Anarchists Attack! v.2
The Wednesday and Friday before the Presidential election, anarchists smashed windows ands wrote slogans at Kansas City's Obama headquarters.
They wrote:
"We fundamentally object to electoral politics, representative democracy, and global capital and aren’t interested to compromise, be ‘realistic’, etc. Obama is a ruse and dangerously counterrevolutionary: he has become the image of ‘change’ (albeit illusory!), a respectable face for imperial capital and state. His candidacy has exposed many more as pseudo-comrades, quick to blackmail themselves out of guilt-ridden liberal critiques of privilege into standing in solidarity with ultimately none other than the financial industry, whom Obama gladly will bail out. In turn, we aim to expose Obama, the Democratic party, and liberals (anarcho- or otherwise) as our enemies. While they earnestly perform their scripted role of good cop, we are struggling to evict all cops from our neighborhoods. While they coax and coerce us to play by the rules, we are fighting to live only by our desires. While they bandy words about a piecemeal, painfully slow models of ‘progress’ and ‘social change’, we are taking matters into our hands—we feel it in our bones, we cannot wait any longer. No more delusions or demagogues! Rebel, riot, revolt 2008!"
So, I ask- Who are they trying to inspire? Who are they trying to reach? What effect have they had?
_____
Two polling places in Santa Cruz were vandalized and had their locks glued shut apparently by anarchists.
Score one for anti-authoritarianism? What did this accomplish because the obvious target of this action was the average person.
__________
I would sincerely love a dialogue with anarchists who feel these actions were justifiable and/or positive.
This is where the punk roots of most contemporary anarchy really show. Do anarchists have no concept of building momentum or a movement that could actually "challenge" the power structure and "replace" it with a better "system"? Or is the goal here to get your rocks off on destruction with no intention of building anything but an isolated elite that are incapable of either destroying this system or defending itself???
I am no defender of the USA or the Democratic Party but the nature and the timing of these attacks only have one victim visible to most people- Those people with enough hope (however false or misplaced) to vote.
They wrote:
"We fundamentally object to electoral politics, representative democracy, and global capital and aren’t interested to compromise, be ‘realistic’, etc. Obama is a ruse and dangerously counterrevolutionary: he has become the image of ‘change’ (albeit illusory!), a respectable face for imperial capital and state. His candidacy has exposed many more as pseudo-comrades, quick to blackmail themselves out of guilt-ridden liberal critiques of privilege into standing in solidarity with ultimately none other than the financial industry, whom Obama gladly will bail out. In turn, we aim to expose Obama, the Democratic party, and liberals (anarcho- or otherwise) as our enemies. While they earnestly perform their scripted role of good cop, we are struggling to evict all cops from our neighborhoods. While they coax and coerce us to play by the rules, we are fighting to live only by our desires. While they bandy words about a piecemeal, painfully slow models of ‘progress’ and ‘social change’, we are taking matters into our hands—we feel it in our bones, we cannot wait any longer. No more delusions or demagogues! Rebel, riot, revolt 2008!"
So, I ask- Who are they trying to inspire? Who are they trying to reach? What effect have they had?
_____
Two polling places in Santa Cruz were vandalized and had their locks glued shut apparently by anarchists.
Score one for anti-authoritarianism? What did this accomplish because the obvious target of this action was the average person.
__________
I would sincerely love a dialogue with anarchists who feel these actions were justifiable and/or positive.
This is where the punk roots of most contemporary anarchy really show. Do anarchists have no concept of building momentum or a movement that could actually "challenge" the power structure and "replace" it with a better "system"? Or is the goal here to get your rocks off on destruction with no intention of building anything but an isolated elite that are incapable of either destroying this system or defending itself???
I am no defender of the USA or the Democratic Party but the nature and the timing of these attacks only have one victim visible to most people- Those people with enough hope (however false or misplaced) to vote.
posted by shane at 2:27 PM
7 Comments:
I find it troubling that you continually address anarchists as a generalized mass of people that all believe the same thing and follow some program (if only they would just follow yours..). There are a multitude of tendencies within anarchism. A single action in one place by one or a few anarchists obviously doesn't represent all anarchists. This could be seen as a strength.
