💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-sheep-in-wolves-clothing.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:38:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing
Author: Anonymous
Date: July 2014
Language: en
Topics: economics, activism, realism
Source: scanned from original

Anonymous

Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing

This piece of writing has developed from a recent interaction I had with

the local activist scene[1], as well as from prior experiences of my

brief involvement within this group. I recently attempted to criticize

the actions of these specific people but my ideas were swept under the

rug as elitist, and I an inactive “armchair revolutionary”[2]. In other

words, my critique was swept aside as irrelevant because of my lack of

activist street-cred. I do not deplore these descriptions aimed at me

nor am I offended by their statements as I see that it emerges from

their inability to receive criticism. In fact, the situation has

provided me with an opportunity to elucidate some ideas that I’ve

previously found difficult to articulate, however, this interaction

helped me put them in context and for that I am thankful. Normally I

wouldn’t consider this small disagreement a worthwhile discussion, but I

believe that within it there are some necessary points to be made and

some false illusions to shatter. I also assume that this discussion can

be useful to others if they so wish to engage.

My original critique was that of symbolic protests and their

ineffectuality and inherent moralism. By symbolic protest, I mean an

action that wishes to show distaste towards a particular issue without

having any material effect on the status quo of capital accumulation.

Appealing to emotion and obtaining the moral high ground are common

tactics of such an action. The local “activist scene” is well versed in

these kinds of actions; holding signs, ambiguously attempting to change

public opinion, and trying their darn hardest to get enough people to

attend[3]. In this particular situation it was a counter-demonstration

towards a local group of people who are protesting against a social

service center holding refugee peoples from foreign countries who were

trying to cross the U.S./Mexican border for various reasons. I’ll not go

into the politics of this situation, nor will I discuss the actual

protest in length but only the ideas contained within it. According to

the hosts of the event, there existed obvious racism and nationalism in

the initial protest, so the local IWW chapter[4] organized a

counter-demonstration.

In an attempt for the IWW to connect their ideology to that of this

particular demonstration, they tried to make themselves relevant in two

ways. The first was by calling the refugee children, “working class”.[5]

This sounds nice but is ultimately untrue by definition. To be part of

the working class, one must be employed and therefore in direct contact

with the means of production owned by the ruling class. By

indiscriminately labeling someone as working class, it distorts the

class struggle and undermines anyone who is indeed in this economic

position and hence their primacy in the overthrow of capital. The second

attempt was to connect anti-racism with the working class struggle.

Again, this sounds acceptable but if we look closer, it is another

attempt at the same distortion. The class struggle is the result of the

economic structures of capitalism, whereas racism, while upheld by these

structures, is only a result of them. Racism, like sexism, are social

constructs that are exploited by capital in order to provide cheap or

free labor[6], but it is not the goal of the working class to fight

against the symptoms of capital, but instead the roots, that of class

division and wage labor.[7] So the fact that a union organization is

hosting an anti-racist demonstration perhaps shows that they have veered

off the path of the class struggle and have now ventured into something

else entirely.

The counter-demonstration was primarily promoted as an anti-fascist

event. Through the tactic of standing on the opposite side of the street

with cardboard signs attempting to shame the initial protesters (while

graciously letting the police mediate this interaction, for the “safety

of the protesters), they claim they are fighting fascism in their

“communities”. Let’s look at this a little closer (besides the obvious

reality that they are “fighting fascism” but have no fucking problem

about the police being in their presence). Although the ‘movement’ of

anti-fascism has been held up throughout the years as a necessary

struggle within capitalism, I’m inclined to say that it’s actually

destructive, seeing that it fools people into confusionism by serving to

blur the lines between the subjectivity of opinion and the objectivity

of material reality. The main point that is brought against anti-fascism

is that it attempts to fight with ideas, with opinions. For instance,

promoting the idea that racism resides within individual mindsets, and

that it can be fought by confronting these specific people, is a false

notion and shows a underdeveloped understanding of reality and not only

undermines but hides the fact that such ideas as racism have a

systematic foundation, and that this foundation is upheld because

attention is diverted into the realm of individual confrontation.

Anti-fascism assumes that opinions, ideas or social opinion generate

structural systems, when in fact the opposite is true. This truth is

hidden and capital, with its primary role in upholding and materially

benefiting from this diversion, walks away smiling. In this way, when

‘anti-fascists’ attempt to confront fascism within individual people,

their behavior is essentially pro-capitalist.

But to move back into the realm of micro-drama, I’d like to consider the

points that were made against my initial critique, not to defend myself

in any way but to extract from them some concepts that I believe are

worthy of discussion.

For some reason, there seems to be this idea that if you’re going to

offer critique, then you are theoretically obligated to provide an

alternative or redirection for the sake of constructiveness. This

mentality is a result of bourgeois morality, where productivity takes

center stage, and where destruction, whether of private property or

ideological illusions, is morally wrong and quickly condemned in and of

itself. This is nothing but a tactic to sidestep the critique by putting

the pressure back onto the critic instead of looking at the actions that

brought about this critique in the first place. By avoiding the initial

critique and immediately demanding an alternative, it seems that one is

trying to build a castle on top of water, not to mention being overly

dependent on others for their own theoretical growth. It is not the job

of the critic to give suggestions, but to offer critique. I will destroy

falsities but I will not tell you what to do, just as I don’t expect

someone to tell me what to do in order for me to do it. However, if you

look closely enough in between the lines, I’m sure you can extract the

main ideas from this critique and evaluate them for yourself if you find

them useful.

