💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › paul-glavin-from-love-and-rage.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:16:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: From Love and Rage Author: Paul Glavin Date: 2000 Language: en Topics: Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, history Source: Spring 2000 issue of Arsenal: A Magazine of Anarchist Strategy and Culture. Retrieved on 2016-06-13 from https://web.archive.org/web/20160613061049/http://loveandrage.org/?q=node/5
For close to ten years Love and Rage, in one form or another, existed as
an organized expression of revolutionary anarchism, representing many of
the best and worst aspects of the left. The Love and Rage project
involved hundreds of people over many years who took the role of
revolutionary opposition seriously while confronting forms of domination
in their own work and daily lives. Those involved were committed to
ideas and education, to democratic process and organization, to street
militancy, and towards the end, to long-term community organizing.
On the down side Love & Rage also had elements of a guilt- based,
middle-class politics of self-sacrifice and, among some, a moralism
better suited to Christian missionaries. There were those who sought a
more “pure” membership, purged of the sins of the dominant society. This
took the form of an inward looking examination of each person’s
background and preferences that began to lose perspective. A principled,
self-reflective commitment to anti-sexism, for example, turned into a
bizarre attempt to break down ego-boundaries and reshape character, in a
small group setting. There were also attempts to utilize guilt to get
people to do more, to contribute more money, or not voice their
opinions. These tendencies were derided by others, however, limiting
their contagion and rendering them effective only on those already
susceptible.
Love and Rage was made up of many different groups and individuals
representing a variety of tendencies and with varying backgrounds within
anarchism, making generalizations difficult. What they all had in common
was an activist orientation and a generally left politics (as opposedto
the neo-primitivist, anti-civilization perspectives of Anarchy Magazine
and John Zerzan, forexample) They were also primarily young. Love and
Rage members shared a sense of urgency, of the immediacy of various
struggles and of the need to get organized and act, and a general
willingness to participate in coalition with other left and liberal
groups to pursue similar objectives. For instance, Love and Rage
participated in stopping Operation Rescue’s attempts to shut down
abortion clinics, while arguing for direct forms of democracy within
meetings and extra-legal forms of militancy and direct action in
demonstrations.
The various Love and Rage local groups which existed over the years,
notably in places like Minneapolis, New York, and Detroit, were
constituted by extremely dedicated activists who sustained an interest
and involvement in political issues and organizing that continues to be
rare. The local groups often combined a consciousness of group dynamics
and internal hierarchies with an unbelievable ability to put on public
forums discussing current events, while also participating in various
coalitions and organizing efforts and demonstrations.
It has been two years since Love and Rage dissolved and it seems
appropriate to assess some of the organization’s contributions in light
of what is going on today. This account will be partial and necessarily
incomplete,hopefully being one of the first of many written reflections.
One of Love and Rage’s positive contributions was that it took ideas and
theory seriously in the effort to democratically develop a political
statement for the organization. This commitment was also reflected in
discussions, leaflet writing, and forums. Similarly, despite some
tendencies toward sensationalism, the organization’s newspaper, also
called Love and Rage, demonstrated the group’s seriousness about ideas.
Many heated and protracted debates took place between various factions
on a variety of issues, mostly within the context of the ongoing process
of developing a common political statement for the organization. One of
the first debates was actually over whether to even have one.
There was a strong faction, mostly grouped around the Anarchist Youth
Federation, which took an anti-theory position, advocating unity through
action. The relation between ideas and action, of theory and practice,
were hotly debated. This faction argued that theoretical discussion was
a waste of time and the working class would better respond to simple
language. Their proposed model for Love and Rage was the British paper
Class War. Despite the obstinacy of the anti-theory faction, and their
condescending assumptions concerning the intelligence of the working
class, the project of democratically developing a common political
statement went forward.
Although the organization voted to develop a statement, the time devoted
to it was filled with ongoing discussion that never resulted in a
finished document. Nonetheless, the discussions created a lively forum
for radical ideas and competing revolutionary strategies. This allowed a
relatively large number of radicals to collectively think through what
was going on in the world. At the same time, it involved a variety of
people in this process through participation in working groups, writing
draft statements, and debating positions at plenaries and in the pages
of the paper.
