LONGISH...
Towards Another Anarchism
by Andrej Grubacic; February 07, 2003
* Rough transcript of a talk given by Andrej Grubacic as part of the Life
After Capitalism forum (WSF3, Porto Alegre, 2003.) *
---------------------------
A friend of mine has written recently that: "no one needs another -ism from
the 19th century, another word which imprisons and fixes meaning, another
word that seduces a number of people into the clarity and comfort of a
sectarian box and leads others in front of the firing squad or a show
trial. Labels lead so easily to fundamentalism, brands inevitably breed
intolerance, delineating doctrines, defining dogma, and limiting the
possibility of change".
It is really difficult not to agree with this attitude. However, today it
is exactly my pleasant duty to present an -ism, and that is the -ism which
is the dominant perspective of today's post-Marxist global social movement.
It is anarchism. This idea, the idea of anarchism, has coloured the
sensibility of the "movement of movements" of which we are the
participants, and has stamped it with a essential inscription. Anarchism,
its ethical paradigm, represents today the basic inspiration of our
movement, which is less about seizing state power than about exposing,
de-legitimising and dismantling mechanisms of rule while winning
ever-larger spaces of autonomy from it.
It is my intention, in this couple of minutes that I have at my disposal,
to present to you in short the history of anarchism, in order to be able to
subsequently suggest a model of modern anarchism and strategic implications
which follow from accepting of such a model.
I am inclined to agree with those who see anarchism as a tendency in the
history of human thought and practice, a tendency which cannot be
encompassed by a general theory of ideology, that strives to identify
compulsory and authoritarian hierarchical social structures, by posing a
question of their legitimacy: if they cannot answer to this challenge,
which is most often the case, then anarchism becomes the effort to limit
their power and to widen the scope of liberty.
Anarchism is, therefore, is a social phenomenon and its contents as well as
manifestations in political activity change with time. One thing that is
special about anarchism is that, unlike all major ideologies , it could
never have had a stable and continuous existence on the ground through
being in government or a part of a party system. Its history and
contemporary characteristics are therefore determined by another factor -
cycles of political struggle. As a result, anarchism has a 'generational'
tendency in the sense that you can identify pretty discreet phases of its
history according to the period of struggle in which they were shaped. .
Naturally, as any other attempt at conceptualisation, this one is also
doomed to be simplified. I hope that, regardless of this, it will be useful
for the understanding of this social phenomenon.
Historically, the first phase was shaped by late 19th century class
struggles in Europe and is exemplified both theoretically and practically
by the Bakuninist faction in the 1st international. It starts in the run-up
to 1848, peaks with the Paris Commune (1871) and dwindles through the 80's.
It is quite an embryonic form of anarchism, mixing together anti-state
tendencies, anti-capitalism and atheism while retaining an essential
dependence on the skilled urban proletariat as a revolutionary agent.
Bakunin, that magnificent dreamer, that "dynamite, not a man", who, in
1848, shouted that " Beethoven's Ninth symphony should be saved from the
coming fires of the world revolution at the price of giving up one's life",
has bequeathed to us one of the most beautiful and perhaps the most precise
descriptions of a single leading idea within the anarchist tradition: "I am
a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under
which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not
the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the
State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the
privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the
individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the
School of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which
considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which
limits the rights of each -- an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction
of the rights of each to zero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is
worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all
the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person;
liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the
laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as
restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator
beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis
of our material, intellectual and moral being -- they do not limit us but
are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom".
The second phase, from the 1890's to the Russian civil war, sees a
considerable shift to Eastern Europe and is thus of a clearer agrarian
focus. Theoretically this is where Kropotkin's anarcho-communism is the
most dominant feature. It peaks with Makhno's army and carries over, after
the Bolshevik victory, to a central-European undercurrent. The third stage,
from the 20s until the late 40s, is again focused on Central and Western
Europe and is again industrially oriented.
Theoretically it is the peak of anarcho-syndicalism, with much of the work
being done by exiles from Russia. In this moment the differentiation
between two basic traditions in the history of anarchism has become clearly
visible: anarcho-communist and one might think, say, of Kropotkin as a
representative- and, on the other hand, the one of anarcho-syndicalism
which simply regarded anarchist ideas as the proper mode for organization
of highly complex, advanced industrial societies. And that tendency in
anarchism merges, or inter-relates, with a variety of left wing Marxism,
the kind one finds in, say, the Council Communists that grew up in a
Luxembourgian tradition and that is later represented, in a very exciting
fashion, by Marxist theorists like Anton Pannekoek.
