Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:11:26 -0600
From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-mutualaid.org>
Subject: Re: AUT: Tariq Ali: change the world by taking power


Richard Singer wrote:

> I think he probably means me (correct me if I'm wrong).   

Yep. Sorry for the public label. ;-)

>I guess
> I'm probably a libertarian Marxist more generally; I don't know if
> I really know enough about the intricacies of autonomist Marxism
> (especially not compared to some people on this list) to narrow the
> label down to "autonomist Marxist" specifically.
> 
> But in all fairness, Chuck knows me from back when I was happy to
> call myself an anarchist.  We've known each other, especially
> online, since several years before the Battle in Seattle.  Back
> then I was obnoxiously pushing the relatively obscure idea of
> anarchism on mostly Marxist lists.

The years fly by.

> Since then, I've gravitated more toward Marxism myself because I've
> read a lot more Marx and Marxists at the same time that I've become
> disillusioned with anarchism as we know it.  So, unfortunately,
> I'm not so eager to defend the anarchist scene or tradition against
> its detractors.  Although, then again, I probably would still be
> considered an anarchist in many circles, and I don't care if people
> call me one.  Do these labels really mean that much?  My experience
> is that, especially in the present social context, the label of
> anarchist versus, say, socialist isn't going to tell you much about
> how people or groups will behave (for instance, how authoritarian
> they will ultimately be, or not).

I don't like labels and I've struggled with the anarchist label for many 
years, but not being a post-modernist who is comfortable in a shifting 
world of language, I settled on anarchism as being the best label for 
myself. I see as kinfolk any person who shares similar beliefs as I do, 
but I also see one of my goals in life as the promotion of anarchism. I 
don't think that one form of anarchism will be the path for the world's 
future, but I certainly hope that each community will gravitate towards 
some forms of libertarian socialism, or whatever you want to call it.

> But is there jealousy about the attention that anarchists are
> getting?  If so, I think the problem is that too many people
> are seeking attention in the first place.  The celebrity conferred
> by the media spotlight seems awfully tempting to a lot of people
> who supposedly oppose both the capitalist system and hierarchy.

Celebrity is seductive. Celebrity also sucks.

>>Give him time. History shows that leftist rulers eventually turn 
>>into brutal thugs. Chavez might be popular and a bulwark against 
>>the right in Latin America, but he isn't the answer.

> I've got to disagree with Chuck here; no need to make this kind of
> generalization.  And no need to think that anarchists don't have
> the brutal thug potential either.  (I'm sure we can pick characters
> and moments from history to prove that point too.)

It's possible that Chavez could turn out to be a rather benevelent 
leader. Like most radicals, I certainly see him as preferable to a U.S. 
puppet state. It's also good to see more parts of the world thumbing 
their noses at the U.S.A.

Chuck



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---