💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › iain-mckay-letters-against-primitivism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:55:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Letters against Primitivism
Author: Iain McKay
Language: en
Topics: AJODA, Bob Black, Green Anarchist, John Connor, primitivist, Stephen Booth, Ted Kaczynski
Source: Retrieved on December 21, 2009 from http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/postleft.html

Iain McKay

Letters against Primitivism

The question of how we get to a primitivist utopia

Dear Freedom

Karen Goaman’s summary of my ideas (issue 10/1/04) is at such odds to

what I actually wrote I don’t know where to begin. Perhaps it is just

me, but it often seems that supporters of primitivism speak a different

language to the rest of us. After all, I said in my first reply that I

doubted that people who went to the trouble of having a revolution would

leave everything pretty much the same as before (as asserted in the

first “Green and Black Bulletin”). But, no, apparently by this I meant

the opposite! So when she labels me a lover of “modern industrial

society” she is distorting my position slightly.

Then there is the whole “primitivist” rhetoric itself. The first

Bulletin stressed primitivism was “not posing the Stone Age as a model

for our Utopia.” Now Karen points to “only 150,000 years of our own

pre-history” as “models and examples”! She stresses that the

“small-scale land-based cultures” primitivism wants are not peasant

communities (although she also says that “peasants and small farmers”

were what “the Wildfire writers argue for”!), which leaves us with the

“gathering and hunting” tribes the first Bulletin rejected. So to recap.

Primitivists don’t want to go back to the Stone Age, they just imply

they do. They also consider peasant life a “return to a life of

drudgery,” but also “argue for” it. Which, I suppose, shows that Zerzan

was right to combat the evils of language!

Then there is the whole issue of (to quote the first “Green and Black

Bulletin”) when “civilisation collapses” through “its own volition.”

Now, that can only mean one thing. It means the destruction of life as

we know it in a short period of time, whether we want it or not.

Primitivists, when pressed, seem to say that they don’t mean instant

chaos and mass starvation by that expression but that is what it sounds

like. And they get huffy when you point it out!

Karen shows this contradiction between the rhetoric and reality. She

says I raise an important issue “of how people could manage nuclear and

toxic waste caused by decades of military and industrial production.”

She suggests “skilled people to contain the legacy of industrialism or

to allow them to degrade as safely as possible in areas that people can

avoid.” So, to get this right, no one will want to work in a mine or in

a factory but they will want to look after toxic and nuclear waste? And

how will they do that? Both bulletins rejected workers’ control out of

hand. And it will require technology and industry to provide the means

of containment, but that is (yet again) rejected out of hand. So, how

will this task be done? As for dumping it into one area, surely Karen

knows that the environment cannot be subdivided in this way. The effects

of a rotting pile of industrial waste will not stop at human made

barriers.

The key problem with Karen’s reply is that it does not address the

pretty basic question of how we get to her primitivist utopia. She talks

about “small-scale land-based cultures” yet does not explain how the UK

will support 58 million people living like that. Nor how we get there.

The very crux of my critique, incidentally. And which none of the

“primitivists” have bothered to acknowledge, never mind address.

Given that primitivists reject workers’ control, federalism, the

“continuation of industrial society” (even temporarily), and so forth, I

fail to see how it will ever happen without starvation and misery on a

massive scale. Perhaps “primitivism” will be as wonderful as Karen says

it will be but until she and her fellows actually discuss how to get

there, I’ll be unable to sign up to it. Perhaps the reason why they

don’t do this is because they know that it will involve all the things

they slag off “traditional” anarchists for. In other words, a process of

transition involving workers’ control, federalism and the use of

industry. Also, if they admit to that they would also have to

acknowledge that “traditional” anarchists do not want the “continuation

of industrial society” at all but rather a total transformation of how

we live. We just recognise this cannot be done overnight nor need

involve the elimination of all forms of industry/technology.

I’m glad she says I may be “happier and more satisfied living” in her

utopia, after all she does not give me any other options to choose from.

The idea that we can choose the level of technology we want is dismissed

out of hand. Without irony, she says that it is “industrialism” that

“removes the choice for people to decide how to live” and so condemns us

all to live under primitivism. Saying that there is no alternative does

seem a little bit authoritarian to me, sorry. Particularly when the use

of appropriate technology shows it’s not true.

Iain McKay

Critique of Green and Black Bulletin no. 2

Dear Freedom

I’m not surprised that the article “Mass Society” was not signed by the

member of the “Wildfire Collective” who penned it. I, too, would be

ashamed of putting my name to such nonsense. Strong words, I know, but

justified given the self-contradictory and superficial arguments this

article inflicts on its readers.

Our anonymous comrade (whom I will call WF) seems to have taken all the

traditional arguments against anarchism and turned them into arguments

for “primitivism.” “Anarchism cannot work in complex societies”?

Correct. “Organisation equals government”? Of course. “Society equals

the state”? You bet! “Modern society requires bureaucracy.” Indeed. “No

one will work”? Right! How depressing reading an anarchist confirm all

the common prejudices against anarchism.

And the alternative? That is not defined but in the “immediate term” we

get “small scale land-based culture,” based on the smallest group

possible. I doubt many people in the West will embrace this return to

peasant life. Rather, they would embrace the inequalities and oppression

of capitalism and statism, given the alternative. With enemies like

these, the current system really does not need friends!

Then there is the incredible level of self-contradiction. WF opines that

“why should people’s actions be defined by the resources they live near”

yet fails to recognise that the small-scale groups they favour will, by

necessity, be defined so. It is asserted that “no community would be

beholden to any other” while talking about “our shared future world.”

But such groups need not share anything, unless they have something

“defined by the resources they live near” which others do not. Then they

would “be beholden to an external need,” which is bad. And WF talks

about “establishing a truly global classless human relations” while

making communication beyond a few days walk impossible! Which makes

their opposition to “cultural Pangea” quite ironic: their “small groups”

will only see the few “cultures” nearest them.

Then there is their wondering of “who’s going down the mine.” They

answer “Me? No thanks!” Ironically, WF does not offer that option to

those who do not wish to live in self-sufficient small groups. Even more

ironically WF refuses those in the “global south” any choice in what

kind of society they want while also arguing that other anarchists seek

a similar bland globalised world as capitalism and cannot see beyond the

“western model.” Indeed, a successful anarchist revolution in the west

would be imperialist, “export[ing ‘civilisation’] to these denied its

‘wonders.’” But perhaps this exposes an awareness that people in the

“majority world” do not particularly like many aspects of their lives

and seek improvements (e.g. clean water and basic medicines) in their

living conditions? As for the level of technology and industry they

would like, well, I think true anarchists should let them decide that

themselves rather than seeking to impose primitivist fantasies onto

them.

So WFs vision of the future is as contradictory as it is unappealing.

What of their critique of traditional anarchism? That, too, is lacking.

