Submitted by ajoda on Sun, 01/13/2008 - 16:53.
This is an archive of the discussion that arose after the review of the Northeastern Anarchist #10 is issue #60
This is an archive of the discussion that arose after the review of the Northeastern Anarchist #10 is issue #60
dot two parts of the review
dot
two parts of the review that stood out for me:
"But I am all too familiar with and highly suspicious of any essay/manifesto/ pamphlet/book that begins with the statement that anarchist ideas and/or projects are in decline or continually unpopular; it’s only a matter of time before the author will blame those rotten other anarchists for spreading false ideas about organization, class struggle, and the best ways to fight capital and the state."
"There is a critique of organization for organization’s sake; there is a critique of formalized membership organizations; there is a critique of incipient bureaucratization in any organization whose members set long-term goals. Some anarchists (many of the writers in this journal for instance) find those critiques compelling and convincing. And some of us are in organizations anyway. The collective that edits and produces this journal is obviously an organization. The organizational questions for anarchists have always been: “what kind?"? “for what purpose?"? “for how long?"? “with whom?"? “under what conditions?"?—not “whether."?"
the second comment is responding to (among other things) the tactic of simplifying an opponent's arguments for the sake of refuting them.
of course we all do that. either for humor, out of real misunderstanding, for the sake of streamlining a discussion, or out of malice.
i continue to wonder what it would be like for theoretical conversations to include (not be subsumed by) emotional awareness. how do we talk about theory while acknowledging how we're feeling, and the emotional background to our beliefs? how do we start appropriately integrating thought and emotion?
MaRK
The sectarian nature of political discourse lends itself to certain types of people dropping by, attacking the board, the site, the magazine and then drifting by.
Well, I hate to be that "certain type" of person, but honestly, I would be embarrassed to print a review like this. It is not an honest critique, it is just sectarian snottiness, and not even especially clever or interesting in it's attacks... oh, I mean in the "critical and non-ideological questions" it presents to the reader. Aside from it's tired predictability, there are a few points raised that I will address.
NEA, the main mouthpiece of the neo- Platformist Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC) recently added glossy covers and a higher price in a clear acknowledgement that Anarchy has always been more attractive.
I don't know what a "neo-platformist" is exactly. Just seems like a sloppy way to smear our politics... without actually bothering to formulate any sort of critique of substance. Y'know, kind of like when people refer to AJODA as the main mouthpeice for the "anti-organizationalists" or "the so-called post-left". Lame. Although, not as lame as the pretentious statement about your magazine being oh-so attractive. I dunno, considering the drop in quality since y'all took over from Jason, I would think you'd be a bit more humble. Oh yeah, and the cover price is $4, which is what it has always been. No change.
I would call it self-referential (in terms of the obvious target audience being limited to other current and potential members of NEFAC and its various knock-offs)
No shit. It's called having a readship. An audience that is sympathetic, or at least open, to the ideas presented within your publication. What's the problem?
Leaving aside the creepy ironic quotation marks (why does MJ think that de Cleyre’s essays aren’t really anarchist?), faulting a writer who either doesn’t share or doesn’t mention your ideas of specific strategies on how to struggle is a cheap rhetorical trick better suited to unapologetic authoritarians and manipulators.
I believe the point he was making is that just because a peice of writing is "anarchist" doesn't mean it is always especially relevant. I don't think he was questioning de Cleyre's credentials as an anarchist. You'd think a writer like Lawrence would have a better grasp of the various ways a set of quotation marks can be used. Whatever. The goal of our magazine is to explore theory and strategy and develop our practice. Why not hold up a book of dated writings to a criticism that they are not especially relevant to the struggles of today?
The late 1990s was a depressing time for anarchists in North America. Long time activists were leaving a declining movement en masse, while projects were disbanding or taking a hiatus…
Much like the author of this particular essay, I was an active anarchist throughout the 1990s, and wholeheartedly stand behind the statement that the late '90s was a depressing period marked by decline and retreat. Kind of like the current period of decline and retreat the anarchist milieu is experiencing. It was an opinionated statement, you don't have to agree with it.
