This is an archival thread discussing the editorial for issue #62

Makhno

Well, this is curious. The comment I posted a few hours ago in this thread has been deleted - and this after the editors bemoan the fact that people are not using the discussion board! Are harsh criticisms out of line on this site? I said earlier that I thought this piece was basically an incoherent mish-mash of different vague and not too terribly interesting ideas. It would be difficult to offer any more substantial critique, because there is so little of substance in this article to begin with.

I have been a fan of Anarchy magazine for nigh on seventeen years, but judging by the quality of these two pieces by Benton and Dot Matrix (in the latter case, not only my comment but the entire thread was deleted!), the editorial quality is taking a nosedive. I hope Jason McQuinn and Lawrence Jarach will still contribute from time to time.

Is the webmaster of this site going to leave my current post up, or is he going to practice the same sort of censorship that Chuck Munson does on Infoshop?

aragorn

I am going to simply cut-and-paste the text of what I used to put in front of each thread (for internet discussion of magazine content). I will try to put this into some sort of 'sticky' format later on.

All of our discussions on the content of the magazine are going to be moderated. This is for two reasons.

1) The internet tends to be a shitty place to have really good discussion. The reason that the letters section of Anarchy:A Journal of Desire Armed is enjoyable is because the amount of effort that it takes to actually send in a letter also seems to be tied to some willingness to have a more thoughtful, careful, and interesting conversation. That is the only kind of discussion that makes having a message board worth having.

2) 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.

What moderation is going to mean in this context is that one of the editors of the magazine will be looking at each submission before they are posted. There are many advantages (beyond the ones listed above) to this approach. Conversations will happen at a slower pace. The board will not overpopulate with wingnuts (just the right amount of them...), etc, etc.

Cheers.

Aragorn!

Makhno

Well, Aragorn, I should think you would know me well enough by now, having talked with me face-to face both in Indianapolis and Chicago during the summer, to understand that I am not an enemy of Anarchy magazine, which I have been eagerly reading for seventeen years. I am, however, an enemy of bad writing and sloppy thinking, of which I am seeing entirely too much in this publication lately. I wouldn't take the time to make these criticisms if this magazine weren't so important to me and, I daresay, to North American anarchists in general.

If you would prefer that I stop posting on this site, just say the word, and I will disappear.

aragorn

M

I recognize that you appreciate the magazine. The point about a moderated discussion is about flame wars and bullshit, not about enemies of the magazine. You will see that a few issues ago we had a lengthy discussion between MaRK (arguably an enemy of the magazine) and Lawrence that was productive (as far as I was concerned). Many comments (mostly by allies of MaRK) were not included in that discussion.

Is that censorship? Maybe. But the point of this board is to have constructive discussion. If this is yet another place for people to shit on us then there isn't much use in having it and I will shut it down. I'm inclined in that direction.

Let's talk about what constructive would look like. You might want to read the writings of Jason and Lawrence forever but for the magazine to continue more people have to contribute. Some of those people will not have been publishing or writing for decades. Should their work be critically engaged with? Absolutely! Does calling it incoherent mish-mash, psycho-bablle, etc qualify as engagement? Not in the slightest.

Asking a clarifying question is engagement and models what I believe this forum should be used for. Additionally this will help you, us and writers improve our ability to communicate with each other. This is the only way I can think of to improve the magazine because the days when the same 4 people did 80-90% of the writing for it are over.

Aragorn!

irene

there are many interesting points raised here.

i totally agree that there is a middle class rhetoric in processing difficult emotions, and its one that negates peoples experience if they express their anger differently. It's true that sometimes people would rather for example, punch holes in walls than talk things out, or swear and not speak in this educatone. and it's hard for some people to accept and see value in that. it's easy to poo-poo things that fall outside the rhetoric as immature or unevolved.

"abandonment of conflict..." hmmm. it's true that "coming to a middle ground" and "agreeeing to disagree" sometimes perpetuates bullshit and can be totally unproductive. So i think it's important to always keep working toward a productive solution and question the set-up that the conflict is constructed in.

Like "am i looking at this as A vs B when theres a c, d, e, variable that i'm forgetting to invent or am not seeing?

