevitable. Which is not necessarily a bad thing: conflict can bring joy as well as pain; and where prose is sometimes unable to arrive at the heart of any particular matter, there’s always poetry.
So: I guess what I’m suggesting, both here and in the above, is that we are always-already engaged in ‘labelling’, and that this in fact constitutes the essence of language. Beyond this lies the land of linguistics, and I hesitate to enter without checking my passport, but I think the point is otherwise fairly straightforward, and that is: the kinds of problems that surround a discussion of anarchism are not unique, they are not insurmountable, and they do not mandate the abandonment of the term. Beyond this: yes, there are many intriguing questions which emerge in this context, especially with regards anarchy, authority, authorship, language and representation; I don’t understand what you mean when you write that anarchism “is distinct in its internal spirit or tendency towards destructive thought”; or that “such aggressive existence is far removed from abstracted political philosophy”. I agree that anarchism evinces radical skepticism towards power (and authority), as well as the reification of thought (“isms schisms”).
Moar later!
It certainly ‘seems’ 😉 to me that these discussions often take place in a world where history and radical traditions in other countries apparently don’t exist, and often take this form:
“Hai Guyz – check my brand new invention, I’m thinking of calling it the Rotata™!”
“Dude, it’s a wheel…”
We obviously can’t (nor want to) stop these discussions being had but it does ‘seem’ to me that they could be more fruitful and less like an academic seminar where you already know the questions that tenured faculty are going to ask, regardless of the topic presented.
So, “real” anarchists don’t believe in freedom of association? If, for instance, I personally find black people repulsive, you would force them on me in the name of “anarchy”?
I’m not sure how you could properly and logically deduce, merely from the denouncement of hierarchy as an organizing principle, that we should be free to force ourselves upon anybody and everybody. I mean the only thing that differentiates them from you is their particular version of tribalism.
It seems to us, in the White Nationalist community, that the BANA, are in fact, actual anarchists. How else could you possibly describe their political views?
[tomorrowinvinland.blogspot.com]
I’m probably repeating what’s already been said here, but because it’s been literal years and this is my moment to shine, I’m going to pour forth.
This is an interesting post for a whole raft of reasons. What I particularly like is that it’s taken for granted that words are given meaning by their use on a cultural and habitually contextualised basis.
There is a clear political component to the BANANAs’ misappropriation of the words and symbols of Anarchism. They’re trying to instantiate new uses, and therefore meanings, of traditionally Anarchist words, ideas and practices. They’re doing this not because they are at all sympathetic to Anarchism but in order to confuse the already complex meaning of Anarchist praxis and to divert people who might consider Anarchism as a viable option for social organisation away from it and towards an oppressive, racist, right wing politic – it’s hard to see any simpatico with Anarchy here.
It’s hard to understand why anyone would want to more or less disregard the rich history and practice of Anarchism when attempting to come to terms with what it is. One should expect meanings to change with time and with contexts, but this doesn’t excuse free and easy definitions that fail to take the historical contingency of Anarchism into account.
I don’t see Black Flame as revisionist. Rather, I see it as a frank and quite thorough attempt to reclaim some of that historical meaning/use/context of Anarchist praxis and thus I believe it does fantastic violence to the notion that Anarchism can mean whatever an individual wants it to, which is patent bullshit.
Jarryd
I’m not unduly worried if your interpretation of the meaning of the term ‘anarchism’, or your understanding of anarchist philosophy, is not fully in accord with that of ‘organised’ and/or ‘active’ anarchists (of which presumably I’m one), although I’m somewhat curious about discovering: a) who these active, organised anarchists are; b) if there’s a difference, in your view, between being active and being organised and; c) if you believe there is any particular, ethical obligation upon citizens (or subjects) to enact their considered opinions (and an over-riding one in the case of anarchists). Leaving aside the baggage you assume — perhaps reasonably, perhaps not — which necessarily belongs to the active and/or organised mob, however, I don’t agree — and by logic, it does not follow — that articulating a clear set of political principles (and so on) is necessarily ‘hypocritical’. To put it another way: clarity is one thing; hypocrisy another. That said, what I think you may be attempting to draw attention to — and apologies if I’m incorrect — is the apparent conflict between what, for the time being, might be referred to as the anti-authoritarian impulse, with a certain understanding of what occurs when a person assumes the authority to speak to the question: what is anarchism? Obviously, to declare what anarchism is is also to declare what anarchism is not (in fact, this may be all that may be achieved — but that’s another story) and is a literal exercise in authority; that is, in authorship. Here I think we arrive at an important juncture (toot toot!), and one that necessarily invokes a whole range of other questions, questions which probably aren’t very easily painted onto banners, but which if they were would require the purchase of a very large amount of material…
Thank Bakunin at least some of us are organised.
