[lbo-talk] Re: Fidel

Tayssir John Gabbour tayssir.john at googlemail.com
Fri Dec 29 01:09:15 PST 2006


On 12/24/06, Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> Jim Farmelant wrote:
> > I concur with Justin's reponse to Chuck.
> > Chuck's remarks concerning Cuba represent
> > the sort of thing that
> > gives anarchism a bad name among progressives.
>
> I give anarchism a bad name be expressing a rather normal anarchist
> opinion about a world leader who has been in power for over 40 years?

Sure. It's like when someone does a drive-by flame against a relatively benevolent CEO which forum participants were admiring, just because the CEO engages in some of the predictable mundane corporate horrors. Maybe our anticorporate crusader helps some already-curious people over the edge into a serious questioning of corporations, but I suspect mostly solidifies stereotypes of activists as frothing antisocial lunatics. Effectively becomes a pro-corporate spokesperson.

Many experience vertigo from critiques of corporations. ("What do you replace them with!? Communism?") Same with critiques of nation-states, among those who focus on more benevolent forms of governance.


> Which part of anti-authoritarianism do you not understand? Which part of
> propaganda by the deed do you not understand? Do you get that anarchism
> is an anti-statist movement?

My understanding is that self-described anarchists should demonstrate principles of cooperation and sympathy enough to explain why they believe as they do. Otherwise it's harder to imagine how bottom-up societies might work in practice.

Tayssir



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list