đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș political-na-vete.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:28:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Political Naïveté Author: Aragorn! Language: en Topics: maoism Source: http://aragorn.anarchyplanet.org/political-naivete/. Proofread online source http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=4627, retrieved on July 13, 2020.
One of the reasons that anarchism has become a popular political
perspective is because in many contexts (for instance mass mobilizations
or broad direct action campaigns) we seem open, friendly, and
nonsectarian. This is in great contrast to visible (and visibly) Marxist
or Leftist organizations, which either seem like newspaper-selling
robots or ancient thorny creatures entirely out of touch with the
ambivalence of the modern political atmosphere. Anarchists seem to get
that ambivalence and contest it with hope and enthusiasm rather than
finger-wagging.
The public face of anarchism tends towards approachability and youth:
kids being pepper-sprayed, the general assemblies of the occupy
movement, and drum circles. These are the images of the past five years
that stand in contrast to the image of anarchists as athletic black clad
window breakers. Both are true (or as true as an image can be) and both
demonstrate why a criticism of anarchists continues to be that (even at
our best) we are politically naĂŻve.
Of course very few window breakers believe that breaking windows means
much beyond the scope of an insurance form or a janitorial task, but
that is beside the point. What matters is that the politics of no
demands makes the impossible task of intelligent political discourse in
America even more complicated (by assuming that discourse is a Pyhrric
act). To put the issue differently, the dialectical binary of both
engaging in the social, dialogic, compromising act of public politics
while asserting that there is no request of those-in-power worth stating
or compromising on isnât possible. It is cake-and-eat-it thinking that
is exactly why Anarchists must do what Anarchist must do[1].
This rejection of how the game is played while participating in it
hasnât shown itself to be a long term strategyâ impossible never is. For
lessons on playing the game we have to turn to the winners of politics
and revolution: neoliberalists, sure, but also statist Marxists,
reactionaries (from racist populists to nationalist Know Nothings or
their descendants in the Tea Party), and what remnants exist of the old
and new Left. Just to make the point crystal clear Iâll restate it. On
the one hand you have the ridiculous non- or even anti-strategy of
anarchist political theater that cannot achieve the impossible goal of
everything for everybody forever. On the other hand you have
realpolitik: the pragmatic application of power in the political sphere.
This simplistic dualism is why most intelligent people abandon politics
altogether and retreat to NIMBYism (at best) or the quiet solitude of
screaming at a television screen as the only expression of engagement
with the outside world.
In this light, a discussion about maoism might seem outrageous and it
is! Maoism isnât a relevant political tendency or movement in America.
It isnât leading guerrilla forces in the hills, it has no
leaders-in-waiting just outside the border (unless you count Avakian
which you should in no way do), but it isnât further from the mainstream
of American political thought than Anarchism is (anarchist big tent
populists to the contrary) and is arguably much closer (in an often
cited example, the mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, is a former Maoist).
More pointedly, Maoism and Anarchism have been cross-pollinating for
decades. Our task here is to shine a light on that history and challenge
what benefits anarchists have garnered from this little-discussed
pollination.
One may pause here to consider the goal of defending anarchism against
Maoism (or any other ideology of the left). Why bother? Isnât anarchism
exactly as irrelevant as these other 19^(th) century ideas? Yes and no.
If you are talking about the fights within the First International about
what form the revolutionary party will take (secret or public), or the
composition of the most advanced working class groups (craftsmen or
factory), than yes, absolutely. Even if you are talking about the
integrated partisans of the Spanish Civil War, then the term has
declined into the merely historical. Of interest perhaps, primarily
because of the optimism and ferocity of itâs partisans, but really a
demonstration of a good liberal university education and not much else.
If, on the other hand, anarchism is the term used to describe an
open-ended theory that will not, cannot, be set in stone until the day
of days, because it isnât named after a man, because it is named after
negation, because it is impossible, then no. In its hostile negative
anarchism is a well suited expression of our time.
