Post-Left Anarchism
- From: "Visual Purple" <DoreenDotan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jan 2006 16:42:37 -0800
Post-Left Anarchism and Gustav Landauer
Those who know me know that I am an Anarchist. You probably assume that
I am a Marxist too because Anarchy has always been associated with
Marxism and Marxism, in turn, reads in the minds of most people thus:
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
I am not a Marxist and have never subscribed to violent revolution.
An excellent description of my "school" of Anarchy is described in the
excerpt below, the author of which is unknown to me:
THE BENEFITS OF NON-CLASS STRUGGLE ANARCHISM TO THE MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE
"Revolution is a process ever going. Like a river it flows; changing
shape, altering its course, sometimes slowing down, sometimes becoming
a rapid. At times we lose sight of it behind the dogma of some ideology
or another. But it can never be stopped. Since the first slave said
'no', since the first people rose up against the tyrants, since the
concept of Freedom was formed, the Revolution has always been there. As
a comrade wrote to me, "Revolution is a process, not an historical
event". The nature of the Revolution stems from the forces it
encounters, the aspirations of those within it, and the strength of the
reaction. If it can progress unrestrained, then it is likely to be
peaceful. The ends will never justify the means, they are inextricably
bound together and what better way is there of taking someone's freedom
than by killing them. Violence is the basis upon which government
stands, and as such it is the counter Revolution. From the writings of
Kropotkin up to Colin Ward there have been attempts to hi-light points
in existing society where the river may flow - worker co-ops, food
co-ops, alternative welfare and education, and countless examples of
how order is spontaneous, and springs up from the very act, and point
of association itself: "What kept us together was our work, our mutual
interdependencies in this work, our factual interests in one gigantic
problem with its many specialist ramifications. I had not solicited
co-workers. They had come of themselves. They remained, or they left
when the work no longer held them. We had not formed a political group,
or worked out a programme of action...Each one had made his
contribution according to his interests in the work...There are, then
objective biological work functions capable of regulating human
co-operation. Exemplary work organises its forms of functioning
organically and spontaneously, even though only gradually, gropingly
and often making mistakes. In contra-distinction, the political
organisations, with their 'campaigns' and 'platforms' proceed without
any connection with the tasks and problems of daily life".
Like the fishermen in Brixham, or the miners in Durham or Brora,
Scotland, workers co-operatives provide small, rare examples of how a
task provides its own point of association, and provides the associates
with a focus, that transcends any necessity for coercive pressure. In
short, the act of society provides its own order internally, whereas
all ' governments attempt to impose it externally, stifling and
smothering the social instinct. These examples exist in modern society.
They are not memories of an age before the nation-state, but are modern
facts. Paul Goodman once described anarchism as both conservative and
radical, for we must attempt to conserve those places where liberty may
be developed in full, as well as create new ones. Gustav Landaur also
wrote along the same lines "The state is not something which can be
destroyed by a revolution, it is a condition of human behaviour; we
destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving
differently". Even, according to the film 'Michael Collins', the Irish
Republican leader Eamon de Valera spoke along the same lines by
claiming roughly that "We defeat the British Government by ignoring
it".
Of course, the name of any government can be substituted for the word
"British" in the last sentence of the excerpt.
Other Anarchists are catching on. There is, of late, a school of
Anarchism that describes itself as "post-Left". They are Anarchists who
were once Leftists, who became disenchanted with the Leftist movement,
even while they retain the principles of Anarchy.
There are very interesting articles that constitute an ideological
back-and-forth between the post-Leftist Anarchist Jason McQuinn and the
Leftist Anarchist Peter Staudenmaier.
You can find their articles on the following URL:
http://www.anarchist-studies.org/publications/theory_politics
I wrote that I am not a Marxist, but I did not write that I am not a
Leftist. I am a Leftist, in the most absolute sense of the word. I am
an Anarchist-Leftist as was Gustav Landauer who called himself a
Socialist always.
Gustav Landauer was an anti-Marxist. With preternatural prescience he
predicted what would happen if Marxist Leftist governments would come
to power.
It was Gustav Landauer who wrote:
"The State is a condition, a certain relationship among human beings, a
mode of behavior, we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by
behaving differently toward one and other... We are the State and
continue to be the State until we have created the institutions that
form a real community."