Actually, while I think your remarks about banners, slogans, historical figures, anti-fa clubs, web-rings, journals and unified think tanks are a little… odd… with regards Bakunin, the problem, if there is one, is not that too many eager little anarchist activists hail! the dead Russian, but barely any have actually read him. Nor, for that matter, any of the other thinkers routinely cited as being key progenitors of anarchist thought.
Which is — again — another story.
Finally, I think that, in general, if someone desires to engage in effective communication, they must necessarily pay attention to their use of terminology. In other words, adopting a utilitarian approach to language — in this case, ‘anti-consumerist’, ‘anti-globalization’, ‘anti-patriarchy’ and ‘anti-racism’ as opposed to ‘anarchism’ — is fine: but it doesn’t satisfactorily address, I think, the questions raised by the above post.
Don O
I think that the confusion of anarchism with libertarianism with laissez-faire capitalism is moar of a problem in the Anglosphere; an issue not unrelated to the relative weakness of anarchist movements in the remnants of the British and US empires. On libertarianism, see also 150 years of Libertarian.
Lumpen
Cheers.
This is an interesting post for a whole raft of reasons. What I particularly like is that it’s taken for granted that words are given meaning by their use on a cultural and habitually contextualised basis.
Conservatives don’t like it either. Do you anti-war conservatives that identify with Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, Joseph deMaistre, et al. like being lumped in with George Bush? Language evolves and it would lose its utility if it did not. It is a lagging indicator of cultural drift. Get used to it.
There is a clear political component to the BANANAs’ misappropriation of the words and symbols of Anarchism. They’re trying to instantiate new uses, and therefore meanings, of traditionally Anarchist words, ideas and practices.
They aren’t instantiating new uses of the term. They’ve qualified the term by appending “nationalist” to it.
They’re doing this not because they are at all sympathetic to Anarchism…
Their message statement seems to belie this assertion.
…but in order to confuse the already complex meaning of Anarchist praxis and to divert people who might consider Anarchism as a viable option for social organisation away from it and towards an oppressive, racist, right wing politic…
Seems like you are “instantiating” new uses of the terms “oppressive” “racist” and “right wing” here. How exactly do they advocate oppression in any way? Racism? Hell, Trotsky or some other filthy communist invented that term less than two hundred years ago! You aren’t a commie are you?
They certainly aren’t “right wing” in any meaningful sense.
…it’s hard to see any simpatico with Anarchy here.
Maybe you need glasses?
I think that the confusion of anarchism with libertarianism with laissez-faire capitalism is moar of a problem in the Anglosphere…
It doesn’t happen. We call them Libertarians and everybody knows what we mean by it.
@ndy
Firstly, to clarify what I meant by the statement:
“is distinct in its internal spirit or tendency towards destructive thought”.
What I am speaking of here is the internal, emotional and rather nice rush of rebellion. The feelings of adrenaline and freedom one feels when they first yell “fuck you” at an authority figure. The “hit” of anarchistic titillation which keeps activists going even if their cause is ultimately hopeless. The rage, the playfulness and the turbulence of being ‘political’ is so pivotal. It’s not winning the fight that matters, it’s the joy of fighting.
And “such aggressive existence is far removed from abstracted political philosophy”.
It’s really not about the thinking, it’s about smashing down walls. It’s all very punk. I’m sure Young Liberals get a rush of it too, protesting evil commies and kicking shit over a tax hike. These are anarchistic feelings for them too as they are destroying monolithic structures in pursuit of “liberty”. The difference between a Young Liberal and an anarchist in my view is that the Liberal will happily destroy newer more “progressives” structures, yet cling onto old ones. The way I think a true “anarchistic” ideology should work is to not cling to anything, to just destroy.
I really don’t mean in a pipe bomb sense but more in a process of dismantling ideology. But I will respond to that later.
@ndy wrote: “although I’m somewhat curious about discovering: a) who these active, organised anarchists are; b) if there’s a difference, in your view, between being active and being organised and; c) if you believe there is any particular, ethical obligation upon citizens (or subjects) to enact their considered opinions (and an over-riding one in the case of anarchists)”.
a) By active I mean “activist”: a protester, campaigner, advocate etc. Anyone who fights structures in hopes of bringing about change. By ‘organized’ I simply mean that they bring like minded people together and do things to enact this goal. I think I’m correct in thinking there is a Melbourne Anarchist Club and various offshoots of smaller anarchist and anti-fa groups.
b) Well there is, I could be an ‘activist’ yet not engage with people who share my views. I could simply blog my views. I could act within academia to change the way people think politically. The idea that all great change comes from a group of grass roots concerned citizens just isn’t true. Although I love that Margaret Mead quote.
c) Here is where we get into it. Just to state outright: I am not a moral relativist, or at least I don’t think I am, yet this is quite an easy criticism to swing at me for my opinions. The main issue I have with political action or activism or “change” is that I think it’s a flawed process.
