{"id":16406,"date":"2010-05-18T00:45:38","date_gmt":"2010-05-17T14:45:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/slackbastard.anarchobase.com\/?p=16406"},"modified":"2010-06-09T19:24:31","modified_gmt":"2010-06-09T09:24:31","slug":"to-be-or-not-to-be-an-anarchist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/slackbastard.anarchobase.com\/?p=16406","title":{"rendered":"To be or not to be … an anarchist"},"content":{"rendered":"

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
\nWhether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
\nThe slings and arrows of fucking trolls,
\nOr to take arms against a sea of deadshits<\/a>,
\nAnd by opposing end them?<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/param><\/param><\/param><\/object><\/p>\n

See also<\/em> : Against Me! \/\/ Banksy \/\/ Dropkick Murphys<\/a> (March 20, 2007). Tom has a blog<\/a> too, where he details his illness.<\/p>\n

A short while ago, some BANANAs got dropped<\/a> in San Francisco. The resulting mess<\/a> has been splattered over several gritty sidewalks on the information superhighway, including anarchistnews.org (see<\/em> : ‘Post-Immigration March Scuffle Targets National Anarchists’; a re-post of Lauren Smiley’s article from SF Weekly<\/em>). 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<\/a> who’ve recently elected to carry black flags (‘stolen to replace swastika filth rags’<\/a>) into battle. (See also<\/em> : Anarchist statement on the New Right<\/a>, October 21, 2007.)<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Or something like that.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> (and because I think it more likely to be read here rather than there… by which I mean here).<\/p>\n

anon<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Idea —<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

slackbastard<\/a>:<\/p>\n

(You obviously don’t understand Bakunin.)<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

A few more points:<\/p>\n

Anarchism is as anarchism does.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

It’s not at all difficult to reject BANANA’s claim to be ‘anarchist’. In fact, it’s very easy.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

All the best to the comrades who got nicked.<\/p>\n

Cheers,<\/p>\n

@ndy.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/slackbastard.anarchobase.com\/<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

anon<\/a>:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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):<\/p>\n