The angry Aryans are allegedly members of the Australian branch of ‘C18’ or ‘Combat 18’, a neo-Nazi organisation. C18 (18 = AH = Adolf Hitler) has its roots in the late 1980s, and the UK branch of ‘Blood & Honour’, another neo-Nazi network: one specialising in the production and distribution of neo-Nazi agitprop, especially muzak. (B&H takes its name from a Nazi-era slogan usually associated with the Hitler Yoof.) C18 itself was formed partly as a response to attacks by militant anti-fascists upon B&H activities in the UK, and in particular its organisation of gigs: one, perhaps final turning-point for B&H being the disruption of a major event in London in 1992 (see : Ian Stuart : Zero of the White Race, Skrewdriver, and “The Battle of Waterloo”, September 25, 2006). Effectively booted out of London, B&H has gone on to bigger and better things elsewhere, including in Australia, which can boast of being the first country outside of the UK to have a local franchise of the group.
The organisation — a network of like-minded individuals with a tiny membership, but global reach — has had many ups and downs over the ensuing decades, with various forms of mayhem, including murder, generally accompanying its sporadic activity. Currently, C18 is probably at its strongest in northern and eastern Europe. In Australia, in 2006, Peter Campbell (of the now-defunct ‘White Pride Coalition of Australia’) was responsible for distributing neo-Nazi agitprop sourced from a C18 magazine called The Stormer. (In 1997, English neo-Nazi Rob Gray was imprisoned for producing the magazine on behalf of West London C18: Der Stürmer (literally, “The Stormer”; or more accurately, “The Attacker”) was a weekly Nazi newspaper published by Julius Streicher from 1923 to 1945.) In the interim, C18 has apparently organised a few gigs (and other events), distributed neo-Nazi merch, and presumably engaged in all the other activities boneheads are known for.
Or at least, that’s what its website — http://www.terrormachine.net/ — claims (a site previously utilised by Swedish neo-Nazis; note that ‘terror machine’ is one of the nicknames given C18 by its supporters). The site was most recently registered to a Perth bloke named ‘Jake’. ‘Jake’, oddly enough, was also responsible for ensuring that ashes belonging to US nutzi criminal David Lane were scattered in Perth: seenutzis are W E I R D : David Lane’s Ashes (February 13, 2009). Local bands featured on the site are ‘Indigenous Hate’, ‘Southern Storm’ (sample lyric: “Niggers Jews and Communists / Look out scum you’re on our list!”) and, most recently, the site boasted of “our latest band the High Wycombe Hooligans”. Curiously, one of those arrested is reported to have been from the Perth suburb of High Wycombe.
(In Australia, B&H regularly organises gigs, the most recent being on the Gold Coast last month, the next being scheduled for Melbourne in September. The Victorian organiser for B&H is Justin O’Brien, who owns Hold Fast Body Art tattoo studio in Burwood.)
Given the publicity surrounding these arrests, and given also the rather more prolonged campaign engaged in by the neo-Nazis belonging to Jack Van Tongeren‘s ‘Australian Nationalists Movement’ or ‘ANM’ in the 1980s, it’s likely that the terrormachine site may be pulled.
Or maybe not: in these crazy, topsy-turvy times, who’s to say what’s right or wrong? In any event, the same merch — including the classic Freezer Full of Nigger Heads CD by Grinded Nig — is available for purchase from B&H by way of 9percent productions.
Following the “debacle” at Waterloo, in 1991 Combat-18 was formed: “Its leader was Paul Sargent, Charlie to his mates, a man with a long history in the right wing and an even longer criminal record. Sargent had become active in the late 1970s, where he mixed football violence and drug dealing with a skinhead adolescence. A close friend for much of this period was Chris “Chubby” Henderson, lead singer of the right-wing band Combat 84 and a prominent figure in the notorious football gang, the Chelsea Headhunters. An even closer friend was Gary Hitchcock, formerly manager of the skinhead band 4-skins, and another Chelsea “face”.”
Steve “Jonesy” Jones, the lead singer of English Rose (now the lead singer of Tattooed Mother Fuckers) also gets a guernsey; the band were one of a number to eventually turn against C18, partly by aligning themselves with the British franchise of the Hammerskins. On C18, Jonesy wrote “There’s no room within our ranks for such pathetic fools, nor for the people who believe their lies and support their actions against racial brothers”.