This kind of anarchist intellectual culture does not exist today. The
great thing about Love and Rage’s attempt to develop a political
statement, in addition to its participatory character, was the way the
discussion of ideas took place in the context of an organized attempt to
change the world. Thus the ideas, although sometimes abstract or
theoretical, were part of an engagement with society.
Too often today, discussions of radical ideas are purely abstract, with
little or no relation to organizing work or a larger public.
Intellectual work goes on in isolation, or is perverted in service to
academic requirements. And on the other hand, as is so often the case,
organizing work goes on in a rather rote fashion, with little room to
explore theoretical dimensions or argue how tactics are part of a
long-term revolutionary strategy or theory of the world.
One current organization which promotes anarchist scholarship, The
Institute for Anarchist Studies, funds individual writers, not
collective writing projects, because the applications for funding it
receives are from individuals. A majority of these applications can be
divided into two categories: anarchists involved in academics, and
activist anarchists struggling to theorize their practical work. Both
could benefit from engagement with a more participatory intellectual
culture; on the one hand so their work is less abstract and academic,
and on the other to help sharpen and develop their ideas.
With the demise of Love and Rage and other organizations engaged in
collective, democratic writing processes, like the Youth Greens, the
anarchist intellectual scene has become atomized and fragmented. It is
rare to find collective writing projects or popular forums for
discussing radical ideas. Without them, people often drift away, or
begin to regurgitate mainstream thought about the inevitability of the
market, or the state, or about how people are fundamentally greedy and
will never change. The dominant ideological, economic, and social
realities in America are strong and well entrenched, taking their toll
on even the most stubborn militant.Without a vibrant anarchist public
sphere to create and maintain an alternative worldview, it is harder for
individuals to maintain a commitment to radical politics. And without an
anarchist organization, it is impossible to change society.
Perhaps most significantly, Love and Rage brought the issue of race into
North American anarchist concerns in a way that was not previously
present, at least among white anarchists. This occurred as
self-education on race issues, learning about the key role of race
relations in unlocking historical forms of oppression in the US context.
Simultaneously, Love and Rage prioritized an anti-racist agenda within
anarchist organizing.
Anti-Police brutality work, and in cities like Minneapolis, neighborhood
cop-watches became a cornerstone of Love and Rage members’ work. Love
and Rage members played central roles in Anti-Racist Action, where today
many former members continue to be active.
A further aspect of Love and Rage’s anti-racism involved the commitment
to organizing across borders to work with comrades in Mexico City, while
also making Chiapas and Zapatista solidarity work a high priority. More
generally the anti-imperialist orientation of the organization implied
an understanding of the privileged and exploitative position of the
majority of the West vis-a-vis the rest of the world, a relation based
in race and also class.
Some in the organization advocated a more uncritical anti-imperialism.
But many others saw that it is possible both to support people in their
resistance, by opposing US military and economic domination, and to
maintain a principled engagement with opposition movements that does not
abdicate our responsibility to be critical of authoritarian practices
and tendencies. The central question here is what place North American
anti- imperialists have in criticizing aspects of nationalist struggles
we disagree with, such as statism or the attempt to forge a national
identity by suppressing diversity within a people. Those maintaining a
position of critical solidarity won an early debate on the “national
question” against those who advocated an unqualified solidarity.
Early on writers and organizers for Love and Rage emphasized the need to
develop a “fighting movement.” This was a provocative way of describing
a movement which takes the political offensive while being willing to
defend itself against the police in the streets.
The German autonomist movement was a significant influence on Love and
Rage and other young radicals in the late 1980s and early ‘90s. There
were successive waves of autonomist movement in Germany, but the anti-
imperialist, street fighting, black bloc version made the biggest
impression. In addition to squatting housing and social and cultural
spaces for themselves, the autonomen, as they are known, formed large
blocs at demonstrations to provide for their own safety against police
attacks and to allow more latitude in the streets. The blocs involve
people dressing alike and covering their faces with masks to prevent the
police from identifying individuals.
Protesters link arms and move together, preventing the police from
dispersing people or grabbing individuals.
