ORGANISE! for class struggle anarchism |
£1.00 Spring 1997 Issue 45 (Free to Prisoners) |
LETTERS
Oxford Green Anarchists on Bookchin
Which brings us to Bookchin. It is hard to believe you suffered "no critical loss of faculties" when you featured his blatherings last issue. Didn't you realise you were being patronised by this prestigious college dean pleading his "limited income at the age of seventy-five" etc.? Didn't you know Bookchin's no anarchist communist? To everyone he's not seeking to use for his short-term political advantage as a lever against anarcho-primitivism, he's the founder of social ecologism, which he arrogantly sees as superseding all other cultures, including anarchist communism. Murray Bookchin Thought has foundered on the rock of libertarian municipalism, which Michael Williams's expose of Ecologie Montreal show, in practice, to be as liberal/reformist as anything you'd expect from the Green Party in the UK, for ol' Bookworm's overripe rhetoric to the contrary. So much for his 'revolutionism'! It's hilarious to see an old fossil like Bookchin rail against "the walking dead of the sixties...abandoning their convictions for private life and academic careers) when he first came to prominence then, is now comfortably cosseted in an academic career of his own, and is now scrapping all radical/redeeming features of social ecology in his senescence in a sad attempt to ally himself with others even more conservative and historically doomed than himself.
It is incredible you find Green Anarchist's response to Bookchin's Social Anarchism v. Lifestyle Anarchism more "personalised and vitriolic" than the original provocation! As you clearly don't know, Bookchin's partner is one Janet Biehl. Her dubiously derivative, scrappy and poisonous Ecofascism smears all challenging urbanism as fascists, just like the ol' Stalinist ploy mentioned above. A curious line for a Green to take, you might think, but libertarian municipalism is the subtext again. Biehl's latest idiocy is to use Bookchin's journal, Green Perspectives, to accuse Jason McQuinn, the editor of a rival US anarcho-primitivist journal, Anarchy, of promoting Holocaust revisionism!
So Bookchin has some gall to accuse others of "ad hominem" attacks and he doesn't dare identify any of them so readers can make up their own minds. Foremost is John Clark, once a prominent social ecologist but now sickened by 'Kommissar' Bookchin's dogmatic libertarian municipalism. We'd also recommend David Watson's Beyond Bookchin (even though it is boringly 'cosmic' in places) and Bob Black's forthcoming Anarchy After Leftism for those too challenged by anarcho-primitivism to have actually read any yet.
Yours, for the destruction of Civilisation,
Our mention of pacifists and gradualists, with no conception of class struggle or revolution, in our reply to JM's letter, was perfectly legitimate. JM cited Woodcock to back up his notion that "second wave" anarchism emerged after World War Two. A better example of the pacifist/liberal/gradualist camp could not be found! It has always been our contention that revolutionary anarchism was undermined by the various humanists, individualists and reformists that described themselves as anarchists. This may have been inevitable as the result of the collapse of the revolutionary waves that swept through Europe and other parts of the world. It was a pretty grim time in the late 40s and 50s, with the aftermath of two world wars, fascism and Stalinism, and the virtual annihilation of the genuine revolutionary movements. The return of the class struggle anarchist movement began in the 60s, it could be argued, and everywhere we see its resurgence. Obviously there is a difference between Green Anarchist and the liberal/humanist/pacifist camp but JM muddied the waters by citing Woodcock, whose arguments typify the views of that camp. You seem to think that if you say long and loud enough that anarcho-primitivism is the new, modern anarchism destined to supersede "classical" anarchism, it will become a fact. We're glad that you don't deny class struggle. But don't you write off the entire urban working class? Haven't you done this systematically in the pages of Green Anarchist? Far from "broadening and deepening" an understanding of class struggle, you turn to notions of "revolution from the periphery"where revolutions in the "underdeveloped" world would ignite revolutions in the West. Isn't this a revised version of the old Third World revolutionist ideas that were so common in the 60s and 70s, very much influenced by Maoism? You seem to have no idea of the dynamic of class struggle-you failed to understand the Wapping printers' strike, when you criticised them for printing the Sun. This is an idealist position, and you fail to realise the nature of struggle, which starts off at present reality, but has the possibilty of transforming that reality. Anarcho-primitivism is hardly new, people like Zisly and Gravelle and their group the Naturiens were putting forward similar ideas in the 1880s and 90s in France.These ideas were mistaken then, and we think that they are mistaken now. Modern anarchist-communism has learnt from many struggles, from the many insights of environmental , anti-racist and anti-sexist struggles. In our opinion-but we would say that, wouldn't we- it is the current that has superseded "classical" anarchism.
We have received a similar letter from BB in the United States which covers the same ground as the above letter.