Some of them might even be interested in what NEFACkers consider class struggle, but I guess if “class struggle"? isn’t mentioned in the mission statement or articles of confederation of these “counter-institutions,"? then it’s just not on the agenda.
Yawn. Speaking of "rhetorical tricks" used by "unapologetic authoritarians and manipulators". Are you serious?
I don’t know why the growth of these projects would be depressing for him.
Oh, oh... here's a question: where are these projects today? Defunct? Exactly where they were ten years ago? What lasting contribution have they made to the development of anarchist praxis in North America?
it’s only a matter of time before the author will blame those rotten other anarchists for spreading false ideas about organization, class struggle, and the best ways to fi ght capital and the state.
Again... yawn. Got any more strawmen to set up?
Well sure “the anarchist movement"? failed, if by that “movement"? he means Love and Rage or its imitators, or the projects that he refers to cryptically as “many of the projects that largely defined themselves as being in opposition to this organization"?—whatever those were.
Network of Anarchist Collectives, Atlantic Anarchist Circle, et al...
Apart from the highly questionable accuracy of such a completely unsubstantiated and totally subjective declaration, one is forced to wonder about whether Phebus ever heard of the Stop the City demos in London, which inspired both Critical Mass as well as Reclaim the Streets, events and actions that directly inspired what happened in Seattle. The (in)famous Eugene anarchists had had two annual demonstrations in July to coincide with the RTS in London and other anti-globalization events around the world prior to the Battle for Seattle
Oh wait, better yet, how about the anti-MAI actions that took place in Montreal where the model for the blockading the delegates out of the Seattle meetings directly came from? Huh, wonder if he ever heard of that?
Neither of those two events, accompanied by plenty of property damage and tussles with the cops—described as “riots�? by most non-anarchist observers, and which brought anarchists into mainstream consciousness in the Northwest at least—were important to Phebus for understanding the run-up to the Seattle demonstrations.
Yeah, because anarchists never engage in property destruction in Quebec. Really, we are all greatly indebted to Eugene for finally putting some militancy in the movement. Hahaha...
Veterans of these events on the west coast were not shy about their plans to be at the WTO meeting in Seattle; they obviously hoped that their own experiences and momentum in fucking shit up coupled with the increasing attacks against transnational capital around the world (from Greece to Papua New Guinea to Switzerland and beyond) would attract more people than themselves to the tactics of direct confrontation and attacks on property, rather than the usual sitdown, get arrested, go to jail scenario of the reformist whiners.
That's funny. I was in Seattle. So were at least half of the people who went on to initially form NEFAC. Thanks for the history lesson though.
Phebus says that “anarchism was immediately thrust to the forefront of this new mass movement based around the struggle against globalization,"? clearly missing the part that anarchists had played in events leading up to Seattle, both in the US and abroad.
Yeah, I dunno. Phebus used to edit for A-Infos around that time. I am gonna guess he must've run across at least a few reports regarding the role anarchists played in various anti-globalization struggles. Unfortunately, the way the world works is that until this happened in the United States, the global media (as opposed to the local media of various countries) largely ignored the anarchist element.
But I guess if it wasn’t as part of an explicit discussion of “class struggle"? or something similarly “serious"? (this term shows up five times in this article, along with lots of “our class,"? “mass"? this and “mass"? that, “victories,"? and “radicalizing,"? etc.), then Phebus wasn’t interested.
Is the repetition getting tiring for anyone else?
How many times do those of us who are derisively labeled “anti-organizationalist"? have to say it to be taken “seriously"??
Um, I am gonna say probably about the same amount of times you label us "class reductionist" or "bureaucratic" or "organizational fetishists" or whatever. Oh wait, but you are above all those rhetorical substututes for honest critique, right?