I think for me "being tough" is staying focused my commitments and not my expectations, and never take things personally. Tough is also being courageous in asking for what i want, even if the answer has always been "no".

I'd like to be a tougher person, and be better at debating. i had a boyfriend once who went to a all boys private school where he was DRILLED the skill of debate. using logic and formulating arguments based on facts. i was totally impressed with his ability, the cunning with which he could completely disect and break down any opinion into its base parts... but it was completely exhausting to be around, and as skilled as he was in making me see his way of looking at things, (i don't i ever won an argument), the approach was so agressive i fought tooth and nail against submitting. I resented it. as a conflict resolution tool it wasn't very effective. Aha! i'm going to start a holistic debate club. we'd start with yoga to ground ourselves, argue argue, debate debate, and take breaks to cuddle. haha

I'm a person that suffers from give adviceitis. i think im growing out of it. I know it's often a rebellion against a internal voice that says "don't say that, you'll look like a mama hen" and "people won't like you if they think you're doting on them" . Kind of like when i used to feel compelled to dress like shit on purpose as a way to break always wanting to look good.

When suffering from an attack of give adviceitis, t's helpful to ask myself "ok, whats more important to me right now, not bugging this person, or disseminating my information?" and try to also remember that advice can come from all sorts of places, so check my need to get credit for it!!

I get wrapped up in questioning intentions too. for example, a teacher of mine a couple of months ago told me she was concerned and thought i should seek counselling for what she called my "attitude". my reaction was to laugh, and question her discomfort with me as a student that didn't play by the rules. I read her intentions as not willing to give up the power dynamic and concluded she pigeon holed me as someone with problems to justify the lack authority i gave her.

(here's a question for you: how do you deal with people that are obvious idiots but are in positions of authority that have power to give you something you need, like a paycheck or a diploma? haha i guess i'd argue that you don't need either, so i sopose i kinda answered my own question.)

Anyway, back to what i was saying. ok so often what i pick up on is a hidden adgenda, i wonder what is motivating them to speak to me, and wether or not they've checked into it. But to stop there is a mistake.

I can also look at my reaction and think "why am i being brought this information?" if it's invoking anger, then maybe there's something here i'm not looking at.

So perhaps i don't have the exact problem that i'm being viewed as having, but indeed, if people are seeing that, what i DO have is a problem with my communication, as evidenced by the disparagy between how i want to be precieved and what is being percieved. So if i'm being percieved as someone with a chip on my shoulder, i can say "yeah, of course i'd look like that to HER", and also ask myself how I[/i[i]] was being that caused that to happen.

(In this specific situation, i realized her comments were made after a practicum i percieved to be a testing situation, as in my performance was being evaluated, and of course felt i needed to prove myself. But in fact it was just school, and i was there to learn. thus this disconnect created emotional struggles. i never went for couselling but i probrably still should!

As for fighting on the most post possible fronts, i say sometimes the most radical thing to do is to give up thinking there is something that needs fixing; give up the struggle and be peaceful. All the while, still being engaged, taking a position. Not fall into all the traps life sets for us to react and take sides.

thanks for reading and letting me lick some wounds in public. i'm not sure how tight this forum is, so here's a quick introduction. my name's Irene, i live in Vancouver, Canada. i'm a nursing student, healthcare worker, and yoga teacher, and i'm commited to shifting the paradigm of health in the public imaginary. My friend just forwarded me the link to this magazine, so it's my first time here. Journal of Desire Armed. That's so HOT. i'll be back!

rlr59

I enjoyed Leona's editorial quite a lot, as I'm traveling around a lot these days, and this is something that has come up often. I also found it pertinent because I'm having conflicts with people who are very well known and respected in the movement. Our inability to resolve these conflicts is causing me to feel alienated from a movement that I have suffered mightily to nuture.

Leona raises many points worthy of much more discussion, and I'd much rather see a column devoted to exploring such issues than reading one more rambling, mental jerk-off by Ben Blue. Christ, how many more columns is he going to write about his column?

The arrests of ELF suspects - Operation Backfire - has (after an initial period of shock and paranoia) caused people in Eugene to re-examine their priorities in order to try to build a movement strong enough to resist this sort of repression. We think we can pull together, but only if we are humble enough to set aside our squabbling and recognize the worth of all the people in our groups, despite our (petty, for the most part) differences.