As anarchism is the theory that we are the ones who directly engage with
life, not representatives (whether politicians, NGOs, or community
leaders), not systems of control (statistical, bureaucratic, or
functional), and not specialists in freedom (authors, etc), then we
embrace it. We doubly embrace it if somehow this engagement with life
also means the absolute destruction of the system-as-it-is but we know
that this destructionâwhether called revolution, evolution, or
communizationâis not guaranteed or even likely in our lifetime. This
means that our theory interfaces with the reality of politics and other
people every day but without the burden of the correct revolutionary
ideology that has in no way been more successful than anarchism, just
more bloody.
Iâll leave it to others to do an accurate and deep review of the history
of Maoism in the US since the end of the Vietnam War and how it has
melted into the firmament of Cultural Studies programs and the
counter-cultural left (by way of Refuse and Resist, No Business As
Usual, the October 22 Coalition Against Police Brutality, Not In Our
Name, the World Canât Wait, etc). My task is to show that there is a
weave of relationships rather than to make something functional out of
that weave. In the Bay Area the vigor of Maoism as a viable political
ideology is entirely due to two factors: the Black Panther Party and the
RCP.
While the depth of Maoist politics in the BPP is largely locked up in
unreported meetings and allegations that the BPP did a bang up business
selling Little Red Books in the late 60s, the Maoist trappings of the
BPP arenât in question. We have to contend with the BPP (a relatively
small and historical group) currently almost entirely because of their
representation in movies and visual media. The BPP continue to be among
the most cited predecessors of modern political movements. We all have
an image seared into our mind of ourselves, as radicals, engaging with
the straight world (whether in the halls of the Legislature or the
streets of our towns) wearing visually striking attire, with weapons
over our shoulders. Obviously the direct action work (from neighborhood
armed defense to feeding and schooling the kids) of the BPP is beyond
reproach (if the history of such is to be believed) but this is an
entirely different topic than the ideas of The Party per se or the
stories of the heroes of the BPP. This is the story of grassroots
organizing by any other name; this name just has a solid mythology
surrounding it.
It is worth mentioning that I donât in fact have strong feelings about
the BPP. The social and political atmosphere that they derive from are
so entirely different than ours that I am in no way qualified to make
categorical statements about them. They are a historical artifact that
can be, and is, debated as such, but by-and-large this debate isnât an
anarchist one (either in name, sentiment, or aesthetic). For many
people, recognizing the significance of the BPP (as in the differences
between the perceived work of the BPP and the work of radical politics
today) is a necessary part of political development. Recognizing the
differences between the work of the BPP in the 60s and our work today is
how we determine our own project, and that has nothing to do with
political ideologies.
The RCP can be more cleanly dealt with. No caveats need apply to this
hack organization that should be utterly reviled by any anarchist.
Moreover the concept that building up the theory or personality of Bob
Avakian (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party,_USA#Activities
) as important, revolutionary, or even notable is entirely preposterous
.
That said, the practice of rebranding oneself, of spinning up front
groups as quickly as new single issues come to the fore, is obviously a
smart and pernicious idea. It allows a political organization to control
its messaging, gating new members through specific interests rather than
through an entire, decades-long political program. It provides a way to
show rather than to talk (which is a significant anarchist weakness). It
builds relationships through âcommon struggleâ rather than through
debate, coercion, or brow-beating. While the result is still the same,
this multi-form and layered approach to inculcating new members is
persuasive and confusing, exactly the goal of groups that do it.
Mentioning these two groups isnât intended to say that the influence of
Maoist ideas, or those of other historical political traditions, can be
constrained by these two data points. Modern Maoist thought has become
much more diffuse than either of these historic reference points would
lead one to believe. Weâll get into examples later but when people used
to use terms like Imperialism, Revolution, and the Party, they now use
terms like gentrification, insurrection, and organization: softer, less
disagreeable terms that reflect our time. The point is that political
approaches have evolved from specific times and places, and that to
understand that genealogy is necessary to defend ourselves from taking
these approaches at face value.
The reason that anarchists should study and reflect on Maoism, in
particular, is because (in the words of MIM, an RCP split that dissolved
a few years ago) âMaoism and real anarchism have the same long-run
goals.â (Avakian has said similar things in his critiques of anarchism).
