Response On Nihilistic Anarchy
Not long ago, I posted about Nihilistic Anarchism/Communism and strongly criticized it as articulated by Pistols Drawn.
I got comments from friends/comrades asking questions and posing their own ideas. I greatly appreciated the feedback and instead of posting a reply comment on a post no one probably will see, I decided to post a new entry.
READ ORIGINAL POST (AND COMMENTS) HERE
One of the beautiful luxuries of anarchism but also one of the biggest hurdles for anarchists is that there is no 'one path' or 'party program.' This is also one of anarchy's greatest strengths.
If nihilistic anarchism is a position/ideology that is still in the developmental stages, I can accept that. However, it is in no way beneficial to present a position that is purposefully vague. I am also well aware that most anarchists- at least posties, would not subscribe to the term 'ideology.' It is more a matter of semantics here than anything else. I understand and support the effort to redefine language on our own terms. I also usually see the anarchist rejection of terms such as 'politics' and 'ideology' as an attempt to draw a distinction between anarchy and Leftist politics which I don't necessarily see as crucial. We would have to define ideology because any definition I can think of would encompass anarchist positions.
I do not know what the world will look like after this undesirable and murderous social order. We don't seem to need a roadmap of how to get there or a blueprint of what it will look like (unlike our Communist brothers and sisters). I see this as inclusive rather than exclusive. The urgency that we might feel to destroy this system and anything that represents it is not unfounded. Violence against the state as a sort of cathartic release is not revolutionary… it is not even necessarily rebellious. I don't mind banks, cops, or government offices being attacked and I think the more those actions become part of the accepted lexicon of struggle, the closer we get to systemic change(s) we desire. It is childish/bourgeois for any 'movement' or struggle to engage in actions solely for individualistic fulfillment. That is ineffectual! I firmly believe that if we want to transform this social order or destroy it and build anew, our actions must take into account the sustainability of our resistance and that of others. This doesn't mean sustaining resistance for the next 5 years either. I am talking about being able to build upon it for generations.
Another insanely illogical premise put forth by a lot of nihilistic anarchists and post-Leftists is that it is somehow authoritarian to do any outreach or try to influence others. (How are we going to destroy this system and/or build a new one without more allies? Oh ya, I forgot. They don't believe we are going to "make" change. How did they become radical anti-authoritarians? I suppose they were born in an anarchist hatchery.) That premise is so illogical and laughable that it hardly needs me to argue against it and its doomed-to-lose proponents.
I got comments from friends/comrades asking questions and posing their own ideas. I greatly appreciated the feedback and instead of posting a reply comment on a post no one probably will see, I decided to post a new entry.
READ ORIGINAL POST (AND COMMENTS) HERE
One of the beautiful luxuries of anarchism but also one of the biggest hurdles for anarchists is that there is no 'one path' or 'party program.' This is also one of anarchy's greatest strengths.
If nihilistic anarchism is a position/ideology that is still in the developmental stages, I can accept that. However, it is in no way beneficial to present a position that is purposefully vague. I am also well aware that most anarchists- at least posties, would not subscribe to the term 'ideology.' It is more a matter of semantics here than anything else. I understand and support the effort to redefine language on our own terms. I also usually see the anarchist rejection of terms such as 'politics' and 'ideology' as an attempt to draw a distinction between anarchy and Leftist politics which I don't necessarily see as crucial. We would have to define ideology because any definition I can think of would encompass anarchist positions.
I do not know what the world will look like after this undesirable and murderous social order. We don't seem to need a roadmap of how to get there or a blueprint of what it will look like (unlike our Communist brothers and sisters). I see this as inclusive rather than exclusive. The urgency that we might feel to destroy this system and anything that represents it is not unfounded. Violence against the state as a sort of cathartic release is not revolutionary… it is not even necessarily rebellious. I don't mind banks, cops, or government offices being attacked and I think the more those actions become part of the accepted lexicon of struggle, the closer we get to systemic change(s) we desire. It is childish/bourgeois for any 'movement' or struggle to engage in actions solely for individualistic fulfillment. That is ineffectual! I firmly believe that if we want to transform this social order or destroy it and build anew, our actions must take into account the sustainability of our resistance and that of others. This doesn't mean sustaining resistance for the next 5 years either. I am talking about being able to build upon it for generations.
Another insanely illogical premise put forth by a lot of nihilistic anarchists and post-Leftists is that it is somehow authoritarian to do any outreach or try to influence others. (How are we going to destroy this system and/or build a new one without more allies? Oh ya, I forgot. They don't believe we are going to "make" change. How did they become radical anti-authoritarians? I suppose they were born in an anarchist hatchery.) That premise is so illogical and laughable that it hardly needs me to argue against it and its doomed-to-lose proponents.
posted by shane at 7:11 PM
8 comments