What we have to gain by resolving our conflicts in a mutually respectful manner is far more significant than our discomfort in working towards resolution.

Thanks for contributing to this extra-ordinarily important discussion.

irene

so the question that comes up for me is how do we retain and encourage participation in groups and movements? Especially in the face of deep differences. An obvious answer in to uncover what people want, what needs they have, and how the group can help provide that. what skills, support and information can we share.

Why

With regards to this article, I'm not sure what it's suggesting. It starts off in the first paragraph seemingly condeming what I would call negative aspects of anarchism; that we might seem "judgmental, dogmatic, sloppy, and ideological, as opposed to helpful, contextual and interesting." But then it turns right around in the next paragraph and calls the success of "anarchist niceities" mythological, and that "we are hampered" by it. This doesn't make much sense to me. While it's true that "support and care look different coming from different people" I don't think any anarchist is too stupid to understand where and when that support is needed or wanted. How it is to be accepted, and who would accept it. I think we know. How can we not? Is not anarchism simply another social outlet? It condemns "niceness" but it neglects that there are varying forms of "niceness." While I might treat one group nicer than the other due to their potential perception of patronization or whatever, that does not mean I am actually treating that group "nicer." I am simply treating that group as positively as they might accept. A natural consequence of social relationships, that's just how it works. So I don't agree with the generalization that we treat groups as homogenous, I've never come across it in my circles anyway. I sort of reject the conclusion that there is an "abandonment of the conflict" because the generalization doesn't exist in my experience. And I don't even know what to say about what the article thinks of "community." Even the hard line racist Republicans think community is more about "getting along" (which is essentially what the article says community is) than it is "liking one another a lot."

What "insoluble discrepancies?" is the article talking about (in the context of living with one another)? And isn't this just falling into the same category as "becoming homogeneous"? Why not overlook those discrepancies, and simply not care? That's how I see it. Are our differences really that important? I think we should base socialization on things that we have in common, not things that we have as differences. Especially because as we enter into conflict resolution over our "insoluble" differences we inflate those differences to the point where no resolution may be possible. The same is true of things we find agreeable about others, we inflate and exaggerate those agreements to the point where we are almost fanatical about certain things (such as anarchism, anyone?). It always fascinates me how many anarchists are passionate about their music, while in the same breath sometimes bashing the "mainstream" for liking what they do. As if they would've been different had they been born in the same family or of the same cultural background. Why can't we see our commonalities rather than our differences? Also, I find it interesting how the author lists "violence to arrest to drug use to childraising to dying" as real life situations we'd be dealing with. One of them being what I would call positive, and hardly in all scenarios (most child rearing scenarios are actually not all that great). Obviously the author is just listing a few things, I just think it's interesting that those things came to mind.

Why are "we are all traumatized by this culture"? And which culture? Is this a critique of anarchist culture, or the outside influances we must "deal" with? How are we "stomped on" and "beaten up" any more than anyone else? Because we "see the light" or something? As if our getting arrested for certain kinds of direct action actually is more significant than people being wage slaves, or mindless consumers, or involuntary polluters all things quite damaging (perhaps even more so) than our being "crushed" by "the man."

And how many of us are "outside the mainstream" really? Most anarchists I know are quite "in" the mainstream, if there is such a thing. Most anarchists, the ones who stay anarchists, compromise greatly with the system in my experience. What's worse, is that those who don't compromise early on implode under the pressure and simply forget about the struggle and "grow out of it." As disappointing as the stereotype may be, it is largely true.

I find "intention" to be a great motivator, unlike the author. If one can understand the intent of the common person one might find how close to being anarchist they truly are, rather than glossing over their hopes and desires and expecting them to jump on board a rather shaky movement.

I don't think anarchists "have chosen to be against most things in this culture" because I am not one of them. And I think that the ones who are to a significant extent stop being anarchist once get get out of that stage, except for the ones who surround themselves with the continuing (always reconstituting) presence of others of their calibre. In reality this article is talking about sycophancy, rather than diversity. It's talking about homogenenity rather than heterogenenity. There is no need to be "tough" to those unlike the conception the author has of "us." There is no "us"! There can never be.