In October 1996, Wilf “The Beast” Browning went to Sweden. Three months later, his Swedish comrade Thomas Nakaba posted letter bombs to an English TV personality, AFA and the third to the guitarist for Squadron. “The bombs never reached their targets. The police had infiltrated C18 to its very highest level, with its leader, Charlie Sargent, and possibly also his brother, Steve, tipping off police about the bombing campaign.”
100 Per Cent White — A Diverse Production for Channel 4. Filmed, produced and directed by Leo Regan — is an excellent (Geraldine Doogue:) “fascinating” documentary film, examining the lives of several boneheads (including Neil Parish) 10 years after the filmmaker first encountered them, at a time when they were each actively involved in C18 and allied groups.
“Bohemian’s mascot is a kangaroo, the legacy of a 1927 tour of Australia. Following the tour, the club was awarded two live kangaroos, which they donated to the Prague Zoo.”
No God No Master is the title of a new film *ing David Strathairn and documenting anarchism in 1920s New York City. It’s still in post-production. In other news:
Ah, Greece. Inspiration for so much culture. Word on the street is that The Tyrannicides of Exarcheia: Wog Boy 3 is now in its planning stages, and is being co-scripted by Chris Anastassiades, Nick Giannopoulos, and the “Initiative of Exarchia Residents”.
“The protesters want change; dogs are designed to help them.”
Working Families
It was Dreamtime at the ‘G last night. “In February 2010, the Government launched Learn Earn Legend! — a message that focuses on encouraging and supporting young Indigenous Australians to stay at school, get that job and be a legend for themselves, their family and their community.”
Dear Leader
Dear Leader is the subject of a scurrilous profile in local capitalist running dog publication marie claire.
The imperialists are working hard to benumb the independent thinking and consciousness of the popular masses and keep them as their permanent slaves. In capitalist countries a large number of working people are denied even the elementary right to existence and their rights are ruthlessly violated. The exploiting class in capitalist society is mercilessly trampling down upon the independent wishes of the popular masses and more harshly oppressing and exploiting them as it is exercising unlimited rights with all powers and means of production in its hands. As long as the reactionary exploiting system and class are left intact, the popular masses can neither enjoy genuine freedom and happiness nor keep themselves alive. Only when the capitalist society, the exploiting system, is toppled down, can the working people the world over exercise their right as the independent human beings and play their role as the builder of the world.
Do not be taken in by the deceptive farce of the marie claire seeking to benefit from the misinformation about the “north wind”!
Art. LOL. In 2007, French corporation JC Decaux wanted to obtain a license from the Victorian Government to pollute moar public space with advertising — in exchange for bicycles. The proposal was presumably discussed in the Whorehouse of Representatives, but I’m unsure if it was approved.
An overview of the recent antics of Blood & Honour’s (very) friendly rivals belonging to the Canadian Volksfront franchise. I dunno what the boys belonging to the Australian franchise have been up to of late, but hopefully they’re continuing to be inspired by Viking power rock ‘n’ roll, and along with their Kameraden in the New Right (Australia and/or New Zealand), keeping the “jewish filth” in their place.
Update : Familiar tactics, Patrick Doyle, Metro (The Canadian Press), May 20, 2010: “They may have been shadowy figures in black masks, but the vandals who firebombed an Ottawa bank branch seem familiar to terrorism experts.” See also : Urban Guerrillas in Greece Face Scrutiny, Joanna Kakissis, The New York Times, May 20, 2010.
Anyway, a bank in Vancouver was set on fire the other day, and those responsible have apparently released a communique explaining their action. A typically laughable analysis is provided by “former CSIS agent, now with Northgate Group, Michel Juneau-Katsuya” for the benefit of Canadian talk radio here. You may remember Juneau-Katsuya from such posts as No issue is single just because they say you’re paranoid (May 5, 2008). Note that:
These summits are also a massive payday for the security industry. At the last G8 summit on Canadian soil – Kananaskis in 2002 – security perimeters were established cordoning dissent into established ‘free-speech’ zones as far away as Calgary. F-18 fighter jets flew sorties over the region, backing up thousands of police and military personnel who outnumbered demonstrators six to one. In the end, the whole charade cost over $200 million dollars, making it the largest peacetime security operation in Canada to date, only to be outdone by the 2010 Olympics.
