Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:32:19 -0800 (PST)
From: "J.M. Adams" <ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: [postanarchism] re: Autonomous Liberalism vs. Autonomous Marxism


Actually, Kline is completely wrong, Brown does come
out in opposition to liberalism which is clear to
anyone who has read the book. She concludes actually
that both liberalism and feminism  are insufficient in
that they are too one-dimensionally focused  on either
individual freedom or the equality of women and that
only anarchism allows for a truly multidimensional
rebellion in that it is opposed to ALL forms of
centralized power. 

As she states "anarchism is not only a more coherent
liberatory movement than liberal feminism, but it is
also a more inclusive and complete liberatory movement
than feminism as a whole...feminism as a whole
recognizes the inequity of oppression of women by men;
anarchism opposes oppression of all kinds...the
anarchist movement accomodates a diversity of
antiauthoritarian struggles, and while each is
recognized as being essential to the establishment of
a truly free society, none is placed above the others.
Anarchism fights oppression in all its
manifestations". 

As for essentialism, I think it is clear that you are
coming from a very typically pro-reason / rationality
/ science perspective and that we do not agree on this
question. What it boils down to for me is that I am
opposed to any argument that denies our ability to
recreate ourselves as we may choose, which is the
existential argument introduced by Sartre's "existence
precedes essence". But I do think that there is a
difference between what our "nature" is in regard to
the form our bodies tend to take and what goes on
inside these bodies. 

>Actually, Chomsky probably shows what a sweet, old
>fashioned sort he is 
>by still being concerned with "human nature," when so
>many in the human 
>sciences have simply fixated on "behaviors"... ; )

Actually, Chomsky says that we dont know much about
human nature and that it is dangerous to pretend that
we do. As for "left wing Eugenics" and the planned
breeding of stirpiculture I guess I will leave that
sort of thing to you to celebrate, as I find it
absolutely and repulsively instrumentalist.
Essentialism and the Eugenics which grew out of it is
indeed very much bound up with the background of
Auschwitz, try reading Zygmunt Baumann's "Modernity
and the Holocaust" or Paul Virilio for instance, one
of your favorite writers from what I gather - he has
stated this more forcefully than most in fact. You are
very convinced of the powers of observation in
unveiling the "laws" of science and human nature, I
find this highly uncritical personally. My criticism
is rooted in what Adorno called "the dialectic of
Enlightenment" - this is why Kropotkin and Darwin
ultimately reinforce one another in my opinion,
Kropotkin's assumptions about human nature can easily
develop into its opposite. Why not just accept that we
can existentially create ourselves as we wish, that we
can choose to be cooperative and that because of this,
a liberated society is indeed possible, rather than
relying on antiquated notions of what human nature is
or is not (notions that not even Chomsky succumbs to).

Jason




===="“Marx says, revolutions are the locomotives of world history.  But perhaps it is really totally different.  Perhaps revolutions are the grasp by the human race traveling in this train for the emergency brake.” 

- Walter Benjamin

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree