Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 21:49:43 +0100
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Anarchy Magazine and Violence



Hello everyone

Is it not amazing how begin you can get with e-mail? Miss a
couple of days and before you know it...

anyways!

> Yes, there is a new issue of "Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed"
> out.  The magazine is now coming out twice a year, I think.

I must say that I always enjoy Anarchy:AJODA. Its a very good
magazine. I don't agree with all of it, but I don't think its
setting back "the movement" -- its addressing issues that
need to be addressed and this sort of critical dialogue 
helps all our ideas develop.

anyways, this is by the by...
 
> The issue was ok, except for the rather paranoid editorial comment by
> Jason, where he goes on about all these people attacking anarchy
> magazine.. like Fred Woodworth, etc.  Why do they care about such things?

Because being attacked is *not nice*. I don't like to be slandered or
attacked, and when I do, I try and reply (I've just had another run
in with James Donald on another list, btw, if anyone is interested.
I hate mailing lists I'm not a member of!).

And I don;t think the anarchy folks are into "turning the other cheek"!

> Obviously, people will disagree with them, but it's not some kind of
> conspiracy.  Also, Jason re-affirmed Anarchy magazines commitment to such
> things as anti-work (and thus anti-union), 

I'm anti-work, I'm also anti-trade union (we can do much better!). Does
that mean I'm against anarcho-syndicalism? Or workers struggle? Or
somehow "anti-worker"? I don't think so. I'm anti-work *because*
I'm a worker. I don;t want to work 8 hours a day for a boss. I
want to be free when I create, but bossed about when I work!

primitivism, a critique of
> rationalism and opposition to "civilization".

Well, I'm against "civilisation" -- if by that you mean what we have
now. As for rationalism, well, look at the Randites who are the 
greatest example of the irrationality of rationalism I can think
of! I'm not against reason, rational investigation and debate,
scientific analysis, and so on. I am against the dismissal of
other ways of looking at thinks and of ignoring your emotions
and gut feelings.
 
> I think Anarchy magazine should not kid itself and pretend it does not
> have a specific agenda or ideology.. it clearly does, as Jason McQuinn has
> made clear.

Well, I would suggest that by ideology they mean a set of fixed ideas.
rather their approach is to question everything, including what we
anarchists hold dear. And so it should be. We should be developing our
ideas by analysis and critique, not repeating old dogma's.
 
> Also, if a person is anti-work, opposing unions is the last thing in the
> world they should do.  Unions are the only thing that will guarentee less
> work-hours.

I would agree that militant workplace struggle can and has reduced
working hours. But the trades unions are not really into that, these
days, for the most part. They (at least over here and probably in 
most of america) have decided that they are "service providers" rather
than workers' organisations. And I'm sure most, if not all,
anarcho-syndicalists would agree with that analysis.

Ultimately, anarcho-syndicalism will mean opposing the trade unions.
It depends what you oppose the unions with. Anarchy does not really
suggest anything. That is a problem, to understate the point!

> To it's credit, ANARCHY magazine gave attention to "left anarchists"...
> they had news about many anarcho communists and anarcho syndicalists, as
> well as a drawing of Emma Goldman, and they gave a favourable review for
> the New England anarcho-communist publication, "We Dare Be Free".
> (A very good magazine, too.. if you want to order a copy, send email
> to kronstadt-AT-juno.com)

Anarchy magazine is obviously okay about other anarchist groups who
do good stuff (and don't they use the term "leftist anarchists" rather
than "left anarchists"?).

The left are part of the problem, imho. Anarchists need to realise that
the left is the left-wing of what the right are the right-wing of,
namely capitalism. In that sense Black is right and Bookchin is
wrong. The "left that was" was authoritarian, elitist, state 
capitalist, pro-Stalin, pro-social democracy, etc. What has all
that to do with socialism, nevermind libertarian socialism?

Iain

PS and "Green anarchist" are not anarchists, imho, they are at best
liberals (with the usual elitism and so on) and deeply vanguardist.
Thats why they support such stupidity as the infamous "irrationalists"
article. Their idea of a "new society" are so unappealing that no
one would voluntarily agree to it, and so they must be "encouraged"
by the enforced breakdown of society. Thats not anarchism. Its
Leninism given a primtivist coating.