[lbo-talk] Time to Get Religion

Tayssir John Gabbour tayssir.john at googlemail.com
Mon Dec 4 19:11:30 PST 2006


On 12/4/06, Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> Some people here have the time
> and motivation to provide citations. I do it when I want to.
>
> I am not representative of anarchism as a whole. I am a well known and
> respected anarchist with 20 years of experience in that movement. I run
> the most popular anarchist website, so that kind of puts me in a good
> place to take the pulse of the anarchist movement.

Well, you could even be President of the United States, and it's still conceivable I might disagree with you on politics.

As for citations, I only discussed "backing up your claims"; "citations" makes it sound like hard work, seems to me. I'd particularly expect a critic of religion to be more scrupulous about providing some basic evidence, for interested people to evaluate those claims.


> As for Michael Albert--I had a go around about him with a few British
> anarchists who were under the erroneus impression that he is an
> anarchist. If Albert were an anarchist, that would be news to a great
> number of people. We know that he is very friendly towards anarchists
> and has worked with them over at Z. During the go round with the British
> anarchists, we found that he had written one article about anarchism.
> Writing an article about a political tendency doesn't make you a member
> of that tendency. In Albert's case, he is an activist and writer who is
> active in various movements, so he has cause to express his opinions
> about anarchism.

It's kind of a sport among anarchists to debate who's in or not. (Not just anarchists -- I see this in many other contexts.) Chomsky claims:

"There are many self-styled anarchists who insist, often with great passion, that theirs is the only right way, and that others do not merit the term (and maybe are criminals of one or another sort). A look at the contemporary anarchist literature, particularly in the West and in intellectual circles (they may not like the term), will quickly show that a large part of it is denunciation of others for their deviations, rather as in the Marxist-Leninist sectarian literature. The ratio of such material to constructive work is depressingly high."

I really don't care; almost anyone who's read Albert's work can accept the plausibility of loosely calling him an anarchist, and understand what that means. Same with Chomsky. Perhaps there exist technical contexts where you wish to delineate someone's social status or membership within some exclusive club, but this certainly isn't one of them.

Tayssir



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list