After WW2 anarchism had a major downturn due to economic reconstruction and
surfaces only marginally in anti-imperialist struggles in the South that
are, however, quite dominated by a pro-Soviet influence. The struggles of
the 60s and 70s did not contain a serious upsurge of anarchism, which was
still carrying the dead weight of its history and could not yet adapt to a
new political language that was not class-oriented. Thus you may find
anarchist leanings in very diverse groups ranging through the anti-war
movement, feminism, situationism, black power etc., but not anything that
is positively identifiable as anarchism. Explicitly 'anarchist' groups from
this period were more or less a restatement of the previous two stages
(communist and revolutionary syndicalist), and quite sectarian - instead of
engaging with these new forms of political expression they closed
themselves off to them and usually adopted very rigid charters like the
anarchist of so called "platformist" Maknoist tradition. So this is a
'ghost' fourth generation.
Arriving at the present, we have two co-existing generations within
anarchism: people whose political formation took place in the 60s and 70s
(which is actually a reincarnation of the second and third generations),
and younger people who are much more informed, among other elements, by
indigenous, feminist, ecological and culture-criticism thinking. The former
exists in as various Anarchist Federations, the IWW, IWA, NEFAC and the
like. The latter's incarnation is most prominent in the networks of the new
social movement. From my perspective Peoples Global Action is the main
organ of the current fifth generation of anarchism. What is sometimes
confusing is that one of the characteristics of current anarchism is that
its constituent individuals and groups do not usually refer to themselves
as anarchists. There are some who take anarchist principles of
anti-sectarianism and open-endedness so seriously that they are sometimes
reluctant to call themselves 'anarchists' for that very reason.
But the three essentials that run throughout all manifestations of
anarchist ideology are definitely there - anti-statism, anti-capitalism and
prefigurative politics (i.e. modes of organization that consciously
resemble the world you want to create. Or, as an anarchist historian of the
revolution in Spain has formulated "an effort to think of not only the
ideas but the facts of the future itself".) This is present in anything
from jamming collectives and on to Indy media, all of which can be called
anarchist with the understanding that we are referring to a new form .
There is quite a limited degree of confluence between the two coexisting
generations, mostly taking the form of following what each other is doing
-- but not much more.
The basic dilemma that permeates contemporary anarchism, therefore, is the
one between traditionalist and modern conceptions of anarchism. In both
cases we are the witnesses of the "escape from tradition" of its kind.
I dare say that "traditionalist anarchists" have not fully understood the
tradition. The very word "tradition" has two historical meanings: namely,
one is more familiar and more widespread, and that is the meaning of
folklore -- "tales, beliefs, customs and behavioural norms", while the
other meaning is less familiar, and that reads: pass on, hand down,
articulate, confer, recommend. Why do I call attention to, but also
over-emphasize, this difference in the explanation of the word tradition?
Exactly because of the possibility that the term tradition can, in the
history of ideas, be comprehended in two different ways. One way (probably
a more common one) is that tradition is accepted as a completed structure
that cannot or should not be changed further on, but should be preserved in
its solid state and passed on into the future, unchanged. Such an
understanding of tradition is connected to that part of the human nature
which is referred to as conservative, and which is prone to stereotypic
behaviour, Freud would even say "the compulsion of repetition". The other
meaning of tradition, which I advocate here, relates to the new and
creative way of reviving the experience of tradition. Such a, let us say
immediately, positive way of conveying, has been put into effect of the
other side of the general human nature, provisionally deemed revolutionary,
along the lines of paradoxically expressed truth: a wish for a change and,
at the same time, a healthy need to remain the same.
Another form of the "escape from tradition" is the one that takes refuge in
various post-modern interpretations of anarchism.
I think it is high time for a certain, to quote Max Weber,
"dis-illusioning" of anarchism, an awakening from the dream of
post-modernist nihilism, anti-rationalism, neo-primitivism, cultural
terrorism, "simulacrums". It is time to restore anarchism to the
intellectual and political context of the Enlightenment project that is
nothing else but understanding that "objective knowledge is a tool to be
used so that individuals could take informed decisions on their own".
Reason, says the famous Goya's painting, doesn't produce monsters when it
dreams, but when it sleeps
I would say that today the dialogue between different generations within
the modern anarchism is necessary. Modern anarchism is imbued with
countless contradictions. It does not suffice to surrender to the habit of
the majority of contemporary anarchist thinkers who insist on dichotomies.
It would be good to abandon the exclusiveness of the "or - or" way of
thinking, and enter into discussions, in search of synthesis. Is such a
synthetic model possible? It seems to me that it is.