D.C. London E8
We think that the British anarchist movement is at the moment in a situation in which it is disorganised and atomised, and it has no aims nation-wide. And except the Anarchist Bookfair which is organised every year and gradually becoming monotonous, we do not see each other, we do not communally inform each other, let alone directing our forces toward mutual aims. We know that there are some friends out there who try to do this. However, we also know that this is not enough. Everything goes on by itself. We are lost in the labyrinths the capitalist system has consciously and purposely created. British anarchists have come near the point at which they exist without sufficient communication and willpower, while they continually oppose the extreme centralism of Marxists. We all know that the elections are coming. Is it not necessary for British anarchists to agree upon a policy in order to act nation-wide against such a nation-wide event? But we do nothing. We seem to be quite comfortable in our little caves.
The lack of communication and solidarity among the anarchists affect most of us, that is, anarchists who come from other parts of the world. Although we try hard to become involved as much as we can in the anarchist movement, we have not been too successful integrating into it. We already experience among our own society, which is under the hegemony of Marxism and liberalism, the inevitable alienation. What a bitter experience this is! "Exile life is as grey as English weather". Anyway... It is not our intention here to moan but to persuade you our comrades.
We invite all groups, organisations, initiatives, etc. in the movement to organise an anarchist conference to discuss thoroughly what has been said in this letter as well as other points which we could not mention here in order to arrive at certain conclusions, most importantly, to create an information centre, and even organise and form an anarchist confederation which would be composed of local as well as national anarchist groups and organisations, and which would be dependent upon such organisations' self-control and absolute autonomy. The call is from ours, to organise this would be your task. Because we know well that considering our own lack of communication we are not suitable for the job. The first three groups, organisations or individuals who would reply to this letter positively will organise the first preparatory committee of the conference. Our task is to get these three groups, organisations or individuals to meet each other. With other groups, organisations or individuals, this committee can later be expanded by the very people who have first started the initiative. We would like you all to discuss this and other things we have mentioned in this letter and send all your replies to the address below.
In solidarity,
Reply (this reply is printed in issue 46, but is included here to go with the letter) : We have discussed your proposal which we have also printed in the latest issue of Organise! and we have decided to support your call for a conference.
However, we did decide that it would be better if the conference was separate from the (London) Anarchist Bookfair, as it is all too easy for just any one to turn up (i.e. someone who is just interested in the books, or in drinking...), without any committment to the aims of such a conference. This would also go for the day after the Bookfair, as we will be having an ACF meeting then. In any case, you may find the Bookfair date is too soon and there is not time for a long meeting as there are always lots of other meetings happening on that day.
The ACF would not support the idea of organisation of the conference being limited to the first three respondants. It should be open to all interested groups. I am sure you did mean for all groups to participate on an equal basis, so I think it would be best to wait and find out whether you get any other positive replies.
From a political point of view, the sort of initiative you are suggesting has always faced difficulties, as there are anarchists who do not believe in class or who are anti-organisation. You will be aware that the number of anarchists involved in class struggle anarchist or anarchist communist groupings on a national or worldwide scale are relatively small. This is something the ACF itself is trying to address, as we are currently building stronger links with anarchist communists worldwide, some of these thanks to the internet.
Of those who consider themselves class struggle anarchists, some of these are stuck with localist tendencies, though some links between these exist, such as the Northern Anarchist Network (NAN, who are predominately class struggle), which also comprises members of the ACF and other organisations like the Solidarity Federation and Subversion. There is also the Scottish Federation of Anarchists. So there is already some organisation outside of the longer established federations, and this works fairly well in coordinating actions like the anti-JSA, dockers support, anti-election work etc, and there is also a cross-over with single issue groups like Groundswell and the Anti-Election Alliance.
You may not be aware that initiatives like you are proposing have already been tried. Some time ago Class War approached the ACF concerning a possible merger between the organisations, but in spite of several meetings we were unable to overcome the political differences, especially over Class War's ambiguity over nationalism. More recently, there has been the setting up of the Independent Working Class Alliance (IWCA), the proposers of which attempted to attract groups like the ACF, but who are dominated by Red Action and others with marxist and/or nationalist politics, though some members of Class War are involved. There is currently a grouping called Revolutionary Socialist Network, which involves a variety of marxists, and a few anarchists.
The ACF is unlikely to support the idea of a con-federation of groups with widely differing views about anarchism. In Britain we are closest politically with Subversion, who do not wish to be labelled as either anarchist or marxist, one of their main reasons being the impossibility of defining an 'anarchist movement' when there are such a variety of people calling themselves anarchist. We agree in our rejection of syndicalism and total rejection of nationalist tendencies, both issues which are an immediate problem in any call for unity in the 'movement'.
So, although there are some problems with your call for a confederation, in your open letter you mention a point which is perhaps not addressed by the current network structures, that is, how to involve comrades from other countries who are currently in Britain and do not feel they are easily integrated into anarchist organisation here? Maybe THIS question is the one YOU could bring up by organising a brief meeting at the Bookfair for those who have responded to your open letter (and those who may not have seen it) to discuss your proposal further. This would not be too difficult for you to do as all you have to do is book the room, and we could sort out who would be into organising a conference at that meeting.
Maybe doing this would help you convince yourselves of the validity, or otherwise, of calling for the setting up of a confederation which as I have said is fraught with difficulties, and has been thought about many times in the past. In any case, it would show the importance of solidarity of 'British' anarchists with comrades in Turkey and elsewhere, something which would certainly benefit from organisational structures like those advocated by the ACF. This might draw in a few more people that the ones you have managed to contact already.