MIM (and other explicit Maoists) believe that the only fundamental
difference between their perspective and that of anarchists is that
Maoists have a plan to implement this shared goal, so their
revolutionary program is authentic rather than anarchistsâ expression of
bourgeois ideology. Right ideas + leadership = revolutionary moral
authority?
We live in a post-party era, where the traditional leftâwhether of
unions or alphabet groupsâhas largely disappeared, and the terrain of
anarchistic political discourse cannot be dismissed with the typical
anarchist wave of the hand and a decry against âauthoritarianism.â By
and large, everyone (activists, Occupy, organizers) is willing to say
they are anti-authoritarian. The rub is to describe exactly what that
means.
The most common place where this discussion is happening couldnât be
older, or more historical. It surrounds the concept of the National
Question and how one or another perspective has a solution to it. This
concept has its origin in Stalinâs working definition of a nation: âa
historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the
basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological
make-up, manifested in a common culture.â The Maoist revision includes
an addendum that âinternal coloniesâ of nations, exist within the belly
of countries like the US (or in the rings of French cities). In either
case the National Question is a way to frame the issue of how to
organize the shock troops of the next social unrest and how to
articulate the program of what the fight is about.
In a useful recent exchange about this between two Maoist groups (the
Fire Next Time Committee and Signalfire), here is a summary from
Signalfire:
To sum up our stanceâŠit is sufficient to say one step forward, two steps
back. In attempting to deal with the real problematic of the âpeople of
colorâ discourse and identity politics, it seeks to establish an
analysis of race coupled with an analysis of class. In doing so, rather
than producing an adequate critique and substantive class analysis, the
author simply gives us generalities which interrogated at a basic level
are superficial and useless in satisfying the need for a real class
analysis of the United States.
Rather than seeking truth from facts, it telescopes the particularity of
experiences into universalities,and simply doesnât have an analysis of
class that actually corresponds with the existing class structure. It
has rather engaged in another sort of âidentity politicsâ of a
Brown/Yellow guilt type in relationship to Black oppression, centering
it as a fulcrum for the articulation of white supremacist ideology and
class structure.
Obviously the National Question still looms large for Maoists and this
terminology should be familiar to anyone who is active in big city
radical politics. Understanding these two paragraphs is sufficient to
function well in the Bay Area political scene.
To draw the linkage between Mao-esque approaches and anarchist thinking
we should talk a little bit about Imperialism, Colonialism, and
Gentrification. Obviously, according to a dictionary definition, these
three things occur. Colonialism leads to Imperialism (or is it the other
way around) and from within Empire the shifting of the economic
landscape takes on a similar character that is described as
Gentrification. These are descriptive terms to the economic, political,
and social character of where we live and how we got here.
What they are not are vectors. They donât trace a line from some
historical moment (for example, of primitive purity) on through our
current horrorshow into a dystopia/utopia. Descriptors are often
confused for causes and this is nowhere more clear than from political
perspectives that Have Answers, answers that can be argued for, that are
believed to be only capable of winning if others are convinced, and
finally, ones that create a logical whole, something coherent (as if
this world is coherent).
While many anarchists are convinced by this logical procedural thinking,
anyone who is opposed to authoritarianism should break with this
trajectory when it comes to a history of Imperialism or Colonialism (or
even gentrification) that doesnât see the state as a necessary part of
the genealogy. A monopoly on violence is entirely necessary to invade,
control, and genocide a people. It is only to the extent to which
capitalism has taken on this monopoly (if it has) that it has taken
center stage as the villain for communists and anti-authoritarians.
For anarchists these questions are much simpler. As soon as monopolistic
impulses are discovered the hackles of most anarchists are raised. This
means that party discipline or even toeing an ideological line tends to
be impossible in most anarchist circles. If you accept the
Leninist/Blanquist (vanguard/small cadre) model of revolution then
anarchists make poor cadre (but so does everyone else!).