Talking of London, WF argues that “if the city stays” then it “cannot

and will not be anarchist” due to the size of the population and the

resources and organisation required. In return, I ask, how will WF get

rid of London? WF claims that organising a city the size of London would

be “a fucking nightmare” yet singularly fails to talk about the real

fucking nightmare of what will happen to these 8 million people? Why

should they leave the city? How? Where to? Can all 8 million, never mind

the other 50 million, attempt to live the life “primitivism” asserts is

in their interests to live on these islands?

If London “stays” WF wonders if “those in the ‘countryside’ still have

to provide food for the beast”? By “the beast” I assume WF means the 8

million people of London. So, for WF, is the enemy the mass of the

population? Apparently so. And I wonder how “those in the ‘countryside’”

would appreciate a mass influx of millions of starving city folk, driven

from the city by who knows what? But why let little issues like mass

starvation and what people want and desire get in the way of the

primitivist utopia?

What of WF’s argument that it is impossible to organise a city the size

of London in a libertarian fashion? He wonders where all the delegates

would meet. But why assume that all the delegates would have to meet or

discuss all the many issues of the population. Many issues would be in

the hands of those most affected and not require wider discussion. Most

communication of needs would be direct. A community would contact

workplace A for supplies, which would contact workplace B to arrange

inputs, and so forth. For co-ordination of wider activity, there would

be delegates of federations so cutting down on the number having to meet

substantially. And as for FC’s pondering of how “those in the Global

North [can] communicate let alone convince a community in the Global

South” not to “harness nuclear energy,” have they not heard of e-mail,

telephones, letters, petitions, sending delegates by plane? Or forms of

direct action as the boycott, the strike? Or even protest marches? Or

raising a protest motion at the appropriate federation congress?

So how would our “community’s voice [be] heard”? In the same way as the

rest, by an elected, mandated and recallable delegate. Impossible? It

worked during the French and Spanish revolutions and in the recent

revolt in Argentina and would, I suggest, work far better than any

primitivist alternative. Such a system will involve reaching agreements

with others and so compromise, but freedom is not some immature desire

to always get your way. That is the atomised, narrow and self-defeating

individualism promoted by capitalism, not the social freedom desired by

libertarians.

Popular self-management would apply in industry too. WF states that

“workers control” means “placing technologies and skills in the hands of

the few.” Actually, it means the opposite, i.e. workers’ controlling the

technologies and skills they use rather than letting bosses (the few) do

so. As for it being “enforced divided labour” and “workers

self-exploitation” WF is really abusing the meaning of words. Yes,

things will need to be produced and different tasks will involve

different work but if this is “enforced divided labour” then so is all

productive activity, including that in WF’s “small-scale” groups. Or

perhaps the work required to get food is not “enforced” as the

alternative is starvation? If so, then say hello to the usual capitalist

defence of wage slavery!

Non-primitivist anarchists know that production “will continue to need

raw resources to be built.” Yes, this will cause ecological destruction.

But so will the ecological destruction caused by the breakdown of

civilisation WF desires: nuclear meltdowns, toxic waste and oil slicks

caused by abandoned industry, all the other legacies of industrial

society, which (like the ruling class) will not just disappear. We will

need to handle such problems while transforming society. And this is

where the “industrial progression” WF dismisses out of hand comes into

play. They cannot see that technology can be used by those who work to

make it easier and reduce/eliminate the most unpleasant aspects of it.

People can see the impact of their activity and would change things to

minimise it. Yes, solar panels will use resources but they are less

ecologically destructive than coal fires in every home. Which is, of

course, “progress”. Would WF, as a true believer in anti-progress,

oppose developments which save resources and reduce pollution?

Which exposes another problem with primitivism. It is the mirror image

capitalist worship of progress (for one it’s good, the other evil). They

are two-sides of the same, anti-human, coin. Anarchists see progress in

a more complex light. It is surely a truism that “progress” under a

hierarchical society will be shaped by the equalities of power in it.

This means that progress is not as neutral as either capitalists or

technophobes like to suggest. Rather than the quasi-religious opposition

to “progress” we should be using our minds, evaluating the costs and

benefits of specific concrete forms of technology and production,

seeking ways of improving and changing them and, perhaps, getting rid of

some of them totally. Something anarchists have long argued people who

are creating and living in a free society would do.

Ultimately, WF exposes the core problem with primitivism. For them,

technology, “mass society” and “civilisation” are neutral. For the

primitivist, all these things are inherently “bad” and so independent of

the desires of the people affected by them and the system they are part

of. However, once we realise that these things are not neutral we can

see the way out. We can see that workers’ control is not

“self-exploitation” but rather the first step in modifying technology

and production to ecologise and humanise it. Similarly, the

self-organisation and mass participation required by social struggle and

revolution are the first steps in humanising society and civilising a

“civilisation” distorted by the barbarism of capitalism and the state.

And this new society would be take the best of existing cultures,

technologies and skills to help produce a world of unique individuals

who live in diverse communities and experience diverse cultures and

ideas.

To end, WF complains that “the left claim these primitivists want Mad

Max dystopias.” On the evidence of this article, I can only surmise that

“the left” is right on this one.

Iain McKay

Wildfire Collective and primitivism

Dear Freedom

The letters by both members of the “Wildfire Collective” (WC) just

reinforces the poverty of primitivism. Rather than address the issues I

raised, they prefer personal attacks and distortion while having the

cheek to accuse me of “vitriol, lies and half-truths”! Ignoring the

insults, inventions, evasions and self-contradictions, their letters

actually have little to say. Most of it is simply (and obviously) gross

distortions of what I had argued.

“Wildfire 1” (WF1) complains that by “assert[ing] these two [of 5!]

positions to us, in invented commas (as if lifted from the text)” I am

being “dishonest and misrepresentative.” Yet the context of my letter

makes it clear I was not quoting from the text and any reader of the

original article will know that I was not.

Looking at the assertion that “organisation equals government” I cannot

see what he is complaining about. The second bulletin obviously assumes

this. This is more than confirmed by his suggestion that I have “all my

hopes resting in becoming one of your illusionary ‘recallable’

politicians of the future.” And here is the person who takes offence to

my “assertion” that he equates organisation with government! How ironic.

Then there is his comrade’s letter, which calls “recallable delegates

... another form of governance,” even dismissing collective decision

making as the individual being “crushed under the weight of ‘workers’

democracy.’” Whether in the workplace or in a “small-scale” community,

organisation means requires decisions to reached and these will rarely

make everyone happy. If every decision requires 100% agreement then the

opinion of the 99% other members are “crushed” by the “lone voice.” It

suggests a somewhat autocratic approach to co-operation, namely the

expectation that everyone must do exactly what you want otherwise you

are oppressed. Thus my “assertion”, rather than being “dishonest”, was

correct.

WF1 says I propose “an ‘imperialist’ proletarian revolution on the

majority world.” Really, WF1, do you think the readers of Freedom are

stupid? They read my reply and know I said no such thing. The “quote”

you provide was my repeating your straw man argument against

“traditional” anarchism and most definitely not suggesting agreement

with your dishonest comments! The context makes it clear that this was

the case, as can be seen by WF1 doctoring the quote to remove the

quotation marks where I indicated the second bulletin’s words. How

dishonest can you get?