In the end, while trying to decyhper what the author has written, I have come to the conclusion that it is about "being tough critics to those around us rather than being nice about things." I find this to fall within a boundry quite unlike what anarchism is about. Because it is not "people" who need to change. It is the system that they live within that needs changing. And the "people" are not responsible for that system, as many have already written about many times over. The system is created, controlled, and largely maintained by those with the power and control to do so (and in capitalism that means through owning all the wealth and resources). The people are simply mindless drones who don't know better. We can go on as we have for decades telling the people that they need to "change their ways," or we can affect change in our own groups. Change that can be seen and appreciated, and *used* by those people outside our groups. Unfortunately our movement is weak when it comes to alternatives that actually work, because as far as movements go, anarchism is the poorest most fragmented social idea in existance. There is hardly anything of our ideas which actually fits overall society adequately enough to be seen as a realistic or practical alternative. So instead of fixing this we tend to externalize our frustrations toward those who are "different" than us. We say that "they aren't good enough" rather than saying we aren't good enough. If anything is playing the victim *that* is. We need to fix our shit before we go around being "tougher critics."

In an interesting twist of irony (which made me laugh when I recognized it) Makhno's post may have actually qualified as "tougher criticism." But we'll never know. ;)

Sorry this reply isn't spell checked, I normally do it, but hey, screw technology for once, eh? Just for you dot, enjoy my typos/poor spelling.

leona

Why wrote:
In the end, while trying to decyhper what the author has written, I have come to the conclusion that it is about "being tough critics to those around us rather than being nice about things." I find this to fall within a boundry quite unlike what anarchism is about. Because it is not "people" who need to change. It is the system that they live within that needs changing. And the "people" are not responsible for that system, as many have already written about many times over. The system is created, controlled, and largely maintained by those with the power and control to do so (and in capitalism that means through owning all the wealth and resources). The people are simply mindless drones who don't know better. We can go on as we have for decades telling the people that they need to "change their ways," or we can affect change in our own groups. Change that can be seen and appreciated, and *used* by those people outside our groups. Unfortunately our movement is weak when it comes to alternatives that actually work, because as far as movements go, anarchism is the poorest most fragmented social idea in existance. There is hardly anything of our ideas which actually fits overall society adequately enough to be seen as a realistic or practical alternative. So instead of fixing this we tend to externalize our frustrations toward those who are "different" than us. We say that "they aren't good enough" rather than saying we aren't good enough. If anything is playing the victim *that* is. We need to fix our shit before we go around being "tougher critics."

multiple confusions

while there are many disagreements i have with what you write, this paragraph in particular shows our disagreement, and also a synchronicity. i'm not sure why you think what you say at the end of this paragraph refutes (or is in fact different from) what i say in the column.
re: the beginning of this paragraph, i think that while there are institutions that we don't have access to that do the most obvious work to maintain the status quo, we also do have power to maintain or shift established power relationships (basic foucault, i suppose).
of course, i also wouldn't call what we have (or certainly what i am interested in) a movement.
nor do i think stupid is the word for cultural hegemony, although i agree that cultural hegemony can cause people to act stupidly. first you say anarchists are smart enough to know who and how to support, then you say that people are mindless drones. or are anarchists not "people"? then you say that we should be focusing on how we aren't good enough (?) rather than how other people could be better.
what people say they think about community, and how they act about it, are two different things.
"anarchism is simply another social outlet"? hunh?
you don't even seem to remember who you're writing to.

Why

The mention of "being the victim" at the end of my reply was in reference to the statement in the article that, "the more monolithic the concept of support comes to be, the more proud or comfortable the role of victim." Is not calling for "us" to "be more critical" nothing more than a call for monolithic behavior?

Sitting around, bitching and moaning about people driving SUVs and polluting like crazy. Complaining about Starbucks and their exploited labor coffees, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. That is playing the victim. And it seems to me that the article is calling for more of this, more of this and in a "tougher" way. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

How do we "maintain or shift established power relationships"? I don't think we have any options but to maintain our power relationships, because shifting them is significantly more difficult than "letting things be the way they are." The system is self-perpetuating in that way. It keeps itself around by relying on apathy, and people not caring.