There is a critique of organization for organization’s sake; there is a critique of formalized membership organizations; there is a critique of incipient bureaucratization in any organization whose members set long-term goals.
Shhh... I'm going to let you in on a little secret: none of us believe in organization for organization's sake. We actually utilize our organization as a means to share resources and experiences, develop our politics, and spread our ideas. Shocking, right?
Phebus’ essay continues with a history of NEFAC rather than any sort of critical appraisal, merely recounting various efforts and projects.
I dunno, seemed critical to me. There was alot of talk of failures and re-assessment of strategy and tactics, areas we need to improve, etc. What exactly does critical appraisal mean to you?
These are strategic questions asked by every leftist minority political group/party that aims to influence some vague social change.
So, I am supposed to assume that Lawrence is not interesed in having anarchists influence social change? I guess I don't get it. What the hell are we doing if not trying to influence social change with our ideas? Should we all pack it in and go home? Are we revolutionaries or not?
Their self-evident nature is not to be questioned—precisely because they are declarations of past, current, and future NEFAC strategy. Real critical and non-ideological questions on these topics would begin not with “how?"? but rather “is it desirable and/or possible for anarchists?"?
Wow, heavy man. Like a real existential trip dude. I mean really, since anarchy is everything and nothing at the same time, could we even begin to discuss a practical grounding in reality with our politics? I mean, what is reality anyways?
Okay, bare with me... at some point "we" did ask if it were "desirable and/or possible for anarchists" to actually be a relevant force to effect social change, and decided it was. This has informed our entire political project, and yes, our ideology. Deal with it.
Makhno
I would like to comment on Mark's reply to the Anarchy review, as well as make a few general observations about Northeastern Anarchist and NEFAC.
First of all, there is a basic difference between a magazine like Anarchy and one like Northeastern Anarchist: while the former is an independent project, the latter is the official organ of a formal political group, and as such, it functions primarily as a propaganda tool. Now, propaganda, as Jacques Ellul points out, can function either to reinforce the internal cohesion of a group, or to reach outside the group - either to attack enemies, or to attract new members. There is nothing unique about NEA in this regard, and one needn't impute any suspicious motives to NEFAC members; that is simply how such things work. Just because NEA is a propaganda tool, however, does not mean that the magazine could not contain good writing and thoughtful analysis (whether or not it actually does is another matter).
On the other hand (again referring to Ellul), propaganda is not made just for the purpose of spreading doctrine or ideology; it is concerned primarily with action, tactics, and strategy. Therefore, it is not surprising that a NEFAC reviewer would see little value in a writer such as Voltairine de Cleyre, whose writings belong to a historical period far removed from ours, and thus could not possibly offer any specific insights or advice on contemporary struggles; what such an author could offer us, I believe, is some insight into general anarchist theory, but such general theoretical questions do not serve well for propaganda purposes.
Mark objects to NEFAC being described in the Anarchy review as a "neo-Platformist" organization; would he have been any happier if it had simply been called "Platformist", which it certainly is? He evidently has never grasped the essence of the anti-organizationalist critique, as is shown by the following remark:
...none of us believe in organization for organization's sake. We actually utilize our organization as a means to share resources and experiences, develop our politics, and spread our ideas...
What Mark fails to understand is that the phrase "organization for organization's sake" refers precisely to the creation of formal organizations. Such an organization develops an identity and a purpose of its own, apart from its utility for any specific project; an organization like NEFAC, which defines itself as committed to the general, open-ended goals of mass revolution and class struggle, sees organizational growth and continuity as fundamental imperatives. Individual members of such groups tend to identify psychologically with the group as such, and take outside criticisms very personally (Mark's sarcastic and defensive tone is evidence of this).
Finally, let's take another look at the quote from Northeastern Anarchist that was used in the Anarchy review:
We continue to be faced with many tough questions and no easy answers: how political minorities can be a radicalizing force within mass-based struggles without compromising democracy and accountability; how to win short-term victories without falling outside of a long-term revolutionary framework; how to build truly transnational and multi-lingual organizations and movements; or how best to develop strategies for building social power and cultures of resistance within areas of struggle.