As regards WF1’s puerile comments in response to his own inventions, it

is hardly worth replying. I will note that I fully support “Zapitistas

who don’t want dams” and others who reject the demands of capitalist

progress. As I made clear, “progress” under capitalism is shaped by

inequalities of power and wealth. I obviously do not worship it, I just

don’t reject all progress as inherently bad. It’s not that hard to

understand. And I think it ironic that someone who wants the whole world

to be “primitivist” has the cheek to call me an “imperialist” and

“authoritarian,” particularly given that I said “As for the level of

technology and industry they [in the ‘Global South’] would like, well, I

think true anarchists should let them decide that themselves rather than

seeking to impose primitivist fantasies onto them” (i.e. the same

position I hold for the “Global North”).

I do find it funny WF1 mentioning I want to “organise strikes against

those who refuse the ‘progress of the west.’” I assume that this is in

response to my suggestions on his question of how “those in the Global

North [can] communicate let alone convince a community in the Global

South” not to “harness nuclear energy.” Which is a total distortion of

my argument as well as being deeply ironic. There I was explaining how

we could convince people not to follow our mistakes and WF1 turns it on

its head!

His comrade gets annoyed by this as well, complaining that direct action

would be used against a “group of workers [that] doesn’t want to play”

in order to “force people to do what the majority want.” This is ironic.

Is he now suggesting that we should let people “harness nuclear energy”

as it would be oppressive to try and convince them not to? I wish he

would make his mind up! He then ends this self-contradictory paragraph

with an assertion that “when the boycotts fail” I would “be out shooting

all these ‘anti-work’ types his Spanish civil war heroes” did. I notice

he provided no evidence for this serious claim. I checked the most

obvious source for such an accusation (Seidmen’s “Workers Against Work”)

and found nothing. Perhaps he would furnish a reference?

Then there is WF1’s distortion on my handling ecologically destructive

technology. He again produces a doctored, out of context, quote in order

to launch into a tirade on how I think “the future is an either or

scenario. Either we embrace ecological destruction or face ecological

destruction.” Perhaps I should stress that by “ecological destruction” I

assumed WC meant the use of natural resources by humans (this is clear

from my letter). Given the context they used the term, I feel justified

in this. Yes, producing any product, even ecological ones, will result

in resource use, pollution, and so on (i.e. be destructive of the

natural environment). This applies to “primitivist” society as well.

Cutting down trees for homes, heating and farm land causes “ecological

destruction.” My starting point is how do we interact with the

environment to minimise our impact while maintaining a decent standard

of living. As I made clear in my letter, as WF1 knows.

WC clearly reject this solution. I can see why WF1 distorts my position

as it allows him to ignore my point, which was that “the breakdown of

civilisation WF desires” will face the “legacies of industrial society,

which (like the ruling class) will not just disappear.” Presumably WF1

rejects this and thinks that nuclear power stations should just be

allowed to melt down and the toxic wastes of decaying industrial society

just seep into the water table and soil? But no, he argues that “we can

safely deactivate and secure ‘toxic’ processes during a revolutionary

situation, without having to continue their production post-revolution.”

Why didn’t I think of that? No, wait, I did! I wrote that “we will need

to handle such problems while transforming society” as well as

“evaluating the costs and benefits of specific concrete forms of

technology and production, seeking ways of improving and changing them

and, perhaps, getting rid of some of them totally.” WF1 simply repeats

my point against me. How dishonest can you get?

Strangely, WF1 does not explain how this deactivation would occur. As he

dismisses workers’ control, I cannot see how it will be done. The issue

is simple. If WC think “primitivist” society will exist immediately,

then they must acknowledge that millions will die of starvation so that

the “lucky” few that survive can raise chickens free from such tyrannies

as hospitals, books and electricity. If, however, they think it will be

created over time, with the sensible deactivation of industry and the

voluntary dismantling of cities like London then let them explain how

this will be done without the workers’ control, international links and

the self-organisation of the population they attacked me for advocating.

And if the transition is slow, then why can we not judge which

technology to keep/modify/reject rather than just dump it all?

But that isn’t an option for WC, who denounced me for suggesting it.

They made it clear that it was a case of when “civilisation collapses”

rather than progressive change over time. Given this, they must explain

why such a sudden breakdown will not lead to the death and ecological

destruction on a massive scale. If they claim, against all logic, they

do not want such an abrupt change, then why do their bulletins so

obviously suggest they do?

But logic does not seem to be their strong point. WF1’s comrade states

that the bulletin is not “a blue print for the future.” So when it

argued for “small scale land-based culture” it was not proposing any

ideas for the future? He asserts that primitivism rejects “that models

of social interaction be imposed on anyone” yet fails to discuss how to

get to his primitivist utopia. He wants to get rid of the city, yet

makes no attempt to explain how nor what will happen to London’s 8

million inhabitants. Given that neither primitivist bothered to answer

the question of how the UK will support 58 million people using such a

culture, I have wonder why WF1 complains that it is false to say he

“propose[s] ‘mass starvation’ as a solution”! May I remind WC of their

first bulletin’s comment about when “civilisation collapses”? What

conclusion should we draw?

Until WC answers such questions, no one will take them seriously. The

fact that they refused to take this opportunity to do so is significant.

Will they fail to answer the equally simple question of how they plan to

deactivate industry safely and avoid mass starvation without the

workers’ control, international links and federal organisation they

dismiss out of hand as new forms of “governance”?

It is simple. We are faced with the fact that a revolution will start in

society as it is. Anarchism recognises this and suggests a means of

transforming it. Primitivism shies away from such minor problems. In

spite of extremist sounding rhetoric, it has no revolutionary

perspective at all and, consequently, little to recommend it.

Finally, I had to laugh when WF1 said my “longstanding battle with

‘primitivism’ has been well documented.” He states that the “letter

pages of past issues of Black Flag and Green Anarchist are littered with

‘calls and responses’ similar to these.” Clearly WF1 is as bad at

documentation as he is with honest debate or getting quotes right. I

have never written a letter to Green Anarchist nor a word in Black Flag

about primitivism.

But why let the truth get in the way? It hasn’t so far. WF1 states that

I have “exposed [my] potential to misrepresent and lie to secure some

obscure ‘ideological’ battle.” Given his utter distortion of my

arguments and his seeming inability to get even simple quotes correct, I

know who has been exposed as the liar. I will not hold my breath waiting

for an apology for his distortions and lies. But at least WC have shown

that they have no concern for the truth or discussing the problems a

social revolution will face. Or, more importantly, the fate of the 58

million people of the UK under “primitivism.”

Iain McKay

Green Anarchists celebration of terrorism against the general public

Dear Anarchy,

Reading your interview with John Conner (Anarchy no. 47) I saw that he

states that Micah “succeed[ed] in getting a May 1998 LGSC speaking tour

through Scotland cancelled.” In the interest of truth, I feel that I

should point out that nothing of the kind actually happened. What did

happen was that the meeting tour, which was being organised by the

Scottish Anarchist Network (SAN), was postponed after Micah brought to

our attention certain articles in Green Anarchist (namely the infamous

“Irrationalists” article). I must stress this point as Green Anarchist

has continually stated that we cancelled it at the order of Micah.

