LETTERS

Dunblane
Dear Organise!
The tragedy of Dunblane raises two basic yet connected questions. Handling guns and the role of adults in attending to the needs of children. Both these functions fell into the hands of an unstable man. Bearing arms and herding children are basic functions of the state under capitalism, totalitarian socialism and fascism. Thomas Hamilton sought to emulate those whose kow-towing to the system gives them the right to carry arms and train children.

Both these functions are abusive in themselves and the typical consequence of the need of power structures to produce factory, office and cannon fodder. The fact that institutions that care for the young and old are frequently found to be inadequate should not surprise us. Indifference to humanity is a vital factor in instilling the imperialist mentality.

Capitalism/imperialism thrives on division as in Ulster and in the massacre of Highlanders by Sassanachs in the aftermath of Culloden. Hatred breeds atrocity and imperialism is hatred per se., the thing that Rwanda has in common with Dunblane, where a lone maniac typified the ability of the so-called humane being to kill,

A.A. Edinburgh.

Eds. Reply:
This letter raises a number of important points. The worship of profit, particularly in this period when the Golden Calf of the Market, untrammelled and unbridled, is one of the main idols, leads to a cheapening and brutalisation of relations between human beings. The tough businessperson with no emotion is seen as a model. The atomisation of society, the collapse of community and the ever-increasing isolation of individuals, coupled with poverty and unemployment lead to increasingly barbaric behaviour. Alongside this are the examples of mass murder carried out by capitalism (Falklands, Gulf War, the war in ex-Yugoslavia, the massacres in Rwanda) and individual murder and brutalisation carried out by the forces of the State, whether they be cops or soldiers.

Another point is that the increasing privatisation and deregularisation led to a situation where Hamilton, known for his possession of arms and his unstable behaviour, was able to set himself up as an organiser of boys' clubs. Look at other examples of this social decay in the number of mentally ill thrown out on the streets, in the beating of old people in homes, in the cases of sexual abuse in children's homes. Dunblane, Hungerford and the Wests, all are paraded as proof that Evil is the explanation for irrational and homicidal acts. Evil , the Original Sin of the Christians, these are trotted out as excuses for the Strong State and Law and Order. Such arguments can be used to counter any idea that we can reach a just and free society.

We say that an irrational world system that permits famines and homelessness produces irrational acts.

Militant or Revolutionary?
Dear Organise!
Congratulations to the ACF on reaching your tenth birthday! Doesn't time fly when you're trying to subvert the system?

I enjoyed issue 42, particularly the Anarchist Communism in Britain supplement which was very interesting as it showed that there is some historical and political continuity between the revolutionaries of the last century and those of the inter-war years right up to the present. In the history of the ACF, however, I was disappointed not to see any mention of the short-lived Anarchist Workers Group, if only because libertarians can learn lessons from even the most disastrous experiences!

I would like to comment on a couple of articles in issue 42. It's good to see the ACF open up the pages of Organise! to other groups and the Militant Eco-Action article was very welcome. However, whilst I agree with the author that the fight against environmental destruction is important to the working class (as we always suffer the worst from it after all!), I feel that the struggles against Roadbuilding etc., however militant, can only be defensive struggles and rear-guard actions at that. Without a revolutionary perspective that actually sees things in terms of a fight between two classes and talks about the need for the working class to smash the power of the ruling class and to create a free, communist society, the environmental movement is condemned to constantly having to respond to the assaults of capitalism rather than go on the offensive and actually take control of the planet out of the hands of its present owners. This tends to make the debate around violence vs. non-violence a bit irrelevant as an ultra-violent reformism is still reformism! Also, concerning the article on the Independent Working Class Association, just a few thoughts. Although the IWCA is a product of the crisis of the 'Left', the same one which has brought forth the Scargill Labour Party, the Socialist Alliances and on a different (and perhaps more positive?) level, the Revolutionary Socialist Network, it is a little harder to fathom. Without doubt Red Action are politically the prime movers and the early statements issuing from the IWCA seem to reflect their ultra- critical attitude towards the Leninist left and traditional lefty politics (ie.Trade Unionist, Labourist etc.). But there appears to be a contradiction. Whatever disagreements libertarian communists have with Red Action, they cannot be dismissed as a just another 'vanguardist tendency', akin to those others which constitute the IWCA, when they have for years been critiquing vanguardism, Leninism and Trotskyism, often with great clarity. So why have they jumped into bed with the biggest gang of unrepentant Stalinists this side of North Korea, thereby giving these Leninists credibility? Unless you are willing to believe that Red Action's anti-Leninism is totally superficial ( and I don't think it is) it must mean that they believe they can carry the directionless Stalinist flotsam and jetsam behind in their wake. Why not let the bastards drown?

Anyway, that's yer lot. Keep up the good work.
Yours for libertarian communism,
D.McC
East London

Anarcho-Primitivism
Dear Organise!
I wish to take issue with the two items concerning anarcho-primitivism in the Summer 1996 edition, namely the review of Bookchin's Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism and the essay entitled Green Politics. I'm afraid to say that if these two pieces are representative of the ACF's understanding of anarcho-primitivism, then they show either wilful ignorance or a desire to distort.

