Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:33:30 +0000
From: Iain McKay <iain.mckay-AT-zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: FAQ a post-left document?


hello all

"Aragorn!" wrote: 
> I think I am understanding why so few people post to this list...

opps, sorry if I came across as grumpy, but silly labels are
getting to annoy me somewhat.

And people do post to the list, when an interesting discussion
gets going. That one we had recently on primitivism and 
post-leftism was hectic a few weeks back. Also, depends on
how tried people are. Sometimes I cannot be bothered with
stuff. The same with others. So I doubt it is anything to
do with me -- I'm polite compared to some people here :)

> Iain McKay wrote:
> That would be a great definition of a meetingist (another joke, used
> instead of organizationalist) or a workerist. Thanks for your reaction,
> I will be sure to use them again.

sure, great, base dialogue on point scoring and using terms you know
will annoy people. That will *really* work in generating useful debate.

as for my "original riff," well, you got me on a bad day. Sorry, but
how I respond to stuff depends on my mood. Sometimes I see the humour,
something I get sick of the pettiness which such labels inflict on
the movement. I'm sure your intention of using words which you think
will annoy people will provoke much goodwill and honest discussion.
 
> > silly labels like "workerist" or "meetingist" you mean?
> 
> I thought you didn't know what they meant?

oh, right, they are silly labels. As if the context these labels
are usually used is not one of dismissal and accusations of being,
well, less than anarchist...

you know, I was in a good mood before getting this...
 
<snip>

> > Perhaps I will be surprised.
> 
> I am very interested in this conversation. Not because I think we (as in
> anarchists) have the answers (especially if the answer is in an equation
> form), but because I continue to be challenged by the old adage
> attributed to Engels "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A
> revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the
> act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other
> part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon - authoritarian means, if
> such there be at all."

Engels was looking at a revolution from the perspective of one of the
oppressors, not as an oppressed person. If someone is hitting you on
the head, it is not "authoritarian" to stop them. Engels was talking
through his arse.

> If the left's ideas about revolution reached their highest point in
> Russia (1917) and the strongest reaction in Germany (1943) then the fall
> of Russia does mean something. I know that the 'left' would say that
> Russia doesn't count, or that the problem was authority not leftism, but
> let us at least agree that some of us believe that it was the left
> itself that had its heyday.

sorry, is this meant to mean something? Honest, I think you are talking
in some sort of code. For example, what is the difference between "left"
and "'left'"? From the context, I'm guessing that the second refers to
"left" anarchists?
 
> Things are different now. The rationale for uprising may not be, but the
> consciousness of the system is far more attuned to the rhetoric of the
> left and the mechanisms used by it.

so this means that capitalism has learned from previous challenges to
its running?

<snip>

> If so, what did you mean by the "Italian anarcho-syndicalist
> > capitulation to fascism"
> 
> I was referring to a (controversial) historical point. Certain elements
> of the Italian syndicalist left 'joined' the fascist movement. I am sure
> you know that, disagree with the historical point, and am trying to make
> another point (like that I am wrong about it). Why don't you do that in
> the future.

actually, elements of the *marxist* syndicalist left became fascists.
Not
Italian anarcho-syndicalists. Bar, I'm sure, a few individuals (like a
few individualist anarchists did). A few individuals does not equate to
a "capitulation". Are you taking your assertion from Bob Black, by any 
chance? If so, then I would suggest you check his references as they
don't say what he wants them to say.

So it isn't "controversial" at all. Bob Black made a claim about italian
syndicalists becoming fascists (which is true). However, these people
were not anarcho-syndicalists and so somewhat irrelevant to a critique
of "left" anarchism. But as a smear against "left" anarchists, it is
pretty good. Shame it's not true.

> and why thinking "fact and science were the only ways we could concieve
> of anarchism" cause it?
> 
> I did not say that. I had to go back to the review (which was to B.O.
> Sheppard's hack job "Anarchism vs. Primitivism") to see what you were
> talking about here but the flow goes more like this...

Actually, you *did* say that. This is what you wrote:

"Just because a wish isn't factually true doesn't make it
entirely un-useful. If it did, if fact and science were the
only ways we could conceive of anarchism, then anarchism
belongs in the dust of Bolshevik Russia, the Spanish
compromises, and the Italian anarcho-syndicalist
capitulation to fascism."

Which reads to me that conceiving anarchism in terms of fact
and science resulted in the "capitulation to fascism." Perhaps
I'm wrong. Perhaps my grasp of English is a bit weak, but I
doubt it. You seem to me to be explaining the "capitulation"
in terms of conceiving anarchism in terms of fact and science.

Which seems a tad strange, to be honest. I would say that the
Italian anarcho-syndicalists "capitulated" to fascism in pretty
much the same way as the CNT did. That is, it was defeated by
force of arms. Nothing to do with believing in something 
factually untrue or not.

Which is precisely why I asked you to explain what you meant. 

> Idealizing stuff, like workers or natives, isn't right. 

who idealises workers? I'm a worker. I know what they are like.
No anarchist I know idealises workers. Seems like a straw man,
to be honest.

Which doesn't
> mean that it isn't useful. Dreams are useful. If science were the only
> way that could access anarchism then we would have to accept the
> consequences of our ancestors who, to a large extent. 

sorry, something seems missing here. Please explain.

And what does science mean? Well, the scientific method is looking at 
the facts and drawing theories from it. These theories can be wishful 
in some ways (developing aspects which only exist in embryo, for
example). 
Now, that seems sensible to me. Dreams which have absolutely *no*
basis in reality are pretty useless as a guide to action.

Take primitivism, for example. It dreams of turning to some kind of
tribal society. If you try that in western nations a lot of people
are going to die. It is a fact that the current population cannot
survive within such a way of life. As such, the primitivist "dream"
is pretty useless and indeed harmful in trying to think about ways
of changing society. It leads the "dreamers" to dismiss all practical
forms of transition as "governance", "self-exploitation" and so on.
Their "dreams" as such could do with a good dose of "fact and
science."

This may include
> damning our tendency to historical irrelevance.

Actually, it is the reverse. Dreams without some basis in reality
are just that. They are not a dream to inspire, more a nighmare.

>   I fail to see how "fact and science" had any impact on being
> > crushed by state and fascist violence. Unless, of course, the
> > fascists were using science books to beat the crap out of USI
> > and UAI members, which I doubt.
> 
> I hope making that point was good for you. In the future I will do my
> best to take your words out of context for similar goals.

Look, Aragon! I asked you to explain what you meant. I was not quoting
of context -- I was asking you to explain what I thought you meant by
your comments. Simple, really. If I was quoting out of context I would
have said something like: "this Aragon thinks 'facts and science' don't
matter" or such like. Instead, I asked if you could explain to me what
your words meant as I thought they were pretty meaningless and, indeed,
present a strange perspective of what happened in Russia, Spain and
Italy.

Your explaination of what you meant does not make that much sense
either. So did conceiving of anarchy in terms of "fact and science"
result in the failure of the Bolshevik revolution, the mistakes
made in Spain and the "capitulation" of non-anarchist syndicalists
to fascism in Italy? Do you *really* think the CNT joining the
government is rooted in them thinking anarchy in terms of "fact
and science" rather than in wishes which were not factually true?
Or are you saying the CNT joined the government because its
militants "idealised" workers? Is that it? 

I'm interested in your logic here. I don't understand what
you are getting at so help me out. Please explain your argument.
That only seems fair.

Iain