Yes, many anarchists and allies will find this metaphor distasteful, but that's because of their stances on ageism and gender. Some are in the habit of calling other anarchists out when it comes to dismissing concerns of young female-bodied people.
(Families are the first institution where many experience all sorts of violence. So putting simple decency aside, it's also self-defeating for loud thoughtless anarcho-dudebros to dismiss people's experiences like that, because they're dismissing much of their own constituency.)
I certainly think North American anarchists make a lot of mistakes (I don't self-identify as one), but frankly... when I see Marxist partisans criticize anarchists for a total lack of Strategee (clearly imagining themselves peering importantly down a geopolitical chessboard) and then they stubbornly keep making simple blunders like this... they're clearly missing a few pieces in their box of strategies. I think when we lose a little humility, the "Dunning-Krueger effect" kicks into action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
> This "diversity of tactics" fetish is that, a fetish.
Well, terms like "nonviolence" and "diversity of tactics" are oddly coded words. (So, an owner destroying his factory isn't considered "violent". But somehow, a worker damaging their company's machine is called "violent", even though no one is injured.) I think this offers a good explanation:
All the best,
Tj
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Julio Huato <juliohuato at gmail.com> wrote:
> My 2 cents:
>
> That Louis Proyect makes it very hard for people to take him seriously
> doesn't mean he doesn't sometimes have a point. I don't know if the
> existence of a (not radical, because *radical* in my book means that
> you are serious about uprooting oppression, which is much rather a
> constructive than a destructive or disruptive task, but) *extremist*
> fringe will scare the powers that be sufficiently for them to
> legislate meaningful reforms. It may or may not. Who knows what a
> scared beast will do under pressure, and what good does it do to have
> extremist undermining your efforts. And, of course, reforms are not
> necessarily a bad thing, and of course this doesn't mean that people
> may behave as an extremist in one context and contribute to building a
> movement on the other. But it seems to me that what truly works for
> us (the 99%) is -- well -- *unity* and *organization* and -- yes --
> *collective discipline*. That is the robust approach, I believe, to
> cope with all sorts of circumstances that will demand tactical
> flexibility and all that.
>
> If you want to think of it that way, it is about well-understood
> respect and camaraderie. Camaraderie doesn't mean that I "respect"
> your views to the point where I don't engage with them seriously. To
> paraphrase Rosa Luxemburg -- yeah, we Marxists argue, because we are
> trying to persuade people, to tell them what to do, what is best for
> them. If you have a strong belief about how things should be done,
> then you want others to believe it too. If you think I'm wrong, then
> show me I'm wrong, persuade me that I'm wrong, but don't ask me to say
> that avoid the engagement if our views are at odds.
>
> This "diversity of tactics" fetish is that, a fetish. It's basically
> saying that we are so afraid about engaging with one another's
> tactical ideas on serious grounds, without people storming out of a
> meeting or yell at each other, that we better agree to disagree. Each
> of us can and should do whatever the f- one wants to do, and hope that
> the outcome will be the best for everyone involved. Hm, no. That is
> not very serious.
>
> I'm not saying that sometimes that's not all we can accomplish, a
> pseudo- or semi-coordinated lack of coordination. Like an armistice
> disguised as the utmost manifestation of civility. It is turning
> necessity into virtue to praise it as a superior meta-tactical stance,
> when all it is is the lack of unity and organization and, yes,
> discipline. It's a cope out, like -- with all due respect -- a good
> deal of what David Graeber says in his piece.
>
> "Black bloc is not a group, it's a tactic, etc." Well, if it's a
> tactic where a small fringe, a relatively random collection of
> self-styled individuals (no matter how important those people may have
> been or be in the organization of a mass movement) make tactical
> decisions that not very indirectly impose a fait accompli upon a
> broader movement, then that f-ing tactic *is* the problem and since
> tactics don't implement themselves, but particular individuals
> implement them, then the people who follow that tactic (which, for
> convenience or simplicity, we will call the black bloc) are not
> helping, or at least not helping as much as they could help. The
> tactic of "confronting the police" through random individual or
> small-group actions detached (and, apparently, often, at odds with, if
> you see the videos, in which some people tried to keep the black blocs
> from their disruptive actions) from the general approach of the mass
> movement is counterproductive.
>
> Graeber says, but don't try to impose your tactical code of conduct on
> others, because that will only lead them to do more "militant"
> actions, etc. Militant? Really? Well, we have a different notion of
> what being militant means, obviously. Building socialism is what
> militancy is about. And for that, yes, you have to disrupt and
> overthrow existing social structures, which is going to make a splash
> and affect some people. Indeed, but your militancy is not measured by
> how big splash you make, how much you upset people with your behavior,
> how many windows you break, but by how much you advance towards
> reorganizing social life. The root of all evil is optimizing the
> wrong objective function, as some computer guy or mathematician once
> said.
>
> Graeber's argument sounds to me like (and the anarchists will hate my
> metaphor) a teenage daughter threatening her parents: "Do not even try
> a curfew on me or ask me to do my room or my homework, because then
> you're going to push me to do heroic drugs and move with my boyfriend
> tomorrow." Well, missy, we have a family here. We need to pull
> together or else we're not really functioning a family. (Wish family
> and political issues were as easy as typing things here.)
>
> A couple of points about the Hedges-Graeber clash:
>
> First, Graeber is absolutely correct in saying that the movement must
> avoid getting sidetracked into apologizing for or condemning
> extremists infiltrating its ranks (let alone turning them to the
> cops). Yes, as Graeber suggests, the violence that the status quo
> excretes is by far the worst, and extremism itself, superficial or
> infantile "radicalism" (in fact, extremism) is one of the symptoms or
> manifestations of a social order that sucks. (I'm not saying this
> refutes Hedges, because -- for the life of me -- I haven't had a
> chance to read his piece.)
>
> And, second, using the word "cancer" to refer to the black bloc, as CB
> noted, is a terrible choice of words. (I haven't read Hedges' piece,
> but I did read the title. Very unfortunate.)
>
> I can't edit.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk