-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Twinkling Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 19:11:53 +0000 From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay at zetnet.co.uk> To: Chuck Munson <chuck at tao.ca> References: <3C66AA27.CD7481A7 at tao.ca>
hello Chuck
just a few comments.
>> Lots of Punk Planet readers have been influenced by anarchism, and
>> in general, anarchism plays a big role in American radical politics
>> and countercultures. Do you have any thoughts on this influence?
>>
>> I certainly can understand where the appeal of anarchism lies. My
>> problem with anarchism all around - though I am quite aware of
>> contradictory ambiguous nature of Marx's relationship with anarchism
>> - I think at one point Marx was right when he drew attention to how
>> usually anarchists who are officially preaching "no state no power"
>> in order to realize their goals they usually form their own society
>> which obeys the most authoritarian rules.
so, anarchists are still organising in the ways Marx thought Bakunin was organising in the 1870s! Incredible!
Being a member of quite a few anarchists groups in my time, I would have to say that any such comment is simply wrong.
I think if anything we need more
>> global organization. I think that the left should disrupt this
>> equation that more global organization means more totalitarian
>> control.
surely it depends on the type of global organisation? There are two anarchist internationals just now. The IWA -- the anarcho-syndicalists -- and the IFA -- the anarchist federations. SO kinda suggests that anarchists are not opposed to global organisation.
>> You describe the internal structure of anarchist groups as being
>> authoritarian. The model popular with younger activists today is
>> explicitly anti-hierarchical and consensus-oriented. Do you think
>> there's something furtively authoritarian about such apparently
>> freewheeling structures?
>>
>> Absolutely. And I'm not bluffing here, I'm talking from personal
>> experience. Maybe my experience is too narrow, but it's not limited
>> to some mysterious Balkan region. I have contacts in England,
>> France, Germany, and more - and all the time, beneath the mask of
>> this consensus, there was one person accepted by some unwritten
>> rules as the secret master.
so, what is this? Other "contacts" equals "personal experience"? DOn't think so! Also, having been in plenty of anarchist groups in the UK, I can state that the idea that anarchist groups are really run by a "secret master" is simply nonsense! That's from direct personal experience.
The totalitarianism was absolute in the
>> sense that people pretended that they were equal, but they all
>> obeyed him. The catch was that it was prohibited to state clearly
>> that he was the boss. You had to fake some kind equality, the real
>> state of affairs couldn't be articulated.
sorry, nope, never came across that -- ever, even after 15 years in the UK anarchist movement. But then again, perhaps I don't have the right contacts... talking of which, who are these "contacts"? The cops? the trots? Anarchists? If anarchists, why did they not do something about it?
ALl in all, this sort of comment is simply slanderous rumour -- and from my first hand experience, I can say its nonsense.
Which is why I'm deeply
>> distrustful of this "let's just coordinate this in an egalitarian
>> fashion." I'm more of a pessimist. In order to safeguard this
>> equality, you have a more sinister figure of the master, who puts
>> pressure on the others to safeguard the purity of the of the
>> nonhierarchic principle. This is not just theory. I would be happy
>> to hear of groups that are not caught in this strange dialectic.
so, lets look at the logic of this argument. When you organise as equals, you create a "secret master" who really controls thing. Thus you need a master to make sure that hierarchy does not exist? Amazing.
The author its incorrect. Its "not just theory," its nonsense.
So, just to summarise my points. After over 15 years of direct, personal, hands-on active experience in the UK anarchist movement, I can say that there was never any "secret master" in any of the groups I was (and am) involved in. Of course, maybe I just don't have the correct contacts, but I doubt it!
Ultimately, I'm not impressed by the argument that people cannot manage their own affairs without having some kind of master over them. My own experience disproves it. And theory disproves it too. After all, if the members of a group cannot manage their own affairs by themselves, how can they can pick their masters in elections?
Personally, I would say this kind of argument is simply the last refuge of the authoritarian -- its basically "unless we elect a master (i.e. me) you will be subject to a 'secret master' as yous are all too stupid to manage your own lives."
Iain