Your distaste for these attacks strike me as being very similar to the actions of peace police/protest police that can usually be found at protests, trying to direct, funnel, and outright inhibit people from resisting so as to not give "the masses" the wrong idea. What is the right idea? That anarchists don't actually seek the destruction of capitalism, the state, and all its residue? You can argue the effectiveness of this action or that but there is never any "'challenge' to the power structure" as you put it, in setting out to appeal to liberals.
In Kansas City I doubt that communique was left in the campaign office to try to sway the cult of Obama to anarchism. I see it more as an internal message to anarchists, especially those that every four years come out and endorse this or that democrat and urge other anarchists to vote.
If some politician's campaign office being trashed offends you, then you maybe you aren't much of an anarchist. Campaign offices, party headquarters, political offices, and yes even the human corrals that are polling places are always ripe for anarchist meddling. Why is it ok for things like this to happen in Greece but not here?
I understand the concept of movement building but I guess I disagree with you on the merit it has to actually do away with capitalism and transform society. It has been shown time and again that capitalism does a good job at integrating and eventually recuperating these movements. There is no "progress" in reforms, they don't build upon one another to eventually reach a critical mass of revolution. Capitalism is progressive in that it will allow for any number of political reforms without compromising its fundamental domination of all humanity--more of the same. There is no "better system" and I see no hope in building one in the shell of the old. Systematization is the problem.
"an isolated elite that are incapable of either destroying this system or defending itself???"
This sounds like Weather to me. Not anarchy. But, ah, the punk bogeyman identified for all to see. Bookchin is surely smiling in his grave.
There is no "progress" in reforms, they don't build upon one another to eventually reach a critical mass of revolution.
I completely agree with this statement, but I don't think that reform and revolution have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that anarchists should dedicate a lot of time working for reforms; the people and the money behind liberal reforms will be invested there, regardless of what you or I do. Therefore, I don't see it as counterproductive to take 5 minutes to corral myself into a voting booth a couple times a year, to either support or reject their ideas.
The revolution isn't coming tomorrow, and while reforms certainly aren't going to help it along, I don't see them as a step backwards either. In the meantime, liberal reforms can sometimes make life a little bit easier for certain groups of people, and those people tend to be the ones living on the margins. I don't see what good it does to alienate these potential allies by letting the government fuck them over. And I most certainly reject the idea of just letting the shit hit the proverbial fan, because if we think direct action is difficult now, I can't even begin to imagine what it would be like under an openly fascist state, where they don't even have to pretend like they're being nice and fair about everything.
Reforms to things like having access to food, housing, health care, or babykilling; or rejecting measures to put more cops on the streets aren't minor changes in the lives of many people. Am I tacitly condoning a police state just by voting for less cops in Oakland when the ideal, happy, sunshine and rainbows situation would be no cops? I suppose so, but I'm also condoning it by paying sales tax at any Oakland business, and, well, just living in America. I can't live here and wash my hands of it out of some selfish desire to symbolically reject the systems around me.
I can't say that I vote with pride, but I do vote for the sake of the people who don't care about my ethical high horse.
Andy,
Thanks for your comment.
I recognize the multitude of anarchists/anarchies. I consider myself an anarchist and by disagreeing with other anarchists or their tactics, I think I recognize the multitude of anarchists/anarchies. Surely, as anarchists, we can critique each other (as you are, me). Surely one should consider one's self "right" or "correct", otherwise what is the point of any thought or action at all? That isn't to say that our plurality isn't a strength… It could be (but that depends on not accepting ideas/actions that we find run counter to our "goals").
Any action carried out by radicals must ask itself a series of questions. Among those are; -What does this accomplish? -Does it help our final objective? The shortcoming or perhaps just figurative hill to climb of contemporary anarchism here is that anarchy does not have 'a plan.' So, if said actions don't actually destroy capitalism in one fell swoop, it must be a building block towards capitalism and the state's destruction.
If the actions I mentioned were to inspire other anarchists, 1)there better already be a pool of waiting anarchists 2)those who committed the actions must be able to swim amongst the fish and have enough security or connections to not get caught 3)I hope other anarchists (or non-anarchists- who could currently be hopeless Liberals) are inspired and act.