"One can throw away a chair and destroy a pane of glass; but those
are idle talkers and credulous idolaters of words who regard the
state as such a thing or as a fetish that one can smash in order to
destroy it. The State is a condition, a certain relationship
between human beings, a mode of behavior; we destroy it by
contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one
another - One day it will be realized that Socialism is not the
invention of anything new, but the discovery of something actually
present, of something that has grown...We are the state, and we shall
continue to be the state until we have created the institutions that
form a real community and society of men." - Gustav Landauer
"Schwache Stattsmanner, Schwacheres Volk!"
Der Sozialist, June, 1910
"...The realization of Socialism is always possible if a sufficient
number of people want it. The realization depends not on the
technological state of things, although Socialism when realized will
of course look differently and develop differently according to the
state of technics; it depends on people and on their spirit...
Socialism is possible and impossible at all times; it is possible
when the right people are there to will it and to do it; it is
impossible when people either don't will it or only supposedly will
it, but are not capable of doing it." - Gustav Landauer
"For Socialism", quoted in Martin Buber,
Paths in Utopia
Translated by R.F.C. Hull
About him Martin Buber wrote: "Gustav Landauer fought in the revolution
against the revolution for the sake of the revolution. The revolution
will not thank him for it. But those will thank him for it who have
fought as he fought and perhaps one day those will thank him for whose
sake he fought."
In response to Jason McQuinn's article "Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the
Left Behind" I wrote:
I fully agree with Mr. Quinn that the Anarchist movement should
distance itself from the ills that have beset the Left for all of the
reasons he states in this article and more.
However, I must ask: why did the author find it necessary to indulge in
the sarcasm that has gone past being ubiquitous to the point of being
de rigueur?
Can't a bit of Anarchist spirit be applied here too and can we not
resist the temptation to use expressions like: "Duh!" and "Wow!" that
litter so much of the writings on the internet and mar an otherwise
intelligent essay that pains were obviously taken to craft?
There is simply no room for sarcasm, which evinces surrender to one's
visceral emotions, when writing an essay that also expresses the wish
to be accepted on its intellectual merit alone.
Secondly, and more importantly, why is post-Marxist/Leninist /Maoist
Anarchism called post-Leftist?
Gustav Landauer was a Leftist also, yet he was anti-Marxist and
predicted with preternatural prescience what would happen if
governments were to be based on Marxist theory. Yet, he called himself
a Socialist and published a paper called Der Sozialist.
You, Jason, speak against the reification of the state, and quite
correctly so. Was it not Gustav Landauer who spoke most eloquently
against the reification of the state?
Most importantly, and this is what Landauer's Socialist Anarchism
included that Marx's did not, was his full acceptance, nay embracing,
of Geist (Spirit). Landauer was not only a great mind and a great
heart, he was a man of great Spirit, who did not shy away from using
the term Spirit. Fom that Spirit derived his vision, his energy, his
perseverance and his bravery even when being faced with murder.
Had the Socialism of Landauer not been eclipsed by that of Marx the
entire 20th C. would have been different. It behooves us to delve
deeply into the human psyche to understand why the teachings of Marx
were found to be so very attractive, while those of Gustav Landauer
were rejected during his lifetime for the most part and thereafter as
well.
When I think that while the Nazi machine churned, the Stalinist purges
ravaged the USSR and the orgy of violence that was called the "Cultural
Revolution" raped The People's Republic of China, even as the words of
Gustav Landauer went unheard in obscurity, I feel an indescribable
depth of sadness at the needless tragedy.
And so, Jason, I would recommend to you not to call the Anarchist
movement that you set yourself in contradistinction to "Leftist
Anarchism" or call it "lame", but rather call it what it is -
soulless. Being soulless was the undoing of Marxism from its inception.
May we have the robustness and the courage to embrace an Anarchy that
is infused with Spirit.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
.
- Prev by Date: Re: How to Be an Hamas Apologist .. <=== SUPERB!
- Next by Date: Re: How to Be an Hamas Apologist .. <=== SUPERB!
- Previous by thread: Re: Nuclear bomb Israel
- Next by thread: Re: I never had the chance in 1967
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