A black bloc was called for at one of the two big marches in D.C.
against the Gulf War. Roughly three hundred black- clad anarchists
showed up for the contingent. Being in a bloc demonstrated a large,
well- organized anarchist presence in the anti-war effort. It also
allowed for more militant action than shuffling down the street chanting
tired slogans. For instance, windows were smashed at the Treasury
Department building and a break-away march towards the World Bank
building took place. Along the way bank windows were smashed and the
World Bank building itself was spraypainted. Because of the security of
the bloc, only one comrade was grabbed by the police, and that person
was unarrested from the police by others. All involved ran to the safety
of the bloc, which effectively prevented the police from arresting
anyone.
A line of development runs from the 1988 Pentagon Action, where
anarchists had an organized contingent and distributed RAGE!, a
precursor of Love and Rage, right through to the Seattle Black Bloc. The
contemporary idea of a non-pacifist, extra-legal national contingent got
started at that 1988 protest against the US wars in Central America. One
of the main organizing groups for that contingent, and for organizing
Love and Rage, was RABL, the Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League.
RABL held several successful, and some not-so- successful, actions in
the mid-to-late 1980s in Minneapolis and published their own occasional
paper, the RABL Rouser.
The Black Bloc in Seattle is the most successful use yet of this style
of street organization. It helped create a visible and formidable
anarchist presence, while enabling highly effective offensive action
against corporate property. Combined with the violence of the police
against the largely non-violent demonstrators, the Black Bloc is the
main reason Seattle became a household word around the world. The Black
Bloc anarchists struck a chord, and anarchism, in however simplified a
form, seemed to be everywhere.
The Seattle Black Bloc shows there is a potential for developing a far
more organized and effective form of street protest. In addition, the
larger anti-globalization movement involves many anarchists. For
example, anarchist principles are informing much of the organizing of
the Direct Action Network, the main organizing group of the Seattle
demonstrations and the anti- IMF/World Bank protests in DC.
Love and Rage did a lot to help develop an anti-authoritarian
understanding of globalization, sometimes referred to as neoliberalism.
In part this was done in conjunction with the perspective put forward by
the Zapatistas and Chiapas solidarity activists. Another aspect was
simply extending the traditional anarchist critique of capitalism,
hierarchy and social domination to contemporary trends. It is good to
see this type of work partly pay off in the form of a renewed popular
and radical movement which, at least implicitly, is against capital and
has an anarchist and ecologcal dimension.
With the decline of Love and Rage, anarchists in the Pacific Northwest
have taken the lead in defining anarchism. The positive contributions
they bring are a no compromise, militant attitude, a direct action
approach, and an attempt to pre-figure the new society in collective
living, counter-institutions and sustainable practices like intensive,
organic gardening.
An organization like Love and Rage could help coordinate activity and
provide a forum for presenting revolutionary anarchist ideas to a larger
public through its newspaper. Unfortunately the only national anarchist
publications we have now are Anarchy and Fifth Estate. While
occasionally publishing something interesting, these publications
generally put their own regressive anti- civilization spin on anarchist
actions and ideas. They present their rather warped neo- primitivist
version of anarchism as being the only one while caricaturing the
politics represented by Love and Rage (and Murray Bookchin) as Leninist
Old Left.
Love and Rage had its own problems, but at least it brought a social and
left perspective to anarchism that saw the way out of capitalism and
statism through social movements and direct forms of democracy, not
simply smashing technology and returning to a hunter- gatherer
existence. The organization maintained a healthy insurrectionary
perspective which held out the necessity of social revolution. It
recognized that anarchists need to be an organized force for social
change, and that day-to-day activist work is an important part of this
process. And it maintained the importance of ideas, debate and popular
education.
In the future any new revolutionary anarchist organization would need to
be a bottom-up, grass-roots confederation of existing local groups. The
emphasis in Love and Rage should have been (and our focus now should be)
promoting and assisting in the formation of new local groups, affinity
groups, and political collectives. Love and Rage erred in not putting
more effort in this direction. There definitely was a strong
centralizing faction in the organization that successfully took the
group in the direction of federation, rather than confederation, arguing
against those who advocated a more decentralized approach. It should
come as little surprise that those folks no longer call themselves
anarchists.
It may be a while before we again see a continental anarchist
organization on the scale of Love and Rage. Despite this anarchism seems
to be in pretty good shape as we head into the twenty-first century. If
we do things right, we can create new organizational forms while
learning from the mistakes of the past, as well as from the promising
contributions of a group like Love and Rage.