Greek anarchism (from what I can gather) is massively organized and actually a threat to state control. As it grows, maintains areas of anarchist "control", and continues to show strength, it could threaten to overturn the state (and then defend it).
If we disagree on the merit of movement building then I would say we, unfortunately, disagree on struggle itself. A limited number of people cannot overturn society and keep it overturned. A limited number of disconnected individuals don't change societies. Masses of people change society. To believe in the individual cowboy who makes history is to buy into bourgeois myth.
Us anarchists love to fetishize semantics and I understand why. Words are culture and we must say what we mean while building a new culture. If a society of mutual cooperation and equality is not a "system", fine by me but we still need to get there.
Anarchy is not a religion.
sorry if i haven't touched on every point in both of your replies...it's been a busy weekend...
movement building...built by whom? i'm skeptical of anarchists calling for united fronts and mass movements. i'm not suggesting that each person only act with theirself in attempt to overturn society (individual cowboy myth). as an anarchist i believe in free association, which i think is often threatened by appeals to mass movements, united fronts, and national organizations. this is not to say i am against organization, i am concerned with the scope of organization(s). i don't think these mass movements can be built without slipping into heirarchy and general manipulation in one way or another.
"That isn't to say that our plurality isn't a strength… It could be (but that depends on not accepting ideas/actions that we find run counter to our "goals")"
If a short term goal of yours is to recruit liberals or "average people" into a mass movement then i guess it follows that you would find these actions lacking vision or strategy. I don't think there is a good way to dress up anarchy for people in order to lure them to it. Furthermore I find that such means reek of religious conversion and authoritarianism--anarchy is not a religion. Lets let people and anarchists self-organize, create their own strategies and theories.
"The shortcoming or perhaps just figurative hill to climb of contemporary anarchism here is that anarchy does not have 'a plan.'"
I reject the idea that there has to be THE PLAN of anarchy. This stifles the autonomy of localized groups, people in their workplace, and individuals attacking capital on their own terms in ways they see fit. It runs counter to the ideas of self organization and free association, leaves little room for adaptability, and in my opinion is compulsion in plain terms.
I think anarchists often feel like anarchist purity is of value in itself.
A long term goal is to transform anarchy or socialism into a mass movement. Perhaps we define “mass movement” differently but I see no other way we are going to change society unless the masses do it. In order to this or to accomplish anything further than we already have (have we accomplished anything?), more people will have to cast off the bullshit of this society and seek something new. With that said, I think that the revolutionary potential, if you will, of most USAmericans is nil… But we all have our spheres of influence or peers. I don’t think of this as forced conversion.
Forced conversion or compulsion may sound authoritative but I have no problem forcing anarchy on the Ayn Rands and the Adam Smiths.
Let me be clear: I don’t think any ‘Plan’ or organizing has to be centralized or have institutional leadership. I agree that a huge benefit of anarchy is its adaptability, plurality, and its leaderless-ness.
Something this does bring up is anarchy as a tactic versus anarchy as a ‘system.’ You can reject the term ‘system’ (and perhaps rightfully so) but I only mean a self-perpetuating stateless society based on socialist communalism. Anarchy as a tactic is all of the things we have covered and has a lot to do with interpersonal relationships and relationships to power. Those can exist even within capitalism and pose no threat to it at all. Anarchy as a ‘system’ is not bound as much by the “how” (not that the “how” is irrelevant) and in the end, this “system” is what we fight for because it will replace this dead end world of avarice.
Let me add...
When the very things you list as benefits to anarchism halt the growth and sustainability of anarchy/socialist communalism, they cease to be benefits.
They simply become a moral code of conduct and not a revolutionary movement.
(I guess this is what Communists would label ultra-Leftism. haha)
Ok lets do anarchism without free association and self management. But hey why even bother to call it anarchism? Lets call it what it is: leninism. At least some of the foundational currents of anarchism won't be holding us back any more, now we can get somewhere...I don't see how I am calling for anarchist purity or a moral code when I critique your ideas for the "anarchist movement." It's a question of definitions, heirarchy is not anarchy, is that being moralistic? or just calling bullshit on the same old leftism that I see as the problem with contemporary anarchism. It's not a semantics game either when I have been a part of groups and organizations and experienced firsthand the problems I have outlined in our discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home