It’s a flawed process because the way we think about politics is grounded in this Enlightenment notion of working towards some higher, unifying future system that comes from constantly improving the current. People often claim that anarchism doesn’t do this as a philosophy, but of course it does. Anarchism, like all revolutionary politics is based on the idea (from Hegel (?)) that conflict occurs in an unequal system and that eventually political change will occur when the oppressed people rise up against the oppressors. Marx of course took this idea out of the abstract world of thought and into the material one. This argument characterizes political systems as organically (mind you with lots of individual lives getting screwed) growing and evolving into fairer and fairer systems brought about by conflict. There is a hope from this, that this evolution will eventually bring about a Utopian or at least “as good as it gets” political system. Anarchism differs from Socialism not by rejecting this view of history and change but in hope of “speeding it up”.
Now I have an issue with this way of thinking politically. The main one of which is a criticism of “the dialectic”, the principle on which this form of activism is based. The dialectic (as I’m sure you probably understand better then I do) describes the process of gain[ing] truth through argument by sharing and contrasting ideas. This process of revelation through antagonism is the basis for class conflict and political change. It assumes that this process will bring about something “better”. But what are we basing this on? If anything, by coming from a position which is positioned against the current system aren’t we limiting ourselves? Anarchism evolved as a philosophy against capitalism and against state-socialism. Therefore its ideas and principles were formed under the context of responding to those systems which in themselves were in response to others.
How can you be confident that your system is “right” when it is formed in response to systems which are flawed?
…More later.
dj:
Yeah. I mean, I think it was one of the Spice Girls who, when asked who she was gonna vote for / what political party she liked, quipped ‘I’m an anarchist’. And if a person — by which I mean a celebrity of some kind — has a reputation for being a little bit obstreperous or pig-headed, they’re often described as being ‘a bit of an anarchist’. Which I guess means that the term is used in the same fashion as what used, I think, to be a more common expression — ‘a bit Bolshie’. Note that I can’t help but imagine this latter phrase being spoken by someone like Tilda Swinton, looking slightly aghast, while playing the role of
a Victorian or possiblyan Edwardian lady in some BBC-TV drama.Where was I?
Oh yeah.
I’d seen him and I thought that what I had to have was [not] a prince, I had to have a trickster, an anarchist, a rebel, someone that [was] down the social scale from the rest of the royal family – this kid’s no royal, he’s from the steet and I had to have someone who had an anarchic sense of humour.
I think I may have missed your point.
danielj:
Huh?
Given that you’ve posed the question, you must think that there’s some point to asking it, but no, last time I checked my diary, I don’t remember reading ‘Must remember to 1. book two plane tickets to United States — one for me, one for black friend — and then 2. track down danielj, 3. force him, at gunpoint if necessary, to reside with friend (after convincing friend with force of argument to agree to co-habitation), finally 4. issue press release claiming action in the name of anarchy’.
On ‘national anarchism’, see : ‘Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction’ by Graham D. Macklin.
Jarryd
OK.
Well.
To begin with, I think that we’re actually discussing two separate, although related, topics. The first is a conceptual analysis of anarchism; anarchism as a set of ideas. This subject is what I’ve attempted to focus upon in the above post, publication of which was originally prompted by some disco on anarchistnews.org regarding an altercation on May Day in San Francisco between some anarchists and a small group of racist BANANAs. The second, I think, concerns the psychological motivations for engaging in transgressive behaviour (such as an anarchist punk throwing a bottle at a policeman at a demo, or a Young Liberal chanting abuse at his or her leftist rivals at a student conference) and the rewards which follow upon engaging in this behaviour; or what you term anarchism’s “internal spirit or tendency towards destructive thought”. To what extent an initial, youthful attraction to this or that ideology is determined by such factors, I dunno: without grounding such accounts in a particular time and place, it remains too abstract and too general to be of much use. Thus, while I could offer anecdotal evidence drawn from my own experience regarding such matters, I think it better to simply state that: a) even if your account were accurate, it doesn’t really help, I think, in terms of determining what, if anything, is unique about anarchism, and; b) while the literature on political psychology is vast, I think it can be reasonably assumed that, in general, and like much else, the reasons for a person’s adherence to a particular ideology is over-determined: that is, the outcome of multiple causes. On the other hand, I think it’s a worthwhile and interesting project to examine what sustains political participation in the longer-term, a subject which is also, perhaps especially, worth considering in the context of the rise and fall of social movements. Beyond this, I’d suggest that the work of figures such as Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm, but also (Freud, Jung and) Otto Gross may be useful when examining the intersection between politics and psychology especially, tho’ certainly not exclusively, when it comes to looking at radical, left-wing ideologies and movements…
Otherwise:
The way I think a true “anarchistic” ideology should work is to not cling to anything, to just destroy.