To address points made in Green Politics first. I take great exception to the assertion that anarcho-primitivism is a "green current claiming to be anarchist" (16). Would you agree, then, that anarcho-communism is a libertarian current claiming to be anarchist? The prefix 'anarcho-' is not just an afterthought in either case but an integral part of the descriptive label. Personally, I would deny that anarcho-primitivism is a 'green current' at all. Certainly, there is a pronounced ecological dimension to anarcho-primitivism but this is one strand amongst many. Why privilege that one at the expense of others (e.g. its feminist, Situationist or zero-work dimensions)? The fact is that anarcho-primitivism did not emerge from a green context, but from a radical anti-authoritarian context, and is thus first and foremost an anarchist current. Anarcho-primitivism does not 'claim' to be anarchist, any more than the ACF 'claim' to be anarchist. Both tendencies are anarchist. There's no room for debate there.

The debate comes in when you attempt to define what you mean by 'anarchist'. I would argue that we can discern two phases in anarchist history. The first, commonly known as classical anarchism, began in the early 19th century with figures such as Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin etc., and reached a climactic finale in the Spanish Revolution in the late 1930s. Woodcock and even Bookchin would agree with me so far. After that, and particularly from the 1960s onwards, anarchism has undergone a transformation which renders it largely unrecognisable (and certainly unpalatable) to adherents of moribund classical anarchism. In short, I would argue that just as feminist historians acknowledge a periodization which sees first wave feminism (c. 1840-1920) succeeded by a second wave from the 1960s onwards, so anarchists should recognise a first wave (or classical) anarchism succeeded by a second wave which as yet has no label, but which is characterised, not by the narrow focus on class, the State and capitalism, but by a project which questions the totality, which seeks the abolition of all forms of control, the context of which can (for short-hand purpose) be called civilisation. In this sense, I would characterise second-wave anarchism (with anarcho-primitivism as a case in point) as typified by a quantum leap beyond the limited concerns of classical anarchism. And from such a perspective, I think you would be hard pressed to deny that anarcho-primitivism falls squarely within this definition of 'anarchism'.

Bookchin misnames "social anarchism". On the other hand, there are (among a few dead-weights heaved in to smear the others) representatives of second-wave anarchism- what Bookchin mistakenly calls "life-style anarchism". The ACF, with its commitment to class struggle anarchism, places itself in the former camp (despite the fact that you acknowledge that Bookchin "has lost the view that the working class is the revolutionary subject of history", a point reiterated in Green Politics, and yet surely this view is the key plank in your position?!). It's a pity that your reviewer didn't mention that Bookchin's text also includes an essay entitled The Left That Was: A Personal Reflection, in which he gets all nostalgic about the historical Left, of which he sees (classical) anarchism as a component. Don't we all now recognise that the left is just, in that quaint phrase used in this country, 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition', loyal to the principles of power and authority, if not to any particular socio-economic system?

I was heartened by the comments in both the review and Green Politics which indicate a certain engagement and even agreement with anarcho-primitive perspectives. However, comrades, beware being caught on the wrong side of the battlefield when the shit hits the fan. I hear on the grapevine that Bookchin will shortly come under attack from all kinds of angles. I wouldn't hitch myself to his star, if I were you.

In resistance,
J M (Herts.)

Eds. reply:
To say that our focus on class, the state and capitalism is narrow is to show little comprehension of this society. All the old oppressions of hierarchy, militarism, sexism and racism are reinforced and aggravated by capitalism and the state. Of course we're against all forms of control, but these forms are all defined by a statist, capitalist society. Yes, we did say that Bookchin no longer believed that the working class was the revolutionary subject of history. That's not to say that we think that the working class is the messiah class. We don't. We've stated this very clearly in our new Manifesto Beyond Resistance: a Revolutionary Manifesto for the Millennium. The working class is not historically destined to carry out a revolution. What we say is that the working class, which includes the vast majority of the world population, by the nature of its oppression and circumstances, must be the class to carry out a revolution if it is to be successful. That's a big difference.

No, "classical" anarchism has not been superseded by "second wave" anarchism. For a while, in particular in places like Britain, pacifists and gradualists , with no conception of class struggle or revolution, took over the 'movement'. People like Woodcock were able to crow about the end of "classical anarchism" (although even he had to revise his opinions). Now, as circumstances within capitalist society change, class struggle anarchism is reasserting itself. You are very much mistaken if you think that what you call "classical" anarchism has given up the ghost. As to Bookchin, we don't "hitch" ourselves to anyone's "star". We recognise what is valid in Bookchin's thought, with no loss of critical faculties, and without giving in to hero worship. It seems that the attacks on Bookchin from the anarchoprimitivist camp are personalised and vitriolic (e.g. the substitution of "BookWorm" for "Bookchin" in the pages of Green Anarchist). We're not intimidated by your warnings. We will continue to look at libertarian thinkers in a detached fashion, giving praise where praise is due and criticising where necessary.