Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] RE: aMory starr
From: "stevphen shukaitis" <stevphen-AT-mutualaid.org>


I've invited Amory to the list and sent her the discussion that has
occureed so far under this thread.

as for myself - I find it kind of slippery.
while I can see that in many ways there are some commonalities between
anarchist political thought on the "left" and libertarian political
thought - I'm not quite clear what I think about the discussion. for
instance, to me there seems to be some parallels between some ideas of the
zapatistas (such as those embodied in concepts like resistance by "one no,
many yeses") and those outlined about the utopian political project by
robert nozick in "anarchy, state, and utopia" (namely that it would be
more fruitful to think about the utopian political process through which
local communities can go about their designs, as larger plans tend to
require larger amounts of state/power dynamics that can be justified and
therefore end up being coercive [nozick thus advocates minimal state])

maybe that's just because I personally come from a background of more
radical right wing politics and weberian-type social analysis. it seems to
some degree that a lot of elements from the "right" would be great allies
if they would somehow acquire a class analysis (and perhaps a few other
things)

but despite seeing some parallels between certain apparently opposed ideas
of thought and theory, it's the trying to come up with mutual projects and
forms of action across such divides that is more problematic.

solid,
stevphen





> hI, thanks for your response Jason,
>
> I'VE read a little more now, i havent the book in front of me and i think
> that
> Amory is a leftist with some strange ideas. There are quotes from Adbuster
> "
> neither left, nor right ", more references to the IFG, facist Goldsmith
> and
> David Koten, right libertarian -  the primary focus on corporations by
> some
> movements does leave it open to rightists. If i recall from the start of
> the
> book Amory is involved in some kinds of alt. currency schemes, and some
> comments give me the impression that petit bourgeoise small business are
> not
> seen to be as bad as Big corporations and as something with liberatory
> potential ? a capitalist is a capitalist and whether or not they have
> understood Adam Smith or not as Korten believes is irrelevant. Maybe i am
> misrepresenting her position...
>
> Perhaps you can invite Amory to the list ?
>
> My interest in No Border politics and ideas like hybridity etc are because
> of
> my concern of infiltration by reactionary ideas into the ' anti-capitalist
> '
> movements, particularly via sloppy analysis by some radical greens.
>
> this can be seen by some limited success of international third
> positionists
> around the radical green movement in Britain. radical right decentralists
> and
> left decentralists. blahhhh. see the ongoing letters debate in Do or Die
> 10 .
>
> J.M Adams wrote,
>
> "I don't think Amory herself supports right wing
> politics at all, I think she is at heart a left winger
> of the sort that we are seeing more and more of today
> who are saying 'the struggle is not so much about left
> vs. right anymore so much as it is about humanity vs.
> the state (or capital, or corporations or whatever)'.
> This is the same perspective that Hardt and Negri
> take, as well as Agamben and many other
> poststructuralists."
>
> I am interested to see you say this of Hardt and Negri and Agamben, can
> you
> show me an example if you know of one at hand.
>
> I really despise this idea, its so simplistic and a dangerous one as well.
> I guess the international solidarity movement in palestine is one example
> of a
> group working amongst groups that have rightwing religious ideas.