Two things spring to mind. 1. Nihilism. 2. Bakunin (when he was an Hegelian).
I think I’m correct in thinking there is a Melbourne Anarchist Club and various offshoots of smaller anarchist and anti-fa groups.
Yeah, there is a MAC, as well as a small clutch of other anarchist groups. There are no formal antifa groups that I’m aware of, but rather a series of overlapping circles of interest. Some history here and an overview here.
On ‘activism’ in general: an essay produced in the wake of J18 has received some attention — from what I recall, it drew fairly heavily on Vaneigem. Otherwise, I think Ken Knabb is good value, as is What in the hell … in terms of orienting oneself around rad.pol concepts, debates and discos.
The stuff what you wrote about political eschatology and the dialectic I’ll return to, in a higher synthesis of views, which will realise the promise of the Enlightenment in an Utopia for slackbastards.
In the meantime:
No future.
No past.
No morals.
No point.
We are talking the left-side version aren’t we? You know, the ones against gover[n]ment, but for one of the strictest types of gover[n]ment you can get (only way it last’s [sic] more than a week)[.]
You are about as high up as they get before they cast you out. Real high up the list, ruler of a blog, you can only make a blog if you are… Well, any [sic] can, can’t they. But you need something to talk about. How about a hot topic, racism, what you think being an anarchist (leftist) is. Talk about how bad it is to see people get beat up for being different and then going and doing it.
TALKING peace and DOING war.
Sad lot, very fast turn around, in and out, just like that. Only the really brainwashed ones stick with it, you know, the people who would lose all their fame if they left. What would you do? Read MAD? Watch SNL? Listen to “mum’s basement” bands?
Big fish in a small pond. Once you snap out of it or think for yourself, you will find that not everywhere is made up of four walls.
Let me ask you, why aren’t the anti-fa here like they are everywhere else? Are they smart or afraid? How many do you lose when you actual[l]y start doing something more than big group marches[?] What happends [sic] when they are in the thick of it with no help? Let’s hope they don’t eve[r] put themselves in the situation. Breeding violence and leading youth to a foul life.
You always come down from a high.
Given that you’ve posed the question, you must think that there’s some point to asking it, but no, last time I checked my diary, I don’t remember reading ‘Must remember to 1. book two plane tickets to United States — one for me, one for black friend — and then 2. track down danielj, 3. force him, at gunpoint if necessary, to reside with friend (after convincing friend with force of argument to agree to co-habitation), finally 4. issue press release claiming action in the name of anarchy’.
I asked because I am genuinely interested. I enjoy anarchists. They are almost exclusively white, highly interesting, and highly educated. I prefer their company to most. I even used to think I was an anarchist (temporarily) after reading the anarchistfaq, Bakunin, Tolstoy, Ellul, Proudhon (whose dislike for Jews turned me on to the JQ), etc.
I really don’t see how advocating racial separatism automatically disqualifies one from claiming to be an anarchist. Does the anarchist position require that one condemn any community borders? Is it de jure international and cosmopolitan? If, for instance, I want to live in a community free of blacks, would I be denied that right by an anarchist polity that based governance upon principles essential to the anarchist position? That appears to be a better way to word the question.
Also, I was wondering how anarchists justify the violence perpetrated against Yeoman, who is himself committed to non-violence and no threat? It seems to me, even if anarchists consider it theoretically acceptable, to be bad practice and to bring shame and dishonor upon anarchists while simultaneously seceding the moral high ground to your enemies. It isn’t very good realpolitik.
On ‘national anarchism’, see : ‘Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction’ by Graham D. Macklin.
Very nice article. It is well written, and, it appears you’ve kept your bias under control.
If you get time, you should hyper-link the notes so it is easier to read them.
danielj,
Later.
Jarryd:
danielj,
Later.
Like “Bye!”
Or, like “I’ll get to it later.”
Latter.
I really don’t see how advocating racial separatism automatically disqualifies one from claiming to be an anarchist. Does the anarchist position require that one condemn any community borders? Is it de jure international and cosmopolitan? If, for instance, I want to live in a community free of blacks, would I be denied that right by an anarchist polity that based governance upon principles essential to the anarchist position? That appears to be a better way to word the question.