And I'm not sure where cultural hegemony comes into play here, because I believe most consumer or otherwise negative behaviors are more the result of crowd psychology or "mob mentality" (the former seems less negative). Capitalists simply use that to their advantage, and the results of their interactions are hegemonic. I call this sort of the new "cultural imperialism" where capitalists put up a new Wal-Mart or something somewhere, and the people happily oblige their capitalist overlords.

When I called people "mindless drones" it is merely how they relate to anarchism. Apathy does not mean someone is stupid, it just means that they don't explicitly care about the things we care about. In reality I don't see anything wrong with consumerism. I only see things wrong with capitalism and how it relates to people and our environment.

You aren't dot? I am confused, I thought you were. Sorry. Should've realized by your writing you were different people.

leona

"the more monolithic the concept of support comes to be, the more proud or comfortable the role of victim." Is not calling for "us" to "be more critical" nothing more than a call for monolithic behavior?
not the way i see it.

Sitting around, bitching and moaning about people driving SUVs and polluting like crazy. Complaining about Starbucks and their exploited labor coffees, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. That is playing the victim. And it seems to me that the article is calling for more of this, more of this and in a "tougher" way. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

your examples are weird. where do they come from? maybe this is because my editorial was too vague?
when i talk about conflicts, i am (mostly) talking about fights that we get into with people who we know and care about.
i am talking about people who are friends of the magazine getting upset because there is a review that is mostly but not *entirely* positive about something that they have written.

How do we "maintain or shift established power relationships"? I don't think we have any options but to maintain our power relationships, because shifting them is significantly more difficult than "letting things be the way they are." The system is self-perpetuating in that way. It keeps itself around by relying on apathy, and people not caring.

sure. aren't we fighting for fundamental change? how do we do that without combatting the given power relationships?

irene

leona,
I’d like to contribute to this discussion, but I’d first like some clarification on what you mean by “power relationships”.
for now, i'll just say that I think there is an aspect of power inbalance that shifts in diefferent ways, in most relationship, and often it’s not discussed. ie, who’s doing the directing, who’s recieving benefit and at what cost to the other… its always a dance. I think the way to avoid these things is simply to understand what we’re in the relationship for, and place the importance of clear communication over our hesitations.
I believe this is key to fundamental change; that we communicate completely, openly and honestly with the people we interact with, because apathy does lead to communication breakdown, and established modes of operation like "everyone for themselves" takes over.
i understand this to be a place where the writing is written to share ideas, not have people agree or diagree witht he authors... personally, i find constuctive criticsm of ideas like the responses by why to be informative - they strive to look at the facts presented and question them...

leona

the point of me introducing the issue of power relationships was in countering why's framing of power as entirely outside of our hands.
my point is just that power exists in every interaction, and that we are complicit in maintaining problematic relationships, and so challenging that complicity is something that we can and want to do.
so it sounds like you and i agree. i wonder what you thought of why's framing, and if i misunderstood something.

i do disagree with you about communication though. while there are times when it is crucial to be able to talk, there are times when talking is a distraction and a
displacement. and i think that completely open and honest communication is a chimera.
i can barely be sure that i am being honest with myself.
in fact, honest is another one of those words that can barely function under the baggage that it has to carry.
but perhaps that's a different conversation.

and sure, sharing ideas is definitely the point. i'm not asking people to agree with me. i would just like to have what i'm saying be understood so as to be disagreed with properly.

Why

leona,

your examples are weird. where do they come from? maybe this is because my editorial was too vague?
when i talk about conflicts, i am (mostly) talking about fights that we get into with people who we know and care about.
i am talking about people who are friends of the magazine getting upset because there is a review that is mostly but not *entirely* positive about something that they have written.

Yeah, the article was beyond vague, it's hard for me to get what it really means in a broader sense. The examples I gave were one of many "problems" anarchists have had with people in my experience. All in all the idea is a sense victimization. I recall a group of females in a collective having serious problems with a guy there, and they never confronted him with his behavior, instead sitting behind his back making accusations of sexism and so on. Of course, other males in the group, being how males tend to be, went in defense of the females, and even *that* caused some controversy (in the first instance the women were victims of sexism, and in the second, of patriarchy!). We *love* playing the victim. Indeed, it seems in the case of the person you are talking about they felt victimized by a bad review.