Indeed, Green Anarchist went so far as to state that we Anarchists in

Glasgow were “sheep,” following Micah’s decrees without question (anyone

who knows the Scottish movement will know how far from reality such an

assertion actually is). Ironically, the only people who did follow Micah

was Green Anarchist themselves who took Micah’s wish as a SAN decision!

So why did we decide to postpone the meeting tour? Simply so we could

discuss the issues Micah raised. Micah desired to have the tour

cancelled, other comrades were not so sure. Unfortunately, the issue

became mote as the tour was effectively cancelled by Green Anarchists

assumption we were all sheep following Micah’s orders. One thing which

we all did agree on was that the article in question, with its

celebration of terrorism against the general public, had nothing to do

with anarchism (and, indeed, humanity). Stating that murdering innocent

people was the “right idea” suggests a deeply authoritarian position and

one in direct opposition of the goals of anarchism — namely individual

and working class self-liberation. Such a position, I would also argue,

reflects the politics of Unabomber and, therefore, not anarchist. I

quote from the manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future:

194. Probably the revolutionaries should even avoid assuming political

power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system is

stressed to the danger point and has proved itself to be a failure in

the eyes of most people... the revolutionaries should not try to acquire

political power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that

any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the

industrial system itself and not from the policies of the

revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have to

be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from

above.

In other words, the aims of “revolutionaries” is to “acquire political

power.” This is may be revolutionary, but it is not anarchism.

Anarchism, by definition, is against the acquiring of political power —

it is for its destruction. Clearly this places the Unabomber outside the

anarchist tradition and the anarchist movement, unless of course

anarchism now includes those who seek political power (which makes the

Trotskyites anarchists as they seek a “revolution from below” in which

they assume political power). Perhaps this explains the earlier comment

that:

193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve

an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve

physical violence, but it will not be a political revolution. Its focus

will be on technology and economics, not politics.

After all, if the Unabomber does seek “political power” then a

revolution which had involved an uprising against “any” government could

put the new government in a dangerous position. Having done it against

the old bosses, they may just do it against the new ones. So it looks

like Freedom (who insisted that Unabomber was not an anarchist) were

right and Conner’s attempts to dismiss their claims misguided

Like all vanguardists, Unabomber downplays the importance of working

class self-liberation. He states that:

189. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect

to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by active,

determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and

consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the

final push toward revolution, the task of revolutionaries will be less

to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of

deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make

them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it

frequently; though of course it will be desirable to get majority

support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core

of seriously committed people.

Yes, the minorities with a “new ideology” who will lead the majority

(after gaining their “support”, perhaps) to the new land... Well, I have

heard that before and not from the mouths of anarchists. Yes, anarchists

are (or at least should be) an “active, determined minority” but we are

such in order to increase the influence of anarchist ideas and so

produce a social movement which aims to transform society into something

better. Rather than get the “support” of others, we desire them to act

for themselves, think for themselves and create their own future, for

that is the only way an anarchist society can be created. We do not have

a “new ideology” seeking to “acquire political power.” These comments by

Unabomber indicate how far from anarchism he actually is. Rather than a

popular movement against the state, his vision is of a vanguard seizing

power even if they do not have the “support” of the majority of people.

Democratic government at best, dictatorship at worse.

Given this dismissal of working class self-activity, it is not

surprising that Unabomber argues that “revolutionaries” should “promote

social stress and instability in industrial society.” After all, with

the majority ignored until the “final push” (when they can help the new

bosses “acquire political power” perhaps?) there is no real way to

revolution. This, in turn, explains Green Anarchist’s support for

terrorism — such acts do promote “social stress and instability” and so

the revolution is promoted against the wishes the majority, who, let us

not forget, “unthinking.” Rather than an act of social revolt, the

“revolution” will be the act of minorities who force the rest of society

to be free (whether they subscribe to Unabomber’s ideas of a free

society or not). The parallels to Leninism are clear, with the

“instability in industrial society” replacing the inevitable collapse of

capitalism as the catalyst to the new society. Rather than being a

subjective revolt for a free society, the Unabomber revolution is a

reaction to objective events which force people to his utopia whether

they want to go or not. And, therefore, Green Anarchist’s support for

terrorist acts — they may claim to be anarchists, but their politics

drive them towards authoritarianism and vanguardism. After all, someone

who claims that they would prefer “mass starvation” to “mass government”

(i.e. existing society) hardly counts as a libertarian, if by

libertarian we think of someone who supports liberty rather than an

ideology (these words were said by a member of Green Anarchist at a

London Anarchist Forum meeting last year). That someone who claims to be

an anarchist could say should a thing is a disgrace — if liberty means

millions starving to death, then is it surprising most people prefer

government?

One last point. To state that “political anarchy has never existed

outside of primitive societies” (as the interviewer of John Conner

states) raises an interesting point. If primitive societies are the only

viable form of anarchy (something that anarcho-primitives assert) then

why are we living in a state-ridden, industrial capitalist system? If

primitive societies are inherently anarchic, then how did archy develop

in the first place? And what is there to stop the future primitive

societies aimed at by anarcho-primitives going the same way?

Hopefully this letter will not be answered by the usual Green Anarchist

tirade of insults they direct against people who disagree with them.

Indeed, like Lenin they take a positive delight in insulting those who

dare to question their politics. Perhaps by so doing they ensure that

their politics are not looked into critically? After all, any one who

does must be a “workerist” or “anarcho-leftist” or “anarcho-liberal” —

and if not celebrating the murder of children by bombs as the “right

idea” makes you an “anarcho-leftist”, then I would sooner be an

“anarcho-leftist” than a cheer-leader for terrorists.

Keep up the good work with Anarchy. I always enjoy reading it.

yours in solidarity

Iain

Bob Black and the primitivists

Dear Anarchy

I must admit to being perplexed where to start as both John Connor and

Bob Black make so many points and claims. I will start with Black. Rest

assured, Mr. Connor, I’ll be back for you!

Black states that “an event which is ‘postponed’ and not rescheduled is

cancelled.” As I said, the only people who thought it was cancelled was

GA and so the point became moot. It is hard to organise a tour when one

half thinks it has been cancelled and the other is horrified by the

first’s celebration of terrorism. The wave of insults and smears from GA

made communication pointless. Black argues that “The Irrationalists”

article “didn’t celebrate the terrorism of despair.” It stated that the

Aum cult and the Oklahoma bombers had “the right idea” — in other words,

it explicitly agreed with that terrorism. Perhaps the “intellectual

infirmity” Black insults “anarcho-leftists” with is actually a case of

the pot calling the kettle black?

Black calls me a “censorist leftist” and that I cannot “understand a

text may be significant to anarchists” even if it is not written by an

anarchist. “That’s where critique comes in” he enlightens us. Obviously

Black has a different dictionary than myself, otherwise he would be

aware that I presented a critique of the claim that the Unabomber is an

anarchist plus a critique of his politics and theory of “revolution.”