‘Racial separatism’ — by which term I understand the doctrine that races can and should maintain separate existences, preferably in separate, distinct territories, but sometimes by way of social control mechanisms such as those of apartheid South Africa: a doctrine based, in turn, on an underlying belief that humanity is composed of several distinct ‘races’ (or-subspecies) — has never formed a part of anarchism, either as ideology or as movement.* On the contrary, anarchists have almost invariably argued that ‘race’, along with ‘nation’, has functioned — often crudely, but sometimes more subtly — as a means of dividing workers, and of establishing irrational sources of conflict between them: racialism disrupts notions of working class solidarity, to the benefit of ruling elites, and it’s for this reason it has often formed the basis of reactionary political and social movements. In this respect, the anarchist position on race is often indistinguishable from a broader socialist critique of the function of race and racism in class society. Of course, the exact understanding of race, and its place within a broader understanding of society, has changed considerably over the last 150 years or so, in response both to trends in social critique but also, and moreover perhaps, the experience of political conflict generated by social movements, and it’s not possible for me to condense this history into a few neat paragraphs. A relevant source of commentary drawn from the period of classical anarchism (1860s–1930s) would be Rudolf Rocker’s ‘The Nation in the Light of Modern Race Theories’, a chapter from his Nationalism & Culture. Otherwise, I reckon The Invention of the White Race by Theodore W Allen is a neat, much moar contemporary account of how race came to be, and to be policed.
If you want to live in a community free of blacks, I’d suggest you save your pennies, and enter a wealthy, white, gated community. Or possibly migrate to Iceland. Or join one of the various projects in North America dedicated to establishing somesuch community out bush. Then pray that your Pioneer Little Europe doesn’t degenerate in the same manner as, say, Nueva Germania.
See also : Anarchy 102 : Race.
Also, I was wondering how anarchists justify the violence perpetrated against Yeoman, who is himself committed to non-violence and no threat? It seems to me, even if anarchists consider it theoretically acceptable, to be bad practice and to bring shame and dishonor upon anarchists while simultaneously seceding the moral high ground to your enemies. It isn’t very good realpolitik.
Exactly what happened during the altercation between the BANANAs and the anarchists is unknown. Two people — presumed anarchists — have been arrested, and are facing charges. Until such time as the trial begins, and evidence is tendered in court, I think it would be unwise to assume too much regarding what happened. Already, contradictory accounts have been published. On this basis, it’s not possible for me to respond to your later assertions regarding the political implications of what occurred, as these are based upon a particular interpretation of events, and one which I do not share.
*stumbles in* Where was I?
** WARNING: I looked over this post after I typed it and it sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory. What I’m talking about here is best viewed under the scope of continental philosophy, or maybe just post-structuralism. Or maybe just a lame attempt at interpreting French theory. Anyway, I’m educated and don’t currently hand out fliers in a ragged beard at Flinders Street… yet. **
I don’t think ‘political psychology’ is a great way to view what I was saying earlier. Nevertheless, I can understand that my failure to communicate what I mean is neither my fault nor yours but simply the difficulty in putting what I mean into words.
Let’s move to new phrasing. I think what I am describing is ‘anarchism as apolitical’. That is the antithesis of political thinking.
What characterizes political thinking? All of this kind of shit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_political_thinking ). Thank you wiki, laziness is amazing.
Basically I want to orient my political outlook without baggage, beyond history. By characterizing myself as “anti-something bad” rather than “pro-political meme”.
Why do we need to forget history? Because it is flawed from the root. When all politics is orientated towards or away from classic political texts it’s hard to be revolutionary. More so, we live in a very different world to the classic political philosophers. A society in which people are so disjointed and surrounded by fantasy that they don’t care about “real” injustice anymore. If there even is such a thing. To be political is essentially to play out a role already made for you.
The way we relate, the types of activism and the people we are trying to convince to change are different. Activists are all cultural consumers. Who isn’t a stereotype anymore? There is a reason we like to talk about politics online, using an ironic and playful tone with views tilting towards nihilism. Such is the political culture we operate within. We like the label on this outfit.
Which is why anarchism is filled with douchery to some extent. Everyone is trying to translate old ideas into the now, assuming that the problems are similar. Class differentiation has changed. Class consciousness is dying. Capitalism is the only alternative. Socialism was a “quaint” little idea of yore. The beast will not die. The state no longer symbolizes tyranny to voters but the last bit of “public” they have left. War, death and a starving third world are interesting to people. We kind of like them around.
Revolution needs the people. But. Really. Have you met one lately?
I suppose this sound quite cynical. But it’s also oddly fascinating. To structure oneself against something but not for an alternative is to at least be honest. Reducing harm and not accidentally creating more should be key yeh?