My solution to this is simple, first, that criticism is always acceptable, and should never result in people "getting upset." So in the case of the aforementioned collective going up to the sexist asshole (he later turned out not to be an anarchist) and telling them how you feel would've been the most useful of things to do. This would've created that personal connection that lacks online or over great distances, or just life in general. It all starts with not being the victim, not playing the victim yourself. Your critique seems to say that we should be tougher critics while I think that we need to be tougher recipients of criticism. If we focus too much on being critics, we miss the part where we cannot take criticism. And I think there is *a lot* of that in anarchist circles, and I think it is responsible for many anarchists simply "growing out of it" because the "drama is too much."

sure. aren't we fighting for fundamental change? how do we do that without combatting the given power relationships?

The most significant (economic) power relationship is self-perpetuating, and has been around for many centuries. I recall reading about these old Syrian stone tablets (some of the oldest writing known) that talked about a bank trying to get funds back from someone who had been lended money. It always made me laugh, because we have people going on about how power relationships are more recent, how capitalism is only around after industrialism and so on. No way, this stuff has been happening for a very very long time.

The main thing is that we simply do not own or control much resources, like I said in the first post to you, we are poor, and we are largely fragmented. We can't do much except the whole combatting thing. But that's about it. Look at the Argentine coops which were marginially successful for a time. Did they combat the capitalists? Not really, the capitalists threw out their capital and filed bankruptcy. During the time the capital was being neglected the people took it over. I sincerely believe that we cannot combat the system because it is designed, over thousands of years, to maintain itself even in the event that one tries to combat it. I believe the only way is to build up alternatives within our own groups and work around the system. Screw mass production, screw expropriating the means of production, screw monetary systems. This might be a form of combat, I don't know, I don't think so. The emphasis is on building up and around the system rather then below and through it. It's still bottom up but it doesn't rely on the system as a whole.

I read your blog and awhile ago you wrote that the whole magazine production thing is mired in capitalistic practices. If you believe it is true, and if you are dissatisified with the level of complicity and dependence that exists, perhaps alternative solutions could be found. Making ones own paper out of recycled material, for instance. Getting ones own press. Go back 50-100 years technologically, that stuff should be affordable and just as useable. *That* is what is going to rid us of the power relationships that we have to endure. Independence, self-sufficiency. The other ones, the social, are not going to be rid of any time soon, because they are ingrained in society as a whole. You cannot just expect Muslim society to suddenly start respecting women overnight. Social change is going to take a whole lot longer. But it certainly should be easier without the economic repression and economic power relationships that currently exist.

irene

do disagree with you about communication though. while there are times when it is crucial to be able to talk, there are times when talking is a distraction and a
displacement. and i think that completely open and honest communication is a chimera.
it's true that if we spend all of our time pontification about our feelings and ideas, nothing would ever get done. What i was thinking of though is the withholding, repressing and numbing out that often happens in place of conflict or expression of our emotions. I think in such circumstances, not talking is a option that we often chose out of fear, and ultimately keeps us from truly being with and knowing eachother.
Communicating about (and learning to recognize!) things that are emotional or unsettling, conflicts that are seemingly impossible to trancend, in a level headed, succinct and productive way, is a skill one can learn and hone like any other. However, it's such the norm for people to write eachother off and stop talking, drift apart, just because there was a tension or conflict that was undefined and unexplored due to dropping out of communication. What a waste! I can think of many friendships that have gone this way.

Here's where the blame game comes in. Communicaton is always our own responsibility to keep up. we could say "yeah, that person flaked out on me" but in my opinion, it's never really an excuse.

leona

"it all starts with not being the victim, not playing the victim yourself. Your critique seems to say that we should be tougher critics while I think that we need to be tougher recipients of criticism."

why, did you not read the full editorial? i believe, and tried to say, that tougher criticism and being tougher about getting criticism are both necessary, and i think that they go together.
luckily, writing improves with practice.