The hidden assumptions in this passage can be stated as follows:
(1) We should form organized political minorities within mass-based struggles, with the intention of "radicalizing" those struggles (i.e., getting them to focus on issues or goals that are important to us)
(2) We should focus our time and energy on short-term victories (i.e., reformist goals).
(3) We should strive to build formal, transnational organizations (i.e., the bigger the organization, the better).
Now, one could hardly expect a propaganda vehicle such as Northeastern Anarchist to seriously question the most basic ideological premises of its organization; whatever theoretical analysis there is in the magazine takes these assumptions as axiomatic. Such fundamental critiques will always have to come from outside the group.
lawrence A neo-Platformist
lawrence
A neo-Platformist would be a person or organization that takes the 1926 Makhno/Mett/Arshinov (et al) Organizational Platform as their point of departure or model for all current attempts at creating an anarcho-communist organization. Members of NEFAC (and other such groups) have been at pains to explain that they are not blind followers of the document, but are engaging with it as a set of broad guidelines. A Platformist would be someone or some organization that used the document at the general time it was first written (from 1926 to—let’s say—1966, to give an allowance for about one generation). A neo-Platformist would be anyone using that model now; since there’s no continuity between the activists, writers, and organizers using the Platform contemporarily and those who may have used it half a century ago, it is appropriate to place the “neo-�? prefix before the archaic term. I hope that’s not too confusing. If you prefer to call yourself or NEFAC “Platformist�? that’s fine by me, but it seems inappropriate historically. I see no smear, nor did I intend one; I am trying to be accurate in my descriptions. There have been plenty of substantive critiques of the Platform made prior to my review of NEA, and really my review is based on what was actually in that issue rather than taking on the Platform itself.
In terms of having a readership and trying to attract a sympathetic audience, that’s fine; I have no problem with that. Those who are attracted will eventually find the kinds of publishing projects they desire. Anarchy has a target audience as well: anyone who is intelligent. The problem is not that NEA has a readership and an audience; the problem is that NEA only contains essays written by people who share the same set of assumptions, and that the target audience will only be interested or find those essays relevant if they already share that same set of assumptions.
MJ’s use of the term anarchist with quotation marks to describe Voltairine De Cleyre’s essays indicates that he didn’t think that her essays were authentically anarchist; they were obviously used as indicators of falseness or irony—in that he knows what real anarchist content is (or should be). As a writer who cares about writing, I do indeed have a good grasp on the ways that quotation marks can be used. And that does not include their use as markers of irony. But don’t take my word for it. The Chicago Manual of Style (Thirteenth Edition, 1982), an authoritative guide to proper (American) English usage in print, has this to say:
“Other devices, notably the use of italics and quotation marks to achieve special effects…are used less and less…especially by mature writers who prefer to obtain their effects structurally… these reservations apply to frequent use of quotation marks to suggest irony… Often the quotation marks offend an intelligent reader who is quite capable of detecting irony or the oddness of the expression without having it pointed out.�? (p. 169, section 6.52)
“Words used in an ironic sense may be enclosed in quotation marks [however,] such use…should always be regarded as a last resort, to be used when the irony would otherwise be lost. Skillfully prepared for, an ironic meaning seldom eludes the reader even if quotation marks are not used.�? (p. 173, section 6.68)
Then there’s Theodor Adorno, who wrote in a 1990 essay entitled “Punctuation Marks�?: “Quotation marks are to be rejected as an ironic device. For they exempt the writer from the spirit whose claim is inherent in irony, and they violate the very concept of irony by separating it from the matter at hand and presenting the predetermined judgment on the subject… Where there is something which needs to be said, indifference to literary form almost always indicates dogmatization of the content. The blind verdict of quotation marks is its graphic gesture.�?