The state of society and social relations at the current is also really interesting. We are an awesome mess to be exploited in either direction. That’s a whole other story.
Hope that clears up what I meant (possibly made it more confusing).
In the meantime…
one
Oppressionism versus playfulness
To rely on oppressive conditions to radicalize people is unwise; to intentionally worsen them in order to accelerate this process is unacceptable. The repression of certain radical projects may incidentally expose the absurdity of the ruling order; but such projects should be worthwhile for their own sake — they lose their credibility if they are merely pretexts designed to provoke repression. Even in the most “privileged” milieus there are usually more than enough problems without needing to add to them. The point is to reveal the contrast between present conditions and present possibilities; to give people enough taste of real life that they’ll want more.
Leftists often imply that a lot of simplification, exaggeration and repetition is necessary in order to counteract all the ruling propaganda in the other direction. This is like saying that a boxer who has been made groggy by a right hook will be restored to lucidity by a left hook.
People’s consciousness is not “raised” by burying them under an avalanche of horror stories, or even under an avalanche of information. Information that is not critically assimilated and used is soon forgotten. Mental as well as physical health requires some balance between what we take in and what we do with it. It may sometimes be necessary to force complacent people to face some outrage they are unaware of, but even in such cases harping on the same thing ad nauseam usually accomplishes nothing more than driving them to escape to less boring and depressing spectacles.
One of the main things that keeps us from understanding our situation is the spectacle of other people’s apparent happiness, which makes us see our own unhappiness as a shameful sign of failure. But an omnipresent spectacle of misery also keeps us from seeing our positive potentials. The constant broadcasting of delirious ideas and nauseating atrocities paralyzes us, turns us into paranoids and compulsive cynics.
Strident leftist propaganda, fixating on the insidiousness and loathsomeness of “oppressors,” often feeds this delirium, appealing to the most morbid and mean-spirited side of people. If we get caught up in brooding on evils, if we let the sickness and ugliness of this society pervade even our rebellion against it, we forget what we are fighting for and end up losing the very capacity to love, to create, to enjoy.
The best “radical art” cuts both ways. If it attacks the alienation of modern life, it simultaneously reminds us of the poetic potentialities hidden within it. Rather than reinforcing our tendency to wallow in self-pity, it encourages our resilience, enables us to laugh at our own troubles as well as at the asininities of the forces of “order.” Some of the old IWW songs and comic strips are good examples, even if the IWW ideology is by now a bit musty. Or the ironic, bittersweet songs of Brecht and Weill. The hilarity of The Good Soldier Svejk is probably a more effective antidote to war than the moral outrage of the typical antiwar tract.
Nothing undermines authority like holding it up to ridicule. The most effective argument against a repressive regime is not that it is evil, but that it is silly. The protagonists of Albert Cosséry’s novel La violence et la dérision, living under a Middle-Eastern dictatorship, plaster the walls of the capital with an official-looking poster that praises the dictator to such a preposterous degree that he becomes a laughingstock and is forced to resign out of embarrassment. Cosséry’s pranksters are apolitical and their success is perhaps too good to be true, but somewhat similar parodies have been used with more radical aims (e.g. the Li I-Che coup mentioned on page 304 [A Radical Group in Hong Kong]). At demonstrations in Italy in the 1970s the Metropolitan Indians (inspired perhaps by the opening chapter of Lewis Carroll’s Sylvie and Bruno: “Less Bread! More Taxes!”) carried banners and chanted slogans such as “Power to the Bosses!” and “More work! Less pay!” Everyone recognized the irony, but it was harder to dismiss with the usual pigeonholing.
Humor is a healthy antidote to all types of orthodoxy, left as well as right. It’s highly contagious and it reminds us not to take ourselves too seriously. But it can easily become a mere safety valve, channeling dissatisfaction into glib, passive cynicism. Spectacle society thrives on delirious reactions against its most delirious aspects. Satirists often have a dependent, love-hate relation with their targets; parodies become indistinguishable from what they are parodying, giving the impression that everything is equally bizarre, meaningless and hopeless.
In a society based on artificially maintained confusion, the first task is not to add to it. Chaotic disruptions usually generate nothing but annoyance or panic, provoking people to support whatever measures the government takes to restore order. A radical intervention may at first seem strange and incomprehensible; but if it has been worked out with sufficient lucidity, people will soon understand it well enough.
two
The Fatuousness of Cynicism / Theses Against Cynicism
Pleasure Tendency, Leeds, 1987
1.
At a time when people everywhere are being taken in by the lies and distractions presented by the media, we find everyone at the same time defending their cynicism, their self-proclaimed recognition of what is “really” going on.
This cynicism reaches every corner of society. Saturating conversations at work, every discussion of politics and personal life, everyone obliged to give the impression that “we know” what games are being played, what politicians are “really” up to…
“Nobody is pulling the wool over my eyes”. Cynicism is a joke, nowhere more apparent than in the pages of Private Eye or in the spectacle of “Spitting Image”. Here we are all encouraged to laugh hard at how fucked up and corrupt the situation is.
Forced controversies encourage nothing but complacency. They are nothing but a silent agreement to avoid putting anything seriously into question [and] as such are a fraud.
Accepting cynicism as a necessary option, by sacrificing any control over our own destiny, we recognise ourselves only as victims. By molding a recognition of oppression into acceptance of the “facts of life”, we shed responsibility, declaring that the game is rigged as our reason for continuing to play!
Of course there are real enough social reasons for this cynical consciousness, but that doesn’t make it right. Just as there are real enough reasons for the rise of neo-nazism amongst today’s proletarians who snatch at the simple solutions offered. But poverty doesn’t make fascism right. It never has. The causes of a belief don’t justify it. It is the consequences of beliefs that ultimately matter the most.
Cynicism in everyday culture has the character of a pre-emptive counter-revolution, sapping the will to resist or even struggle.
The enemy is transformed into something universally untouchable, rather than something particular. The “know it alls” have substituted the notion of an omnipotent, ever present oppression to mask their own fear. If we really did know all we need to know, were already aware of how the world works and where to place responsibility for our unwilling obedience, then we would hardly be in the mess we are in. Revolution would have overcome its major stumbling block, but this blockage is neatly put into, and kept in place, by cynicism itself.
2.
Cynicism is a surrender, an agreement not to exercise free will. It closes all possibility of escape from that which is unbearable by sacrificing hope- “Que sera, sera”.
By the postures and language of cynicism we pretend that we have sussed everything out, that we really know the score. Some of us would do pretty desperate things rather than face up to the possibility that we haven’t got a clue of what is going on.
The cynic is the defeatist who has walled him or herself into a tomb of self-justifying excuses, willfully forgetting that there was ever hope and forgetting that they have chosen to forget.
A cynic is someone who does not want to be disturbed by the knowledge of reality and its possibilities, and is prepared to be buried alive for fear of being found out to be the victim of a pathetic fraud.
Cynicism is the extrovert form of suicide. It denies that the world can change. But it does.
3.
Cynicism comes in all shapes and sizes. From the arrogance of journalists to the bitterness of jaded idealists who’ve chucked away all their ideas, too tired to retrace their mistakes and admit they only got some things wrong.
It is the religion of everyday life- “Be realistic, demand the inevitable”. Cynicism prevents people from doing things they might otherwise be able to contemplate doing, even if it doesn’t actually prescribe how people should live their lives. It rules things out, declares battles to be lost before forces have been joined; it announces the decisive issues to be not worth it. In numerous ways it insidiously demoralizes us, unbending the springs of action.
The social conditions for cynicism can be found everywhere. Its foundations are in our surroundings that scream at us, “That is the way things are and this is the way you are”. Cynicism, with the nerve to define itself as wisdom, “understands” all this, yet takes the solidity of our environment as a sign of its unchangeability.
We routinely miss or evade the difference between reasons for obeying rules and the reasons why particular rules are imposed in the first place. We treat [them] as if they were laws of nature. The words of cynics sputter disempowerment as efficiently as a machine gun in the hands of a cop.
Cynicism is the opposite of vandalism. Instead of desecrating walls or smashing physical structures, it builds impenetrable walls of its own and posts warnings like, “It’s no good banging your head against a brick wall”. The damage done by cynical restraint far exceeds the more visible effects of literal vandalism.
4.
Another aspect of cynicism’s fraud is that there might be a difference between a genuine cynic (an idealist who has learnt the sobering lessons from the hard knock of experience) and a mere imposter (putting on airs to give the impression they’ve seen something of life). There is no difference. Copying cynical phrases from a book is no more superficial than the person who wrote them in the first place. Cynicism is meant to be easily imitated. What the cynic claims to “know” is only what any fool can say.
Cynicism’s prime function is to forestall knowledge, to short-circuit the process of learning (remember the cynic “knows it all” already). It is always in fashion because it is the perfect cover for every possible foolish act or retreat.
5.
Cynicism amongst revolutionaries provides for their eventual defection. They have their excuses ready made by blaming “The System” for all the unscrupulous behavior which cynicism makes inevitable.