As I have said already, any Turkish language versions of anarchist literature is welcome on our website, and am happy to help set up a site for your group. I am also intending to place the ACF principles on our site in as many languages as possible and if you are able to translate any of our materials, please let us know.
In summary, the ACF supports the idea of organising a conference, whether or not this leads to the formation of a confederation.
An initial meeting at the Anarchist Bookfair would help get more support for the idea, and would also raise some of the specific problems you are having as Turkish and Kurdish anarchists in Britain.
Anyway, please let us know, either by e-mail or by letter to the London Address when you get any more interest in your proposal from other groups and how you want to take this forward.
Group sectarianism ghas served only to stifle our movement, and while groups are valid for national action, this is limited in the absence of a nationwide, united, co-ordinated approach to class struggle.
Too often groups are just point-scoring over each other. All of the various groups have their own validities and shortcomings. It is time for us all to recognise what all individuals and groups contribute to the movement as a whole. Infighting and bickering serve only one purpose: the labelling and divisions that the State wants.
No national group has the regional capacity to operate solely on their own terms. As is the casein East Kent, and the nation as a whole, members of various groups work together anyway as this is the only practical approach.
The Anti-Election Alliance has a lot of potential to become a unifying force in our movement. We feel that this alliance should survive the general election and become a coherent anarchist/libertarian coordinator. All groups involved in the AEA should see this as a forum for coordination between one another. We propose that the AEA publishes its own bulletin, which should be sent to all individuals and groups involved in it. This should allow all members of our movement to realise the validity and usefulness of our different approaches, and to provide a national vehicle for debate and action.
R. and A. East Kent Anarchists
Dear Organise!
JM IS RIGHT (see last issue of Organise!). To equate a "project that questions the totality" with "pacifists and gradualists, with no conception of class struggle or revolution" does indeed demonstrate that "the ACF's understanding of anarcho-primitivism (exhibits) either wilful ignorance or a desire to distort it". It's reminiscent of the ol' Stalinist lie that all those more radical than themselves were fascists. Anarcho-primitivism doesn't "mask capitalism" and deny class struggle. As John Zerzan has said, "it seeks to broaden and deepen our understanding" of it.
Oxford Green Anarchists
Editors' reply:
Are you saying that by publishing Bookchin's letter we suspended our critical faculties? Does that mean we shouldn't have published it? Well sorry, we publish all sorts of letters in Organise! from all points of view and if the inclusion of Bookchin's letter displeases you, tough!What's all this stuff about "old fossils" and "senescence" by the way? Does this mean that when you reach a certain age your ideas can be discounted? Surely age has nothing to do with it, it's ideas that count, not what age you are. Yes, we are not at all convinced by Bookchin's views about libertarian municipalism, but we attempt , we repeat ,to move away from personalised attacks(Organise! has been guilty of this approach in the past with the Dave Douglass unions polemic) to a detached and analytical examination of libertarian thinkers.
Dear Organise,
In D. Mc 's letter (Organise!44 he points out that Red Action have been critiquing vanguardism, Leninism, and Trotskyism for years. I think that you should point out that Red Action have always acted like Leninists in practice, by physically attacking and threatening libertarian opponents around the country (even their leader is guilty)
Dear Organise!,
We, Turkish and Kurdish anarchists who live in Britain, first would like to express very briefly some of the weaknesses such as lack of co-ordination, communication and solidarity that we see in the British anarchist movement which either we are part of or trying to take part in. Then we will put forward our suggestions and opinions, again very briefly.
5th May Group
Dear 5th May Group,
Dear Organise!,
We welcome the initiative that has been created by the formation of the Anti-Election Alliance. We feel that it is a real opportunity for the anarchist/libertarian movement to pull together for a change.
Dear Organise!,
A new specifically anarchist imprint, The Meltzer Press(TMP) has been launched to commemorate the late Albert Meltzer. TMP will work in close collaboration with the Kate Sharpley Library which will receive 50% of all profits, the rest going towards an on-going publishing programme. Titles announced ( we've not seen any of them-how about review copies TMP?) are the following: Sentenced To Death Under Franco -autobiographical account by Juan Busquets of his activity in the anarchist resistance in Francoist Spain, his arrest in 1948 and his 20 years in prison, as well as his activity from 1969 onwards; Volume 1 of The CNT in the Spanish Revolution -detailed account by leading CNTer of the Spanish anarcho- syndicalist union. Vols 2 and 3 to follow; We, the Anarchists! A Study of the Iberian Anarchist Federation(FAI) by Stuart Christie- what looks like a fascinating account of the specific anarchist organisation that operated in Spain. Also promised are an illustrated celebration of the life of Albert Meltzer and Ponzan, Resistant Extraordinary about the Spanish anarchist guerilla. The Busquets and the Peirats books costs £12.50 each, the Christie book £12.95, (inc p+p) cheques, etc to The Meltzer Press PO Box 35, Hastings, East Sussex TN34 2UX