A new model of modern anarchism, which can be discerned today within the
new social movement, is the one that insists on widening the
anti-authoritarian focus, as well as on deserting the class reductionism.
Such a model endeavours to recognize the "totality of domination", that is,
"to highlight only the state but also gender relations, and not only the
economy but also cultural relations and ecology, sexuality, and freedom in
every form it can be sought, and each not only through the sole prism of
authority relations, but also informed by richer and more diverse concepts.
This model not only doesn't decry technology per se, but it becomes
familiar with and employs diverse types of technology as appropriate. It
not only doesn't decry institutions per se, or political forms per se, it
tries to conceive new institutions and new political forms for activism and
for a new society, including new ways of meeting, new ways of decision
making, new ways of coordinating, and so on, most recently including
revitalized affinity groups and original spokes structures. And it not only
doesn't decry reforms per se, but it struggles to define and win
non-reformist reforms, attentive to people's immediate needs and bettering
people's lives now as well as moving toward further gains, and eventually
transformational gains, in the future."
Anarchism can become effective only if it contains three, encompassed,
components: worker's organizations, activists and researchers. How to
create a basis for a modern anarchism on intellectual, syndicate, and
popular level? There are several interventions in favour of an another
anarchism, which would be capable of promoting the values I mentioned
above. First of all, I think it is necessary for anarchism to become
reflexive. What do I mean by this? Intellectual struggle must reaffirm its
place in modern anarchism. It appears that one of the basic weaknesses of
the anarchist movement today is, with respect to the time of, say,
Kropotkin or Recluse, or Herbert Read, exactly the neglecting of the
symbolic, and overlooking of the effectiveness of theory.
Instead of the anarchists' criticizing of the popular Marxists post-modern
fairy-tale "Empire", they should write an anarchist "Empire". Marxist
religion has, for a long time, referred to the theory and, by this, has
given itself a scientific appearance and the possibility to act as a
theory. What anarchism today requires is the overcoming of extremes of
anti-intellectualism and intellectualism. Like Noam Chomsky, I also have
neither sympathy nor patience for such ideas. I believe that the antagonism
between science and anarchism should not exist: "Within the anarchist
tradition there has been a certain feeling that there is something
regimented or oppressive about science itself. There is no argument that I
know for irrationality, I don't think that the methods of science amount to
anything more than being reasonable, and I don't see why anarchist
shouldn't be reasonable". Like Chomsky, I have even less patience for an
unusual trend that has spread, in various manifestations, within anarchism
itself: "It strikes me as remarkable that left intellectuals today should
seek to deprive oppressed people not only of the joys of understanding and
insight, but also of tools of emancipation, informing us that project of
Enlightenment is dead, that we must abandon the illusions of science and
rationality - a message that will gladden the hearts of the powerful..."
Before us, further on, lies the assignment to envision a type of an
anarchist researcher. What would be the role of an anarchist researcher?
She would certainly not lecture, like the old left intellectuals do. She
should not be a teacher, but someone who envisages a new and a very
difficult role: she must listen, explore and discover. Her role is to
expose the interest of the dominant elite carefully hidden behind
supposedly objective discourses.
She has to help activists and to supply them with facts. It is necessary to
invent a new form of communication between activists and activist scholars.
It is necessary to create a collective mechanism that would connect
liberterian scientists, workers and activists. It is necessary to found
anarchist institutes, reviews, scientific communities, internationales. I
believe that sectarianism, unfortunately a very widespread phenomenon in
modern anarchism, would in this way loose its power, as the consequence of
such an effort. One of the organised attempts to resist sectarianism in
modern anarchism is the outline of the new anarchist international, which I
have recently been given, and which I will now read to you.
THE ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL is an initiative meant to provide a venue for
anarchists in all parts of the world who wish to express their solidarity
with each other, facilitate communication and coordination, learn from one
another's efforts and experiences, and encourage a more powerful anarchist
voice and perspective in radical politics everywhere, but who wish to do so
in a form which rejects all traces of sectarianism, vanguardism, and
revolutionary elitism. We do not see anarchism as a philosophy invented in
19th century Europe, but rather, as the very theory and practice of freedom
- that genuine freedom which is not constructed on the backs of others - an
ideal that has been endlessly rediscovered, dreamed and fought for on every
continent and in every period of human history. Anarchism will always have
a thousand strands, because diversity will always be part of the essence of
freedom, but creating webs of solidarity can make all of them more powerful.
END of FIRST HALF.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/02/19/2524824