The Vancouver Olympic games are over, but a torch is still burning.
Royal Bank Canada was a major sponsor of the recently concluded 2010 Olympics on stolen indigenous land. This land was never legally ceded to colonial British Columbia. This hasn’t stopped the government from assuming full ownership of the land and its resources for the benefit of its corporate masters and to the detriment of aboriginal peoples, workers and the poor of the province. The 2010 Winter Olympics increased the homelessness crisis in Vancouver, especially the Downtown Eastside, Kanada’s poorest urban area. Since the Olympics bid, homelessness in Vancouver has nearly tripled while condominium development in the Downtown Eastside is outpacing social housing by a rate of 3:1. The further criminalization and displacement of those living in extreme poverty continues apace.
“Royal Bank Canada is one of the planet’s greenest companies” according to one of its own brochures. Coporate Kanada saw fit to include RBC as one of the top 50 in a competition dubbed Canada’s Greenest Employers, which purports to recognize organizations that have created “a culture of environmental awareness.” Yet RBC is now the major financier of Alberta’s tar sands, one of the largest industrial projects in human history and perhaps the most destructive. The tar sands, now the cause of the second fastest rate of deforestation on the planet, are slated to expand several times its current size.
The games in Vancouver are now over, but resistance continues. An RBC branch can be found in every corner of Kanada.
On June 25-27 2010, the G8/G20 ‘leaders’ and bankers are meeting in Huntsville and Toronto to make decisions that will further their policies of exploitation of people and the environment. We will be there.
We pass the torch to all those who would resist the trampling of native rights, of the rights of us all, and resist the ongoing destruction of our planet. We say: The Fire This Time.
FFFC – Ottawa
at the corner of Bank Street and First Avenue.
The talking head on Channel 9 News tells me that there’s anarchy on the streets of Bangkok. Burning banks, shopping mauls and TV stations…
May 20 – Day of Action in Solidarity with the people of Thailand
Melbourne solidarity rally
Thursday 20 May at 12:30 pm
In front of Thai Airways office
250 Collins Street, Melbourne
Soldiers – Don’t shoot !
Abhisit government – Resign !
This is a time of crisis for workers in Thailand. The Abhisit government must go.
It is the 6th time in the past forty years that the Thai government has used military force to suppress popular discontent against the inequality and corruption of Thai society.
Thursday 20 May is the anniversary of the end of Black May in 1992, when the Thai military attacked hundreds of thousands of pro democracy demonstrators in the centre of Bangkok. The demonstrators resisted the attacks, and on 20 May 1992 the King intervened against the government.
We stand with the working people of Thailand. All workers in the region and globally should support protest actions and international industrial action and solidarity to assist workers in Thailand.
End the dictatorship – No to Abhisit – No to Thaksin – Yes to Workers’ Government !
t r u t h o u t has an interview with Simon Critchley here. Note that Critchley has been inspired by the Australian pamphlet series cum book How To Make Trouble and Influence People and titled his next book How to Stop Living and Start Worrying: Conversations With SC.