And how, exactly, am I “censorist leftist”? I am not a “leftist” but an

anarchist. Moreover, did I state that the text should be banned? Or that

anarchists should not read it? No, I did not. Indeed, I read it myself,

found its politics somewhat authoritarian and saw their relevance to the

politics of GA (which are not anarchist, if you ask me). Indeed, I

quoted relevant parts of the text to justify my claims! Hardly a case of

“censorship.” Black’s passion for insults gets the better of his

intellect.

He asserts that stating someone had the “right idea” is actually a

“dramatic metaphor.” Bollocks. It is nothing of the kind. Here is the

quote in question:

“The Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did not

blast any more government offices. Even so, they did all they could and

now there are at least 200 government automatons that are no longer

capable of oppression.

“The Tokyo sarin cult had the right idea. The pity was that in testing

the gas a year prior to the attack, they gave themselves away. They were

not secretive enough. They had the technology to produce the gas but the

method of delivery was ineffective. One day the groups will be totally

secretive and their methods of fumigation will be completely effective.”

It is clearly stating that the Oklahoma bombing and the attempted

massacre of Japanese commuters were correct. This is not “metaphor,” it

is agreement. To argue otherwise is complete and utter nonsense.

Black seems to state that he thinks that the article is “idiotic.” Why?

If it is simply a “dramatic metaphor” then why is it “idiotic”? Perhaps

because it was clearly nothing of the kind? What is idiotic is to print

such an honest account of your politics and expect no one to comment on

them and express the obvious conclusion that they are not anarchist. In

that sense Black is correct. Hence the difference between Fifth Estate’s

printing of a silly article and GA’s printing of the “Irrationalists.”

One was idiotic, the other stated that it was the “right idea” to try

and gas commuters and actually blow up people. If Black cannot see the

difference, he is truly lost to humanity. If he truly thinks my (and

others) repulsion towards “The Irrationalists” article is simply because

it “offends” people then I feel sorry for him.

Ironically, he (correctly) lambastes Chomsky and Bookchin for affirming

“political power” and yet states that the Unabomber is “inconsistent” as

regards anarchism. This is in spite of his manifesto clearly stating

that “the revolutionaries” will “acquire political power” That is not

“inconsistent,” it is a clear support for political power and for

“revolutionaries” to take hold of it. Black’s hypocrisy is clear. He

seems to have a problem understanding English (when it suits him).

Support for terrorism becomes a “metaphor,” support for acquiring

“political power” becomes “inconsistent” anarchism. He states that GA

are “obviously” anarchist. When it comes to certain tendencies we can

see that Black’s justly famous critical faculties are switched off and

so there is cause to question what Black considers “obvious.”

Black states that my “parting shot” hits me right in the foot. Actually,

it was serious question that I wanted answered. Black obviously judges

me by his own standards. Of his replies, I would agree with number three

— there is no guarantee that any form of anarchism will not degenerate

into statism. We cannot predict the future and while I think anarchism

will work I may be disappointed. Point One, however, begs the question.

Why did the original primitive societies not see and counteract the

degeneration into statism? They were surely as intelligent as the

“future primitivists” will be. If they did not see the rise of statism,

why should we expect the future primitivists to see it? Could not the

very nature of primitive society contain the seeds of its own

destruction?

Black ends by comparing me to a cloned sheep. How amusing. Do I wish to

keep anarchism “respectable”? No, I wish to keep it revolutionary and

anarchist in nature. Hence my critique of the Unabomber and GA. Shame

that Black prefers to slander than to think. I do wish to “learn of” and

“think through the anarchist implications of primitivism.” Hence my

reading of the Unabomber’s manifesto, Watson’s Beyond Bookchin, and

other works. It also informed my question which Black so clearly fails

to answer. Why am I a sheep in Black’s eyes? Perhaps because I do not

agree with him or GA and instead ask some questions about their ideas

and politics? Surely not!

Now I turn to John Connor’s letter. As pseudonyms go, I cannot help

thinking that Tom O’Connor would be better as O’Connor’s jokes were as

bad as Connor’s politics. I will ignore the usual silly claims that

anarchists in Scotland are sheep, following our (GA appointed) shepherd.

It seems clear that if you unquestioningly agree with GA then you are a

freethinking, non-ideological bound revolutionary. If you question their

politics or activities you are a sheep. Instead, I will concentrate on

the new silly claims Connor voices.

He starts by stating I think GA are “Leninists.” Nope, read the original

letter. I stated there were “parallels” between GA’s politics and

Leninism. He states I think GA are FC’s “active, determined minority.”

Nope, read the original letter. I made no such claim. I stated that FC’s

ideas explains GA’s support for terrorist acts and that anarchists (a

grouping I would exclude GA from) should be an “active, determined

minority” but, obviously, not FC’s one. Unfortunately, the rest of

Connor’s letter gets no better than its beginning. Nothing like starting

a letter with obvious falsehoods to set the tone.

GA claim that “leafleting claimants about welfare reform” is

“ritualistic political practice” and “is far more patronising,

manipulative and futile” than GA’s work. Yes, informing people of what

the state plans to inflict on them and urging them to resist and act for

themselves must be “patronising, manipulative and futile” as GA

disagrees with it. Fortunately, everyone else will see that it is, in

fact, the opposite. It is treating people as intelligent individuals who

can be convinced of certain things by presenting them with facts and

arguments.

Connor states that I am “terrified, saying the resistance has to be

approved by the ‘majority’” and adds the slander that by “the majority”

it is meant myself and “other SAN types.” How false, banal and stupid.

Firstly, where in my letter do I state that? Perhaps the little fact I

made no such claim indicates why no supporting quotes are forthcoming?

But, then again, Connor obviously knows I am an “anarcho-leftist” and so

no evidence is required. Secondly, the twisted politics of GA are

exposed by Connor’s lies. I was arguing against the mass terrorism of

the kind celebrated in “The Irrationalists” article (such as associated

with the Oklahoma bombers and the Aum cult, both of which, let us not

forget, had “the right idea” according to GA). Connor considers such

actions as examples of “unmediated resistance” conducted “under

conditions of extreme repression.” He states that “The Irrationalists”

article was a “discussion about dismantling” “Leviathanic structures.”

Two points. Firstly, it is clear that for GA you can only take part in

this “discussion” if you agree with GA and think the Aum cult and

Oklahoma Bombers had the “right idea.” Otherwise you are slandered as a

“leftist”, “workerist” or whatever. Secondly, it is perfectly clear that

Connor considers that these examples of “unmediated resistance” as

relevant to the process of creating a new society. He states that I

“libel” these acts as “terrorism against the general public” rather than

seeing them, as Connor does, as the “activity” of “particular oppressed

people in their own immediate situations.” Let us not forget what the

“activity” in question was, namely the blowing up of a government office

and the attempted gassing of commuters. The insanity of Connor’s

comments (and politics) is clear. It is obvious from his comments that

nothing has changed in the last two years. GA is still celebrating such

acts. I await GA’s defence of pogroms against Jews and an “un-terrified”

account of the importance of the fascist nail-bomb attacks in London

last year.

