Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Trouble <twbounds-AT-pop.erols.com>
Subject: Anarchy Editorial


Here's the Anarchy: AJODA editorial.

    This magazine has always managed to gather its
share of off-the-wall criticisms from a whole
range of self-appointed arbiters of anarchist
orthodoxy. Readers from around the world have
rarely refrained from advising us whenever we overstep their
exceptionally narrow bounds of good taste, ideological
conformity, or puritanical values.
 Lately, however, Anarchy magazine, its
editors and some of its most prominent
contributors have been even more viciously
and repeatedly attacked by anarchists
who identify with various disparate strands
of the milieu. Some of the most vocal and
persistent attacks have emanated from the
creator and reigning dean of Social Ecology
(and of its corollary, Libertarian
Municipalism), Murray Bookchin. But
they have also come from other sources,
including Bookchin's partner and sycophantic sidekick, Janet
Biehl; the long-time editor and publisher of The Match!, Fred
Woodworth (see pp. 75-76 of this magazine); a small number of
anarcho-syndicalists; and, in this issue's letters pages, anarchist
activist Peter Kalberer (pp. 64-65) and pacifist Ed Stamm (p. 74);
among others.
 There doesn't seem to be any consistent, rational perspective
behind these attacks. For Bookchin Anarchy and its sister
magazine, Alternative Press Review are examples of "decadent,"
"lifestylist" magazines. For Woodworth they just have to be
funded by the CIA or FBI to be so successful. For Kalberer
Anarchy is just "hot air over non-issues." While Stamm offers a
bribe to get Anarchy to change its name and never use "the words
'anarchy,' 'anarchism,' or 'anarchist' in the subtitle, or to describe
your point of view" because it disturbs "those of us with a more
traditional anarchist orientation."
 What does seem consistent in these disparaging assaults is a
general sense that not only are the myriad directions currently
being explored within the anarchist milieu beyond these critics'
comprehension and control, but that this magazine is one of the
leading voices advocating a generalized renewal and reinvention
of the anarchist tradition. And, further, the reactions of these
fairly incoherent critics indicate that we are doing a pretty good
job of making them feel insecure and vulnerable as the old
ideological ground (which was never all that stable to begin with)
increasingly shifts beneath their feet.
 In Anarchy after Leftism and "Withered Anarchism" Bob Black
has characterized some of these attacks as symptomatic of a more
general conflict between the dominant 19th and 20th century
threads of left-anarchism and the creative, still-emerging post-
leftist anarchist movement. Although there have been anarchists
and anti-state insurrectionaries throughout history who have
never fit within the leftist mold, until recently their memory has
been largely submerged within a sea of leftist categories and
interpretations. Now, with the worldwide decline of leftism, these
previous undercurrents are resurfacing and threatening to
overwhelm those fragmenting currents of
anarcho-leftism that have yet to dissipate.
 Over the last few post-'60s decades, as
leftism has ebbed, anarchists have increas
ingly explored new directions in theory,
history and practice. These explorations
have sometimes led people to dead ends,
sometimes to confusion or incoherence,
and occasionally right out of the anarchist
milieu. But many have led to a broadening
and deepening of anarchist critique, and
some to the ongoing liberation of anarchic
praxis from stale leftist roles and conventions. The most impor
tant of these explorations have included:
- the critique of technology as a totalitarian system
=97 the critique of civilization as the primary form of social
alienation (prior to capitalism, which is only one possible institu
tional form of civilization)
=97 the critique of work and production (and thus of unionism)
=97 the re-examination and re-valuation of "primitive" anarchy and
communism
=97 the critique of ideology and compulsory morality
=97 the critique of rationalism and scientism as untenable founda
tions for anarchist theory and practice.
 These explorations wouldn't have been possible without the
rediscovery and reinvigoration of concepts, lives and events long
lost to leftist academics, theorists and historians because they
don't fit neatly into a class-conflict paradigm. Examples include
the Whiskey rebels, the pirate milieu, marginal tribal and
communitarian dropouts (see especially the book Gone to
Croatan), and heretical religious communities, along with
countless individual explorations of human communication,
experience and desire.
 A reappraisal of the entire insurrectionary project is required,
and this reappraisal has only just begun. But possibly the biggest
obstacle has so far proven to be a minority of anarchists clinging
to their hard-won, now comfortable niches in the anarchist milieu.
They seem to be hoping that they can avoid eclipse if they can just
make enough nasty charges, call their chosen enemies enough
dirty names, and portray themselves as virtuous victims of a vast,
fundamentally evil post-leftist conspiracy.
 The challenge for those of us ready to move on is saving
anarchy from these anarchists.
                        Jason McQuinn and Paul Z. Simons, Editors