Where does this leave us in terms of the most American of all questions:
what about race? How is it separable and inseparable from the National
Question as framed by Communists in general, and Maoists in particular?
Simply put, it leaves us nowhere. The history of racism generally, and
slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, etc in particular, is an integrated part
of the story of Imperial America. As residents, and as victims, of that
place we should feel obligated to understand that story but we have no
power to change it. Revolutionary aspirations to the contrary we cannot
manage, dictate, or smash our way out of it, but we also donât have to
own it.
Privilege theory places agency on those who have privilege. If one is
determined to hold together a pluralist democratic society this kind of
thinking is absolutely necessary but what if you donât? What if you are
hostile to the conceptual framework that holds together a society of 300
million people (which you can do even while recognizing that this
framework is the structure that society itself is built on)?
Respecting the self-determination of a group of people, from an
anarchist perspective, should look a lot less like listening to the
leaders or elders of a group you arenât a part of, than like finding
common cause against those that constrain self-determination in the
first place. Primarily this is the state but itâs also the economic
relationships that subjugate all of us. Respect doesnât mean friendship
or agreeing. It means recognition, boundaries, and qualified solidarity.
One common hostility I have towards many anarchists is the general
attitude I find that anarchists tend to be for good things and against
bad things. It is a kind of modified kindergarten attitude that makes
sure everyone sees each other for the good-intentioned beautiful
snowflakes that they are, rather than doing much with all that intention
and beauty. At its worst, this attitude makes discussions about
personal, emotional issues intolerable, because everybody has to
demonstrate to everybody else that they, in fact, are paragons of
multi-racial purity. But in fact, everybody, without exception, are
bigoted, prejudiced, close-minded idiots. Getting this essential truth
out early allows the eventual name-calling of racist, sexist,
transphobe, kyriarchiest to be framed appropriately.
We are against bad things, therefore we are also against ourselves.
As long as anarchists do not inform ourselves about the myriad of forces
that seek to intentionally confuse their project for an anarchist one,
we will continue to be fooled by them. More problematically, and over a
long enough timeline, this confusion becomes reality.
âAnti-authoritarianâ becomes a soft way to obscure that you are a Maoist
whose ârevolutionary programâ is what makes you a true
anti-antiauthoritarian. âAnti-Imperialistâ becomes a way to describe
hostility to American foreign policy and not an adherent of the three
worlds theory of Maoism. âDecolonizationâ becomes code for an urban
aspiration for an impossible culture instead of a problematic term
relating to everything from native resistance to resource extraction,
the dismantling of older Empires, or a project of the United Nations.
Perhaps it is too late, at least in the US, at least for my lifetime. We
are a culture that has abandoned not just reading but critical thinking
on the whole. Watching language morph into its opposite used to be
something associated with the totalitarianism of the USSR or Newspeak of
Orwellâs fictional universe. Debordâs spectacle updated this dialectical
perversion by demonstrating how capitalism has buttressed the monopoly
of violence that used to be a prerequisite for this violence to
language. Our meme-tastic, utterly superficial engagement with even
political questions like how to live, how to do it together, and who am
I in relationship to others, seems to show that pointing to Maoists as a
political problem is about as useful as talking about aliens and pyramid
power. Anarchy as conflict with the existing order, both state and
capital and also the its conceptual framework, is an infinite endeavor.
Hesitations aside I know that someone out there will hear me. They will
recognize a political pedigree in the rhetoric of some local blowhard
and will be tempted to stand alone in a room, point a finger, and shout
Jâaccuse! I would warn you against this line of thinking. If the
post-left has anything to teach us it is that being right, and informing
others of it, isnât nearly enough. It may be preferable to maintain the
affect of the happy fool, the politically naĂŻve, while tilling the soil
for the seeds to feed those who will engage in the challenges of how to
engage (as anarchists) with politicians. Decrying their badness
polarizes the point too early in the relationship. Timing means
recognizing that the first moment one understands a situation isnât the
moment to act. Anarchy means attack and attack means patience.
Links related to text
Tyranny of Structureless & Anarchist Response
Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM)
[1]