Quotation marks are used to indicate that whatever is inside them is a quote, something that somebody actually said or wrote. That’s why they’re called quotation marks. You’d think that a native English speaker would have a better grasp of the specific ways that they are used.
In terms of reviewing a book whose content you (and others) have decided is “dated�? and “not especially relevant,�? the question, then, is why bother writing a dismissive review of it? Why not just ignore it? If the point is to show everyone who reads NEA that anything ever written by a person who describes themselves as anarchist has to be directly relevant to NEFAC’s particular way of struggling (or “the struggles of today�? as you put it), then you have succeeded. And perhaps the use of dogmatizing ironic quotation marks is appropriate after all. That is the reason I and others have labeled NEFAC and its offshoots sectarian—you all have decided that the criteria for being considered an anarchist is magically connected to your particular choice of struggles.
Naturally the same thing can be said about my review of NEA: why do I insist on giving it the importance to write a long review of it? So that you and I (and “Makhno�?—quotation marks indicate that this is not his real name, and that he is not related to Nestor Makhno) can have exactly this kind of discussion. It shows that I take your project seriously, even though I obviously have many criticisms of it. And I take it seriously on its own terms, not those I might prefer it to have; that is why my criticisms are not sectarian.
You ask about the “lasting contributions�? infoshops and the like have “made to the development of anarchist praxis in North America.�? I cannot possibly answer that question because I don’t know how to judge them by those criteria. As I asked in my review, it might be interesting to figure out how to judge the effectiveness of any given anarchist project, but how is that to be done? What does “the development of anarchist praxis�? look like? Besides, Phebus didn’t mention anything about the relative effectiveness of the projects that grew, all he said was that the time of their growth was depressing “for anarchists.�? I asked how that could be? Now you’re bringing quality into a discussion about quantity, which changes everything.
As far as the anti-MAI actions in Montreal, yes indeed, I do wonder why Phebus didn’t mention those—and plenty of other actions in which anarchists played a role, whether small or significant. That was exactly my point about his very shallow analysis of what happened before and during Seattle. My implicit question was why Phebus seemed to believe only what the mainstream media said about Seattle? Nobody but other anarchists would be able to put Seattle into a wider anarchist analysis. I only used Eugene as one example of something that looked an awful lot like some of what captured people’s imaginations about Seattle, but there were a few more similar events which occurred elsewhere.
For me, an authentically critical appraisal would necessarily include a reexamination of one’s assumptions. Nowhere in any document from NEFAC or any other neo-Platformist group has there ever been a questioning of the assumptions that “Makhno�? correctly spells out in his response. You all have the Answer, while some of the rest of us want to ask more questions. As I said, the questions that interest me begin with “Is it desirable and/or possible?�? or “why?�? All you seem to be interested in is “How?�? which assumes the answers to all questions. This difference in our questions pretty much sums up the differences in approach between NEA and Anarchy; it is also a decent shortcut to explain the difference between theory and ideology.
Your assumption that I am not interested in having anarchists influence social change is just that—your assumption. Where have I ever said the opposite? What basis do you have for making such an assumption? You’re right—you don’t get it. I am calling into question the way Phebus portrays the NEFAC agenda, because it sounds exactly like any liberal/leftist/leninist sect, with the same set of assumptions about how to intervene in other people’s activities. “Makhno�? has pegged that exactly as well. Your last paragraph is merely a recapitulation of your agenda. Your “entire political project and [your] ideology�? are indeed wrapped up in the assumptions that “Makhno�? spells out. I am dealing with it, and in as honest a way as I possibly can.
You don’t like anyone calling into question either your assumptions or agenda; your defensiveness and poor attempts at irony speak volumes. But as a public organization with a periodical, as a group whose members consider themselves to be actively within a particular politico-philosophical tradition, you must fully expect others who identify with that same tradition to call into question your relation to it. Any organization that calls itself anarchist will suffer the same fate, as the writers and editors of Anarchy know only too well. Deal with that.