Speaking of crackademics, Benjamin Kunkel helped me to understand (whichever drugs) Frederic Jameson (is imbibing when he writes) in his review of Uncle Fred’s latest smash hit Valences of the Dialectic. Choice quote:
In Late Marxism (1990), his book on Adorno, Jameson wrote of Dialectic of Enlightenment that ‘the question about poetry after Auschwitz has been replaced with that of whether you could bear to read Adorno and Horkheimer next to the pool.’ With Jameson the question has been whether you could avoid reading him on a university campus, or continue reading him outside one. In Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections (2001), Chip Lambert, a former associate professor of literature in his thirties, decides to purge his library of Marxist cultural critics in order to raise some funds with which to indulge the yuppie tastes of his new girlfriend, Julia. Each of these books, Chip recalls, had once ‘called out’ to him ‘with a promise of a radical critique of late capitalist society’. And yet: ‘Theodor Adorno didn’t have Julia’s grapy smell of lecherous pliability, Fred Jameson didn’t have Julia’s artful tongue.’ Unburdened of his Marxist texts and their ‘reproachful spines’, Chip proceeds to buy Julia a fillet of ‘wild Norwegian salmon, line caught’ for $78.40 at an upmarket grocery store Franzen calls the Nightmare of Consumption, a name to suggest that faced with the brazenness of yuppiedom (as by the 1990s it was no longer even called; it was just the way that almost anyone who could afford to be, was) all satire or cultural criticism met defeat. Jameson’s Postmodernism had concluded with a call to ‘name the system.’ Ten years later, the system seemed to reply cheerfully to any ugly name you might call it. Hi, I’m the Nightmare of Consumption. Nice to meet you!
Doing Modernity is a blog in which A Sociologist Looks at Everyday Life in Contemporary Society. On it, Wayne(?) — who is A Sociologist — writes about Anarchism: A Radical Critique of Modernity (among other things). Speaking of blogs, Aragorn! has one here.
Punk Not Profit is a blog dedicated to honest anarchy and obscure punk “with the hope to expose the masses to the power of honest sound”.
Crazy and impossible.
The next link in my crazy chain is Anti-German Translation, which should probably be read alongside of Entdinglichung and Poumista. A hot piece of gossip on the Anti-Germans is the alleged assault by some from their camp on ‘anti-revisionist’ communists in Hamburg; see : Antideutscher Angriff auf die B5. Those responsible may or may not be linked to the Bündnis gegen Hamburger Unzumutbarkeiten (Alliance Against Hamburg Unacceptabilities). The incident may or may not, in turn, be linked to ongoing debates within the German left inre anti-Semitism, Israel, and related matters — especially some earlier incidents revolving around films (and boycotts).
In Australia, Michael Brull has written a letter to Mutiny zine (which celebrates its 50th issue this Friday, May 22 @ Black Rose) concerning an earlier article on ‘Free Speech and Fascism’. Those responsible for this earlier article reply to Michael in the same issue: the debate will presumably continue. Of relevance in this context is the announcement by fascists in Sydney of the attendance of Canadian neo-Nazi Paul Fromm at this year’s Sydney Forum. (Last year’s foreign guest speaker was Andrew Yeoman, a BANANA from San Francisco. On May Day 2010, two people were arrested and charged by police with allegedly assaulting Yeoman following an anti-immigrant protest he attended with a handful of other BANANAs and a small group of other racists.) Australia First, the party chiefly responsible for organising the Forum, has also completed the penultimate step towards registering with the AEC (alongside of, it should be noted, Secular Party of Australia, Building Australia Party and The Climate Sceptics).
Anyway, Michael has a blog here. He’s recently come under fire for his authorship of an article in local literary journal Overland, an article which has resulted in Overland being branded ‘biased’ by Jewish academics. On May 14, Antony Loewenstein had a crack at their line of argument in Crikey.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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…
This Sunday, May 16, a rally has been organised to express solidarity with “the Workers and people of” / anti-capitalist movement in Greece. It takes place @ the State Library from 2pm. Note that Melbourne was once touted as the second (after Athens), then third (after Athens and Thessaloniki), most populous Greek city in the world. See also : Relief over Greek bailout, Stuart Rintoul, The Australian, May 11, 2010.
In critical and suffocating times
Ta Paida Tis Galarias (The Children of The Gallery) / TPTG
May 9, 2010
The Ta Paida Tis Galarias (The Children of The Gallery) group report on the recent demonstrations in Athens against austerity measures, including the events leading to the tragic deaths of three bank workers and its implications for the movement of opposition.
What follows is a report on the demo of the 5th of May and the one that followed the day after and some general thoughts on the critical situation the movement in Greece is in at the time being.
Although in a period of acute fiscal terrorism escalating day after day with constant threats of an imminent state bankruptcy and “sacrifices to be made”, the proletariat’s response on the eve of the voting of the new austerity measures in Greek parliament was impressive. It was probably the biggest workers’ demonstration since the fall of the dictatorship, even bigger than the 2001 demo which had led to the withdrawal of a planned pension reform. We estimate that there were more than two hundred thousand demonstrators in the centre of Athens and about fifty thousands in the rest of the country.