Apparently I have a “concern” for “legitimacy and representation” and

that, therefore, I support “concentrating/transferring power rather than

destroying it” and so I “fall” into the “typically Leftist role as

‘revolutionary policeman’ and retardant”! Where in my letter are such

concerns voiced? Indeed, I explicitly called for the destruction of

political power (“Anarchism, by definition, is against the acquiring of

political power — it is for its destruction”) and indicate that it is

the Unabomber who aims to acquire political power. Conner obviously has

total contempt for the intelligence of Anarchy’s readership to

misrepresent my letter so.

Apparently I repeat Black Flag’s “libel that GA ‘prefer “mass

starvation” to “mass society”’ (what I actually wrote was “they would

prefer ‘mass starvation’ to ‘mass government’ (i.e. existing society)”).

Indeed, they present a lovely paranoid tale of how this “libel” came

about. To set the matter straight, I did not “repeat” the Black Flag

claim. I, in fact, stated what I heard, with my own ears, at the meeting

in question. I can only offer as “proof” the room full of people who

also heard this statement. Just to aid the memory of the GA member, I

was the one with the Scottish accent. Perhaps a few more details will

jog the memory? He will recall, I am sure, his mobile phone going off

halfway through the meeting. And remember, perhaps, Donald Rooum’s

question concerning the dangers of epidemics in a primitivist society?

Or the wonderful answer in which the GA member informed us we need not

worry about such occurrences as the groups would be so small and so

widespread that disease would just wipe-out one group and not spread

wide enough to be classed as an epidemic? Needless to say, our GA member

did not bother to indicate how we go from our current population of six

billion to these Hunter and Gatherer levels. Perhaps the excess

population just “disappears” in a puff of (suitably enhanced) smoke? Or,

perhaps, this is where the mass starvation comes in? I hope Connor

answers these questions clearly, as it is his chance to set the record

straight. Can six billion people survive in a primitivist world? If not,

how is the appropriate population level reached?

So we discover GA yet again rewriting history. And they have the cheek

to state I“play fast and loose with the truth”! Incredible!

As far as Connor’s assertion that “mass society” causes “mass

starvation,” well, what can I say? Research suggests otherwise. The work

of economist Amartya Sen indicates that class society and its property

distributions and entitlements that create mass starvation. According to

his work, famine occurs in spite of food being available. Indeed, food

is usually exported out of the famine zone in order to make profits.

Rather than “mass society” causing it, it is rather specific forms of

society, class societies, with specific property relations,

distributions and entitlements. If, for example, workers owned and

controlled the land and the means of production they used, then famines

would not occur. Without private property, people would be able to

produce to meet their needs. Which, by the way, indicates well how GA’s

ever-so-radical “primitivist” politics obscures the real causes of

starvation in modern society. It has nothing to do with “mass society”

and a lot more to do with capitalists, the distribution of land and

power and the economic system we live under. But such an analysis of the

real causes of starvation is obscured by vague comments about “mass

societies” having to be hierarchical. The capitalist class can rest easy

— famines are not their fault, they are simply the inevitable result of

“mass society.”

Connor fails to answer any of my points and questions. Indeed, in answer

to my question on the inherent anarchist nature of primitive society he

mutters that its is a “boring” question, and “answered many times.” He

could at least point me to the relevant articles or books or, indeed,

provide me with a summary of the answer, and so on. No, that would get

in the way of the main purpose of his article, to insult and slander

those who dare to disagree with his politics and point out their

authoritarian core. So much for wanting to “clarify issues.”

Connor ends his letter with some truly amazing paranoid speculation. He

wonders if I am “really” Ian Heavens (indeed, he seems convinced of it).

This has caused my friends and comrades no end of amusement. Well, I am

myself and none other. How can I prove it? As well as comrades in

Scotland, you could ask Freddie Baer, Chuck Munson (who should be

familiar to Anarchy readers) and the numerous comrades on the anarchy

and organise e-mail lists. Or, then again, ask Jason McQuinn who met me

in Glasgow about 5 years ago when he was staying with a member of the

Here and Now and Counter Information collectives. He will hopefully

remember me (I remember asking about the “anarcho”-capitalists who I had

recently come across on-line). If he does remember, he will confirm that

I am from Glasgow and not, in fact, from England as Ian Heavens is. I

hope he states so in Anarchy as it would be nice to stamp this

particular paranoid delusion out before it fully joins the others in

Connor’s mind. Or, then again, ask the GA member who attended the London

Anarchist Forum meeting on Murray Bookchin (but, given how hazy his

memory is of that event, he may not remember who was there any more than

what he said).

It is interesting that GA use the Sunday Times article about Ian

Heavens. This article was slander, pure and simple. A piece of hack-work

by a journalist Larry O’Hara stated had links with MI5 in his book

Turning up the Heat: MI5 after that cold war. From this article they

state Spunk Press “happily advertised bomb manuals.” In reality, that

claim was a clever piece of misinformation presented by the journalists.

The article in fact pointed to a specific Spunk Press file. This file

contained links anarchists would find of interest. These links included

news-groups such as alt.society.anarchy and so on. These groups are

totally open and anyone can post to them. The “bomb manuals” and other

information the journalists were referring to appeared on these mailing

groups, not Spunk Press. The way the journalists had written their smear

article was extremely clever. It did not, in fact, tell a lie but it was

so “economical with the truth” that anyone without a basic understanding

of the internet would be led to believe that Spunk Press stored “bomb

manuals.” As intended. A half-truth became a total lie and one Connor

swallowed.

This hack-work, intended to present an anarchist terror at the heart of

the Internet, almost cost Ian Heavens his job (yes, like most of us, he

is a wage slave). As it was, he had to drop out of Spunk Press and

anarchist activism on the Internet to keep it (which was a great loss).

If Connor knew anything about what actually happened with Ian Heavens

rather than repeating the smears of the Sunday Times article, then they

would know that Spunk Press does not “urge” terrorism of any form. I’m

quite glad Connor has brought up the Sunday Times article. It shows how

firm his grasp of the facts really is and how low he will swoop to

slander those “sheep” who dare to question GA’s politics and activities.

It also shows that he quite happily repeats the smears of spook-friendly

journalists when it suits him. I thank him.

So, as requested by Connor, I have indicated why ACE and SAN “don’t

disassociate themselves” from Spunk Press and those Connor thinks are

its members. The answer is clear from my comments above — there is

nothing to “disassociate” from. We, unlike Connor, do not take Sunday

Times hack (and spook friendly) journalism at face value. We do not have

to disassociate ourselves because the Sunday Times article (and Connar’s

sheep-like repeating of it) is not true.

Perhaps Connor will come back and argue he knew all along the truth of

that article and decided to lie in his letter to present an analogy with

the treatment of GA. This is possible, if highly unlikely and highly

dishonest. Sadly, the analogy falls as GA did publish “The

Irrationalists” article while Ian Heavens and Spunk Press were set-up

and smeared by the Sunday Times.