For most people, cynicism is a failure of nerve. The cynics are faint-hearted for refusing to face up to the fact that the world is nowhere near as hopeless as they would like to think. Cynicism rationalizes cowardice as “realism”, denying the thought that there are many things that can and should be done which might put courage and integrity back on the agenda.
Cynics cringe at the need to act from moral necessities, just as they scoff at practical proposals which they say would be “futile” simply because they go against the prevailing grain. Cynicism today is generalized conformism.
Cynicism is a bank of excuses, from “You can’t change human nature”, or “People are basically selfish”, to the well-worn apologies, “I’ve got my family to think about”, and, “It’s more than my job’s worth”. Cynicism’s language is the rhetoric of scared bureaucrats who simply con themselves into believing that they have seriously weighed up [the] price of breaking the rules, when really they had no intention of considering it a practical option at all.
There is no “human nature” that one can incriminate for the banal fact of selfishness. Behind the cynical generalizations, moral cowardice and obstinate refusal to use one’s intelligence or imagination can by no stretching of words be referred back to “human” or “natural” causes.
6.
Perhaps the most grotesque aspect of cynicism is its sheer irresponsibility. Just as its exaggerated negativism is insincere, its oversimplification of every issue guarantees that nothing practical is being considered.
Belief in one’s own impotence (as if it were the world’s fault for not being ripe enough for radical change) brings the reassurance of eternal irresponsibility. While the practicalities are left in the hands of electoral careerists and other professional cynics.
Cynicism thrives at the very core of social movements that make themselves into alternative subcultures, or even special interests. It does this by selecting a defined “other” as the oppressor and the source of all problems. What the cynic will blame on the world or “human nature” the radical minority will blame on the specific object of their resentment (“All men are rapists”, “All humans are animal abusers”, etc.).
7.
Cynicism is just another off-the-peg ideology. It’s made to fit so well you won’t even know you’re wearing it. It is the consciousness of the unconscious.
The consciousness is produced and reproduced. The culture of cynicism is everyday noise, the non-stop bark of deafened dogs, complaining that it’s a dog’s life, but too well trained to bite the hand that’s feeding them their lines.
8.
What is it that gives cynicism its substance? What permits us to reduce what is going on into something omnipotent?
Cynicism thrives on “reducing” everything into ready justifications. If such “reductions” are so popular, we have to ask what it is that things are “reduced” to?
There is, in society as it stands, only one reality that everything can be reduced to, and that is because everything is reduced to it, and produced by means of it. It is something whose mundane familiarity fools not only the cynic, but all of us, into thinking we must understand it.
That “thing”, which is not a thing, that which we all imagine we know about, is money.
We treat it as the essence of the profane, and yet it is the cult for which we are ready to accept that millions of lives are routinely sacrificed. In the refusal to see anything mysterious about money, the cynic and the idealist are united.
We “know” that we work for the sake of money and we “know” that’s just about all there is to be said about it. There is, it seems, nothing peculiar about people’s relationship and behavior towards commodities and money[.] “Well, that’s hardly surprising, is it?”
The antidote to cynicism is the transcendence of the realism (“That’s the way things are”) which nourishes the cynical creature we have to tame. Our gaze is being directed away from the world as it could be and the flowering of our potentials.
The possibility of transcendence does exist in reality itself. Courage, sacrifice, trust, generosity all bear witness to the way people’s actual behavior soars high above the crippling notions that cynics pass for reality.
The world is in some respects even worse than the cynics say; in other respects it contains more possibilities for genuine happiness, as well as more actual happiness, than even optimists bother to register. These are not separate aspects. The task of distinguishing the good from the bad would be helped considerably if we stopped talking about the “world”.
What we have to deal with is this society we inhabit, not some philosophical notion of the world as a whole. This society is no more a homogeneous totality than the “world”. And if there is an order, a pattern, a “system” at work in society, then it will be a historically specific one, not a timeless, all-powerful abstraction.
Cynicism deserves to be made the object of its own ruthless scrutiny; it must be forced to disclose what it is meant to suppress.
In the light of criticism, cynicism stands revealed as the very disease of which it claims to be the diagnosis.
“It is impossible for a people to rise above their aspirations. If we think we cannot win, we most certainly cannot. Our greatest enemy is our defeatist attitude. Our oppressors’ greatest weapon of repression is their psychological apparatus by which they impregnate our people with a defeatist complex.”
~ Adapted by Rich Peyote from “Theses Against Cynicism” by The Pleasure Tendency.
three
O gentlemen! the time of life is short;
To spend that shortness basely were too long,
If life did ride upon a dial’s point,
Still ending at the arrival of an hour.
And if we live, we live to tread on kings;
If die, brave death, when princes die with us!
Now, for our consciences, the arms are fair,
When the intent of bearing them is just.