There were strikes in almost all sectors of the (re)production process. A proletarian crowd similar to the one which had taken to the streets in December 2008 (also called derogatorily “hooded youth” by mainstream media propaganda) was also there equipped with axes, sledges, hammers, molotov cocktails, stones, gas masks, goggles and sticks. Although there were instances that hooded rioters were booed when they attempted or actually made violent attacks on buildings, in general they fitted well within this motley, colourful, angered river of demonstrators. The slogans ranged from those that rejected the political system as a whole, like “Let’s burn the Parliament brothel” to patriotic ones, like “IMF go away”, and to populist ones like “Thieves!” and “People demand crooks to be sent to prison”. Aggressive slogans referring to politicians in general are becoming more and more dominant nowadays.
At the GSEE-ADEDY demo (general and public sector worker unions) people started swarming the place in thousands and the GSEE president was hooted when he started speaking. When the GSEE leadership repeated their detour they had first done on the 11th of March in order to avoid the bulk of the demo and come to the front, just few followed this time…
The demo by the PAME (the Communist Party’s – CP’s – “Workers’ Front”) was also big (well over 20,000) and reached Syntagma Square first. Their plan was to stay there for a while and leave just before the main, bigger demo was about to approach. However, their members would not leave but remained there angered chanting slogans against the politicians. According to the leader of the CP there were fascist provocateurs (she actually accused the LAOS party, this mish-mash of far-right thugs and junta nostalgic scum) carrying PAME placards inciting CP members to storm the Parliament and thus discredit the party’s loyalty to the constitution!
Although this accusation bears some validity because fascists were actually seen there, the truth is –according to witnesses– that the CP leaders had some difficulty with their members in leading them quickly away from the square and preventing them from shouting angry slogans against the Parliament. It’s maybe too bold to regard it as a sign of a gradual disobedience to this monolithic party’s iron rule, but in such fluid times no one really knows…
The 70 or more fascists stationed opposite the riot police were cursing the politicians (“Sons of a bitch, politicians”), chanting the national anthem and even throwing some stones against the parliament and probably had the vain intention to prevent any escalation of the violence but were soon swallowed into huge waves of demonstrators approaching the square.
Soon, crowds of workers (electricians, postal workers, municipal workers etc.) tried to enter the building from any access available but there was none as hundreds of riot cops were strung out all along the forecourt and the entrances. Another crowd of workers of both sexes and all ages stood against the cops who were in front of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier cursing and threatening them.
Despite the fact that the riot police made a massive counter-attack with tear gas and fire grenades and managed to disperse the crowd, there were constantly new blocks of demonstrators arriving in front of the Parliament while the first blocks which had been pushed back were reorganizing themselves in Panepistimiou St. and Syngrou Ave. They started smashing whatever they could and attacked the riot police squads who were strung out in the nearby streets.
Although most of the big buildings in the centre of the town were closed with rolling shutters, they managed to attack some banks and state buildings. There was extensive destruction of property especially in Syngrou Ave. because the cops were not enough to react immediately against that part of the rioters as the police had been ordered to give priority to the protection of the Parliament and the evacuation of Panepistimiou St. and Stadiou St., the two main avenues through which the crowd was constantly returning to it. Luxury cars, a Tax Office building and the Prefecture of Athens were set on fire and even hours later the area looked like a war-zone.
The fights lasted for almost three hours. It is impossible to record everything that happened in the streets. Just one incident: some teachers and other workers managed to encircle a few riot cops belonging to Group D –a new body of riot police on motorcycles– and thrash them while the cops were screaming “Please no, we are workers, too”!
Demonstrators pushed into Panepistimiou St. kept returning in blocs to the Parliament and there were constant clashes with the police. The crowd was mixed again and would not go. A middle-aged municipal worker with stones in his hands was telling us, moved, how much the situation there reminded him of the first years after the fall of the dictatorship when he was present at the 1980 demo in commemoration of the Polytechnic uprising when the police murdered a woman, the 20-year old worker Kanellopoulou.