Apparently I “presumably” mean that by “Leninist” “an elitist ideologue

‘gang’ in the Camattian sense.” Strangely enough, I meant by “Leninism”

(I do not even use the word “Leninist” in my letter) the ideas of Lenin

and Bolshevism. Funny that, but then again Connor consistently asserts I

mean something totally different from what I actually wrote. I also have

no idea what “Camattian” means and so cannot mean it in that sense,

assuming I did use the word, which I did not. However, this is all

irrelevant as I did not say that GA were “Leninist.” I stated that the

Unabombers politics had parallels with Leninism (“The parallels to

Leninism are clear, with the “instability in industrial society”

replacing the inevitable collapse of capitalism as the catalyst to the

new society”). It is this parallel, looking to an objective rather than

a subjective catalyst for revolution, that helps explain GA’s support

for terrorist acts. As is clear from my letter, which Connor clearly

misrepresents.

According to Connor I am a “hysterical” “Neoist-tainted workerist.” Also

nice to know. It is also nice to see that Connor (and Black) dashed the

hopes I expressed in my first letter. I had hoped that my letter would

“not be answered by the usual Green Anarchist tirade of insults they

direct against people who disagree with them. Indeed, like Lenin they

take a positive delight in insulting those who dare to question their

politics. Perhaps by so doing they ensure that their politics are not

looked into critically?” My hopes proved to be utopian. The level of

Connor’s response is no improvement. Indeed, he has included Black Flag

into the diatribes and insults — perhaps the better to hide the politics

of the debate beneath another layer of smears. Given that the Black Flag

collective is claimed to be “Neoist-tainted workerists,” I have to

assume that GA think everyone who disagrees with them are “Neoist” or

“tainted” with it. Nice to know. Useful, though, to group all criticism

under one banner, regardless of the facts. It muddies the water even

more, as intended I am sure.

At least Connor’s letter proves that GA’s basic politics have remained

unchanged since “The Irrationalists” article. Black’s comment that GA

are not “celebrat[ing] the terrorism of despair” is refuted by Connor.

They obviously do. Indeed, they consider such acts as praise-worthy,

“the right idea,” part of the revolutionary process like strikes,

occupations, and so on, indeed they are part of the same revolution in

Connor’s eyes. He states they are to be included with other acts of

“liberation” which will “give the rest of us the opportunity to live

autonomous, authentic lives too” (“the rest”, presumably, still alive

after such “unmediated” actions). How can dead commuters, office workers

and children “live autonomous, authentic lives”? Indeed, to call these

acts what they actually are (acts of mass murder and terrorism) is to

“libel” them. In Connor’s eyes they are part of the “resistance.” He

confirms the critique in my last letter. I thank him again.

He states that SAN acted to “anathematise and stifle the free speech of

anti-fascists and anti-Statists.” How did we “stifle” and “anathematise”

their free speech? Did at any stage we ban or censor their words? No,

GA, then and now, still publish their paper, write their letters and so

on. So how could SAN “stifle” them? Only by not organising the speaking

tour. In that case SAN also “anathematise and stifle,” the IWW, the IWA,

Anarchy, Freedom, Black Flag, and so on as we have not organised

speaking tours for them either. Connor’s definition of stifle seems

strange. You apparently “stifle” free speech if you do not actively help

someone spread their message! And do not forget that is why SAN

postponed the speaking tour. We were not “manipulated by fascists and

spooks.” We rather read an article they published which celebrated mass

murder as “the right idea.” Connor’s paranoid rants try to hide this

fact under a deep layer of smears and insults but that remains the

truth. Read that article, read how mass murder is “the right idea”

(opps, being “hysterical” again!) and then wonder if our reaction was,

rather, a human and libertarian response to it.

I have to say, in ending, that I am glad I wrote my letter. Connor’s

reply just exposes the nature of GA’s politics as well as their abusive

and lying “debating” techniques. Rather than distancing himself from

“The Irrationalists” article, Connor embraces it and still claims the

terrorist acts of the likes of the Japanese Cultists and US fascists are

examples of “unmediated resistance.” Looks like they still have the

“right idea.” Nice to know. Rather than an “idiotic” article, as Black

implies, it in fact represents the core of their politics. And that core

is not anarchist, as I argued in my original letter.

I wish Anarchy all the best for the future!

yours in solidarity,

Iain

Bob Black, the Aum Cult and the Oklahoma Bomber

(letter to Anarchy)

Dear Anarchy

While I have much more important things to do, I will take the time to

answer Bob Black’s and Steve Booth’s letters in Anarchy no. 51. I’m sure

that no matter what I write, I will never convince either that their

invented assumptions of myself or my politics are wrong. Still, the

readers of Anarchy may find my comments of interest.

Bob Black claims that mass murder is “a tactic, not an idea.”

Interesting. So people who have tactics do not think about them? A

tactic is an idea until such time as they do it, then it becomes an

action. Clearly, Black is talking nonsense. He states he is “unable to

imagine any ideas they [the Aum Cult and the Oklahoma bombers] might

hold in common,” which suggests a lack of imagination which is amazing.

Perhaps the “idea” would be the tactics they were using? The ones

praised in the “Irrationalists” article? No, surely not? Black is

abusing the English language and the intelligence of the reader.

Bob argues that it would have been the “anarchist way of dealing with

problems” to go ahead with the speaking tour and discuss face to face

with GA the issues. Strange, then, that it was GA, not us, who decided

to take our decision to postpone the tour as a cancellation and then

attack us in their paper as “sheep,” following our (GA appointed)

leaders. And Black talks about “the shabby way [I] and my ilk treated

the would be Green Anarchist visitors”! Yes, indeed, poor GA, having

other anarchists hold them accountable for their politics! I wasn’t

aware that the anarchist way of dealing with problems was to simply

switch off ones brain and not question the validity of decisions

previously reached when new information appears.

I remember the meeting when the issue was first raised on whether to

cancel the meeting or not and the decision to postpone it until such

time as we could fully discuss the “Irrationalists” articles, the issues

it raised and decide whether or not to continue with the tour. Next

thing I see is GA writing in their paper that we had cancelled the

meeting and that the Scottish Anarchists are all sheep (is that the

anarchist way of dealing with problems?). Funny how a desire to think

about GA’s politics and our response to them rather than mindlessly do

what GA wanted equates with being sheep. But as I said in my previous

letter, any independence of mind by other anarchists quickly results in

them being labelled as “sheep” by GA and their supporters like Black.

It also seems strange that Black thinks that my letter was just a

“painfully long defence” of what happened in Scotland so many years ago.

Rather, as the reader would soon see, the bulk of the letter was made up

of a discussion of GA’s politics and a reply to the distortions of “John

Connor” on my politics and who I was, distortions which I notice Black

considers as not worthy of comment. Does he have so little respect for

his readers that he feels he can rewrite history so? Sad, really, but I

do get the impression that discussing their politics is the last thing

Black or GA desire. Rather, we must take their word as to the

“consistent” and “committed” nature of GA’s politics. Sorry, I gave up

religion decades ago and I analyse what people say rather than accept it

on faith.