The other charge that my critique is less valid because of my “lack of

activity” is almost funny. Activism is a social identity that is based

on a dichotomy between activism and it’s opposite, non-activism, or

instead, political inactivity. Within this dichotomy, activists justify

themselves solely on the basis of their opposites, ie “doing something

is better than doing nothing”[8]. As a result, following the activist

logic, the actions one participates in are entirely justified the moment

they point to someone who is “inactive”. But unfortunately for the

identity of the activist, this other of inactivity does not exist, since

within the apparatus of capitalism that dominates every aspect of daily

life, we have no choice whether or not we a part of it. Sidestepping

critique because “at least I’m doing something” has no legitimate

foundation, is irrelevant to the conversation and often serves as

nothing but self-assurance.[9]

Despite any subjectivities or moral claims, there exists an objective

economic reality that we all take part in, and since it creates the

conditions for the daily maintenance of social relations, we currently

have no significant effect on it other than its perpetuation. I coin

this term economic realism and I believe it to be significant that this

idea receives more attention. This concept is naturally amoral because

it acknowledges capital accumulation and the resulting class struggle

not as a set of opinions or ideas but as a material reality, and sees

these aspects of idealism as an obstacle to seeing this reality clearly,

thus affecting our goal of actualizing the end of capital. I am not

suggesting that we must all become realists in the conventional sense of

recognizing that we can have no impact on this world, but suggesting the

opposite and find that putting this concept to use theoretically can

provide us with a lens for looking at things in a more honest manner,

where we can begin to look for ways to move us closer to that goal. For

instance, once we begin to utilize this concept, we can see more clearly

and honestly that most of the actions are not much more than feel-good

activities, drenched in restrictive moralism and change-the-world

illusions that are ultimately irrelevant to the class struggle that some

claim to represent, and have little, if at all, effect on the

perpetuation of capital. This is no concrete set of rules to be

followed, but concepts to be played around with, to be added onto; I can

merely provide some creative tools, but I will not force it upon someone

to build with them.

After all, I am not attempting to get anyone to “change their ways”. I

am simply developing my own theories by seeing through the

misconceptions of activist identity and ideology. This identity, with

its herd mentality and puritan morality, is propped up on false

assumptions and if anything it is my intention to expose this. I’m not

interested in groupthink, socially-conditioned morality or false unity,

and see these things as theoretical laziness. I could go on and on about

these things, but to be honest I’m kinda over it. I’ll continue to

meditate on these concepts and ideas and perhaps elaborate on them more

deeply another time, but for now, I think I’ll go sit comfortably on my

armchair, preparing to criticize any word or action that I believe

rightfully deserves it, because any revolution that deters criticism is

not a revolution that I want to be a part of.

And it’s as simple as that.

[1] I use the term “scene” because it does not represent an organization

or milieu since there is no set group of people, but is mostly random

with a small handful of regulars.

[2] Throughout this writing I will put quotations around certain terms,

indicating that while they are popular words that are thrown around

casually, there’s not always a consensus on what these terms actually

mean, and thus I’m reluctant to use them but to do out of simplicity or

lack of better word at the time.

[3] The emphasis on “getting numbers” is a large part of activist

culture, mostly at the expense of quality of actions. Quality is often

ignored and one can then easily blame the failure of an action on not

enough people showing up, instead of perhaps looking at the real causes.

The “next time we’ll just have to get more numbers” is a clever

deterrence from self-analysis, especially because no one is quite sure

what that magical number could be, hence no amount of numbers is ever

enough.

[4] Industrial Workers of the World

[5] They have since taken this statement off of the online event page

the day before the event for reasons unknown to me.

[6] This is applicable to sexism as well as racism. Similarly to how the

slave trade provided free labor to capitalists which the economy of this

country was largely founded upon; sexism, the division of labor between

the social constructed division between men and women, has in history

and continues to provide cheap and free labor to the capitalist economy

mostly in the form of housework, childcare, etc. This also relates to

the so-called “immigration question”, where a race of people are

demonized through public opinion and the media as a moral justification

for paying them extremely low wages, but are in fact a large part of

cheap labor in the U.S. economy. Without this demonization, there would

be a demand that these “immigrants” get a normal wage like everyone

else. The anti-immigrant people can spout nationalism all day but don’t

mind purchasing the cheap fruits and vegetables that are only affordable

through this immigrant cheap labor forcefully imposed by capital. This

is also a good example of how systematic structures generate public

opinion, not the (commonly thought but fundamentally false) other way

around, because it is seen how capital benefits from its manufacturing

of opinion, and therefore less about racism than it is about the

accumulation of capital through the means of this cheap labor.

[7] Some might interpret this as anti-antiracism. Besides the fact that

it is untrue, I simply state these ideas because I believe a distinction

is necessary. I acknowledge the totality that encompasses race and

capital but believe it to be important that we have an understanding of

how they interact, mostly in order to recognize that totality more

clearly in order to better sharpen our daggers for its attack.

[8] I’m not sure where this idea (read: moral ploy) originates from but

it seems to be the foundation of activism.

[9] The fact that I’ve heard people descriptively list the things that

they have accomplished, without me asking, in order to show me my

utterly contemptible inactivity, seems to clarify this point quite

accurately. Your text here...