Soon the terrible news from foreign news agencies came on mobile phones: Three or four people dead in a burnt down bank!
I finally got around to seeing The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo the other day, and like that guy on the ad said many years ago about Wogs Out of Work, “It’s really really… good”. Once an independent journalist who specialised in exposing the Swedish far right, Stieg Larsson is now a dead and highly unproductive author whose Millenium trilogy is NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURES and whose life and literary legacy was profiled in the Good Weekend a few months ago (March 20, 2010). (Incidentally, the voice-over on this trailer is as not-annoying as Dylan Lewis.) Oh and Ten years later: Remember Björn Söderberg!
Ah. Well… I really should try and finish what I started more often, so here are some final thoughts, largely others’, on the BNP’s recent efforts at getting itself elected.
On the whole, the Party’s exertions have been viewed as being rather less successful than was predicted by many, especially its supporters (“yes, don’t worry; it wasn’t just you, it had me going too!” quipped Nick Gri££in). In fact, in ‘What next, the British ask‘, Peter Wilson (The Australian, May 10, 2010) gloats:
…And the best news of all? The British National Party got thrashed. The racist party that grew out of the skinhead [sic] National Front had made progress in recent council and European parliament polls and described this as its “breakthrough election”.
The party’s leader, Nick Griffin, was elected as a European MP last year and ran for the House of Commons last week in the working-class London suburb of Barking, where the BNP already holds 12 council seats and was hoping to wrest control of the council’s £300 million ($500m) budget.
Striving to identify himself with the British military, Griffin, who has never served in the military, was accompanied on campaign appearances by a man in army uniform and made a television broadcast sitting in front of a row of military medals and a photo of Winston Churchill.
The man in uniform was a schoolteacher dressed as a soldier, the medals were borrowed and Churchill actually fought against the Nazis, but Labour feared the campaign could still strike a chord with voters upset about the level of immigration in the past decade.
When Brown was caught by a live microphone calling a Labour supporter in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, “a bigoted woman” after she had expressed concern about immigration, the BNP grabbed its chance, rushing out ads saying this proved anyone asking legitimate questions about immigration was unfairly labelled racist. But the Bigotgate affair had surprisingly little effect at the ballot box. Labour took the seat of Rochdale from the Lib Dems.
And in Barking, Griffin limped into third place with 14.6 per cent of the vote and then all 12 of the BNP’s councillors lost their seats.
Accordingly, political salvation apparently now lies in the replacement of the first-past-the-post system with some form of proportional representation, one which could guarantee the Party’s hundreds of thousands of votes translates into a voice for its leaders in Parliament. (See : Have advocates of electoral reform noticed the rising BNP vote?, Jim Pickard, Financial Times, May 9, 2010.) Or at least, such is the possibility being dangled in front of the Party and its supporters by Gri££in, in an obvious attempt to prevent the Party’s failure from bleeding its coffers dry…
In 2005, the BNP stood 117 candidates in the British general election. In total, they received 192,746 votes: 0.7% of the total, and an average of 1,647 votes per candidate. In 2010, the BNP stood 339 candidates. In total, they received 563,743 votes: 1.9% of the total, or an average of 1,663 votes. Thus, while the total number of votes received by the BNP almost tripled, the average vote received by each candidate increased by only a tiny margin.
Beyond this, in local council elections, the BNP lost over half its councillors (being reduced in number from 45 to 19), and was completely wiped out in its former stronghold of Barking & Dagenham. Notably, Gri££in apparently claimed at one point that, having elbowed aside Richard Barnbrook, having the Party Führer standing for the seat was a tactical innovation, one designed to assist the Party in its attempts not only to have its councillors re-elected, but to actually assume control of the council. (Full results for the BNP are available on the HOPE note hate site.) If correct, then the tactic was a total failure. Of course, on the bright side, the people of North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber continue to enjoy being represented in Europe by the racist Welsh upper-class twit and his sidekick, the (former) neo-Nazi Andrew Brons, respectively… LOL.
Two Greek anarchists are making molotov cocktails. One says to the other: "So who will we throw these at then?" The other replies: "What are you, some kind of fucking intellectual?"