It is interesting how Black portrays GA always as victims. Not only

that, even when they advocate mass murder as the right idea, they are

“more consistent and committed British anarchists” than people whose

activities and politics Black probably knows nothing about. Sad, really,

that Black has decided to show his ignorance of the Scottish anarchist

movement.

Black’s comment that mass murder was a “tactic” used by revolutionary

anarchism during the Spanish Revolution suggests a desire to confuse the

issue being discussed. Like GA defences of the “Irrationalists” article

which equated the Aum cult and the Oklahoma Bombers with “Propaganda by

Deed” anarchists, Black’s pathetic analogy does damage not only to

argument but also to the intelligence of the reader. If Emile Henry

argued that “there are no innocent bourgeoisie”, then Black and GA are

arguing that there are no innocent people and so exploiter and

exploited, oppressor and oppressed, are of equal worth as regards acts

of “resistance.” Apparently, there is no difference between the killing

of fascists and pro-fascists by the militia columns immediately after a

military coup and the planned gassing of commuters and the blowing up of

office workers and children. Sad, really, that one of the best minds in

the US anarchist movement comes up with such rubbish. Obviously the

Durruti column would have had the “right idea” if they had just shot

everyone who crossed their path.

I find it funny that Black thinks we have “ex-communicated” GA from the

anarchist movement. Sorry, no, GA managed to do that very successfully

by themselves. And, of course, GA never, ever “excommunicate” anyone

(and neither does Black, he just calls them “anarcho-leftists”

regardless of the facts). All this talk of “leftism” is definitely not

an attempt to use guilt by association to marginalise other anarchists.

No, of course not. But then again, it is easier to call someone a name

than actually address their arguments — as authoritarians and

authorities throughout history have known.

Black argues that “they had the right idea” was “a very poor choice of

words on Steve’s part.” Looking at Steve’s letter, published in the same

issue of Anarchy, its clear that they were no such thing. It must annoy

Black that he claims one thing, and then a GA member blows his argument

out the water in the very same letters page. First it was “Tom

O’Connor,” now it is Booth.

Booth states that I express “knee-jerk pacifist disagreement.” How he

knows this, I’m not sure. I discussed whether mass murder of workers was

“the right idea” or not and, of course, whether it is consistent with

libertarian politics. No mention of the merits of non-violence as the

only means of social change, but why let facts get in the way of a good

rant?

He claims that the “Irrationalists” article was about “the possibility

of armed struggle and armed resistance to totalitarianism.” He states

that the article aimed at discussing the “shape of possible anarchist

armed struggle in the future, and how such actions resemble” violent

events “in the present.” Clearly, then, as the Aum Cult and the Oklahoma

Bomber had the “right idea” then “anarchist” struggle “in the future”

could follow this model. His attempts afterwards to distance himself

from his original article fail as Booth, like Tom O’Connor before him,

clearly thinks gassing commuters as a valid form of “resistance”

(“resistance” to what, exactly? Working people? Are they the enemy?) and

can be applied for libertarian ends (which makes you wonder how

“libertarian” those ends could be, given the means).

He says that he wishes to provide an effective alternative for the

“protest movements” which will make the “Irrationalists” irrelevant.

Sorry, no, that does not work either as it still implies that actions

like those of the Aum Cult and the Oklahoma Bomber can be considered

part of the “resistance” movement. They are not — they are part of the

problem and they share the same authoritarian basis as any state’s

bombing campaign against civilians.

We can get an insight to Booth’s ideas from another of his articles (as

posted on the internet at:

www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/irrationalists.htm). There he argues that

“there are ideas and motives behind an action, and there are methods.

These two things are separate. Do we blame tools for the use to which

they are put?” He stresses: “I say only a fool refuses to learn lessons

about effectiveness from their worst enemies.” Needless to say, certain

methods imply certain ideas and ends. The Bolshevik creation of a

political police force (the Cheka) was very effective in ensuring the

“success” of the Russian Revolution. It reflected Bolshevik ideas on the

need for centralised power and party rule. It was very effective in

ensuring the defence of Bolshevik power. Shame that it helped kill the

revolution. Now, could there be an anarchist Cheka? Can this “tool” be

effective for anything other than what it was designed for? Of course

not.

Similarly for those whom Booth thought had the “right idea.” The ideas

(“tactics,” “methods,” “tools”) in question were selected because they

reflected the politics of the people who used it. They are not tools of

liberation. That the actions were carried out by right wing

authoritarians should come as no surprise as they reflected the

anti-revolutionary nature of their creators. Moreover, they would remain

so no matter the professed politics of the perpetrators (just as one-man

management did not change its nature when it was inflicted on the

Russian workers by the Bolsheviks rather than by the capitalists). But

that should be obvious. Sadly, it is not for GA, which confirms my

analysis of GA’s politics as fundamentally authoritarian. Such actions

cannot in any way be part of any possible revolutionary strategy. To

argue that they could be shows not only a lack of revolutionary and

libertarian politics, but also a lack of common humanity.

Ironically, if we accept Booth’s analysis at face value, we would have

to admit that the tools used by the “Irrationalists,” unlike every

other, were simply neutral and could be used for liberation rather than

oppression! Will GA start arguing that techniques, like tactics, are

socially neutral? That tools do not reflect the ideas and interests of

those who create and apply them nor shape those subject to them? That

would be amusing...

Booth states that I “think anarchists who use armed struggle are not

anarchists” and I am a “dogmatic pacifist.” Strange, but considering

that I did not discuss the question of violence nor armed struggle by

anarchists, I would say that Booth’s comments that I am “merely calling

on AJODA readers to share [my] dogma” is really a case of the pot

calling the kettle black! How can I all upon AJODA readers to share a

“dogma” (namely “pacifism”) which I do not, in fact, hold? Like Tom

O’Connor’s sad remarks in his letter as regards my politics, Booth’s

comments indicate how little GA are interested in little things like

facts and evidence when they discuss other people and their ideas.

Also of interest is Booth’s assertions that I use a “common technique”

of “Neoists and Neoists fellow travellers” and am grouped together with

“Micah/Tompsett etc.” As I said in my last letter, the lumping together

of all critics into one camp is a useful way of muddying the waters and

so obscuring the real issues of the debate. And has Booth “answered” the

concerns raised by his original article? Clearly not, as he can still

think of these actions as being compatible with libertarian

“resistance.”

I also love the “this Iain character” comment, very funny! How dare

other anarchists question him! Sorry, I had better name myself after a

fictional character from a movie before I can discuss politics with

(sorry, get labelled by) GA...

All in all, I’m not surprised by any of this. The ability of GA members

to avoid the issues and instead invent the politics (and associations)

of those who dare question their politics was proven by Tom O’Connor’s

rants two issues ago. Can I expect another diatribe about what I do not

think next issue? Perhaps rather than make up the ideas I hold, they

could actually address the issues concerning their politics I raise? But

that would be too much like hard work, far better to smear than think.

yours in solidarity

Iain McKay

Glasgow