MaRK
First of all, there is a basic difference between a magazine like Anarchy and one like Northeastern Anarchist: while the former is an independent project, the latter is the official organ of a formal political group, and as such, it functions primarily as a propaganda tool. Now, propaganda, as Jacques Ellul points out, can function either to reinforce the internal cohesion of a group, or to reach outside the group - either to attack enemies, or to attract new members.
No argument there. But at least we are honest about our objectives. Independent or not, Anarchy also has an agenda, and a vague political framework for the project which it promotes and defends. In fact, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Jason working on "the" definitive book on post-leftism? That's border-line doctrine, no? So much for anti-ideology.
On the other hand (again referring to Ellul), propaganda is not made just for the purpose of spreading doctrine or ideology; it is concerned primarily with [i]action, tactics, and strategy. Therefore, it is not surprising that a NEFAC reviewer would see little value in a writer such as Voltairine de Cleyre, whose writings belong to a historical period far removed from ours, and thus could not possibly offer any specific insights or advice on contemporary struggles; what such an author could offer us, I believe, is some insight into general anarchist theory, but such general theoretical questions do not serve well for propaganda purposes.[/i]
I dunno, she's not the worst writer in the world, but honestly, I would say Voltarine de Cleyre's writings on anarchism are pretty generic and not especially insightful. I think she was an amazing women, and a courageous activist and propagandist. But she was no heavy theorist. Same with alot of anarchists of that period... Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, et al. Most of these people also never seriously tackled questions of strategy and praxis either. They should all be criticized for that.
Mark objects to NEFAC being described in the [i]Anarchy review as a "neo-Platformist" organization; would he have been any happier if it had simply been called "Platformist", which it certainly is? He evidently has never grasped the essence of the anti-organizationalist critique, as is shown by the following remark:[/i]
This is so incredibly pompous. No, actually I grasp the essence of the anti-organizationalist critique just fine. I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH IT.
What Mark fails to understand is that the phrase "organization for organization's sake" refers precisely to the creation of [i]formal organizations. Such an organization develops an identity and a purpose of its own, apart from its utility for any specific project; an organization like NEFAC, which defines itself as committed to the general, open-ended goals of mass revolution and class struggle, sees organizational growth and continuity as fundamental imperatives. Individual members of such groups tend to identify psychologically with the group as such, and take outside criticisms very personally (Mark's sarcastic and defensive tone is evidence of this).[/i]
Yeah, I get it. I still think it is the crap argument of armchair anarchists who are not at all serious about revolutionary politics. Also my sarcastic and defensive tone has as much to do with a lack of respect for the anti-organizational camp as it does with any sort of identification with any particular group or project. And for the record, my own personal perspective is that yes, I do believe that there are tendencies within anarchism that are detrimental to the anarchist movement and the fact that anyone even gives any of you the time of day (myself included) points to the dismal state of affairs in North America. Go to any country in the world with a strong anarchist culture that is actually rooted in social movements and everyday class struggle and your positions would be laughed out of the room and labelled "typically American". As in, removed from any real struggle and coming from a position of total privilege.
Finally, let's take another look at the quote from [i]Northeastern Anarchist that was used in the Anarchy review:
The hidden assumptions in this passage can be stated as follows:
(1) We should form organized political minorities within mass-based struggles, with the intention of "radicalizing" those struggles (i.e., getting them to focus on issues or goals that are important to us)
(2) We should focus our time and energy on short-term victories (i.e., reformist goals).
(3) We should strive to build formal, transnational organizations (i.e., the bigger the organization, the better).
Now, one could hardly expect a propaganda vehicle such as Northeastern Anarchist to seriously question the most basic ideological premises of its organization; whatever theoretical analysis there is in the magazine takes these assumptions as axiomatic. Such fundamental critiques will always have to come from outside the group.[/i]
Yeah, because we actually approached these questions a long time ago, came to some basic conclusions that were accepted by the group, and have since oriented our activity and propaganda accordingly. What's the problem.