File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2004/postanarchism.0401, message 9


Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 23:54:55 -0800 (PST)
From: villon sasha k <il_frenetico-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: [postanarchism] a SECOND response to Staudenmaier on "Post-Left Anarchy" Part 2


The Incredible Lameness of Left-Anarchism Part 2
by Jason McQuinn 

Staudenmaier's Leftist Fantasies 

Staudenmaier claims that “the post-left image of the
left....is frequently wrong on particulars,” citing as
an example my mention that “'the critique of everyday
life' is 'largely incompatible' with 'most of the New
Left of the 60s and 70s.” Amazingly enough,
Staudenmaier rousingly claims that “In Germany,
France, and North America, at the very least, large
segments of the New Left enthusiastically embraced the
critique of everyday life....” Of course, he once
again gives zero examples. Do I detect a pattern
developing? Who were these “large segments of the New
Left”? I sure don't recall any New Left socialist or
communist groups, Trotskyist splinter groups, or
Maoist groupuscles that “enthusiastically embraced the
critique of everyday life.” The Situationist
International, of course, encouraged this critique,
but its members were contemptuous of the left, so it
can't count here. In the U.S. the SDS, the Progressive
Labor Party, the Weatherman organization, the
Socialist Workers Party, the Black Panther Party, the
Young Lords and other major New Left groups would have
rejected the critique of everyday life, if they had
ever heard of it. Sure, there were amorphous
anti-authoritarian currents throughout the New Left,
including a few which heeded the S.I.'s call for a
critique of everyday life. But the vast majority of
the New Left groups had no use for this essentially
anarchistic turn of critique away from the
exploitation of labor. (Or, for the more liberal and
pacifist New Leftists, away from the confrontation of
moral conscience with the establishment; and for the
feminists, civil rights groups and black nationalists,
away from the reifications of identity politics.) 
Staudenmaier clarifies his claim by adding that: “the
profoundly anti-authoritarian upsurge of that
era...owed much of its vigor and inclusiveness to this
re-orientation toward everyday relationships.”
However, while it may be true that there was a sort of
generalized New Left “re-orientation towards everyday
relationships,” this hardly constituted any sort of
genuine critique of everyday life. Most of the
“re-orientation towards everyday relationships” during
the time was fraught with ideological baggage that
precisely prevented the development of such a
critique. There were all kinds of incoherent
amalgamations floating around, including aspects of
drug culture, feminism, Maoism, anarchism, sexual
liberation, drop-out culture, etc. But they were just
that—incoherent amalgamations—and not coherent
critiques of everyday life in any way comparable to
that of Raoul Vaneigem's critique in his Revolution of
Everyday Life. This type of coherent critique would
have immediately called into question the rampant
incoherence involved in the reformism, moralism,
identity politics, workerism and authoritarianism of
New Left organizations at the time. As for Henri
LeFebvre's Critique of Everyday Life series, it was
almost unknown and simply irrelevant in North America
at the time (where it was yet to be translated,
anyway), while Richard Gombin's otherwise interesting
book remains most remarkable for its highly
idiosyncratic and bizarre definition of leftism, under
which the Situationist International was categorized
as leftist despite its public disdain for the left in
its own terms (for just one example, speaking of “the
hierarchical ideology of leftism” in “Theses on the
Situationist International and its Time” by Guy Debord
& Gianfranco Sanguinetti).Note 3 
Staudenmaier goes on to argue that: “the concrete
practice of countless New Leftists was explicitly
predicated on a forceful rejection of precisely those
values which McQuinn takes to be constitutive of the
left as such.” As usual he provides no examples.
Funny, I never noticed these “countless” post-left
anarchists at the time. Where were these “countless”
people? Why don't they appear in any history of the
New Left, except, possibly, in cases of a few tiny
groups like the Diggers or the Motherfuckers? The New
Left I lived through was thoroughly leftist. The
anarchists were almost completely invisible. Almost
nobody at the time ever talked about the critique of
organizational fetishism, the critique of everyday
life, the critique of the state, the critique of
ideology (except in the least perceptive Marxist
senses), the critique of technological fetishism
(beyond superficial environmentalist concerns), or the
critique of civilization. Even the few anarchists were
oblivious to most of this. If Staudenmaier can provide
any evidence I'd be happy to concede that the times
were far more radical than I realized. But in the
complete absence of any evidence for his amazing
fantasies, I'll have to stick with the 60s and 70s I
say with my own eyes. 
Staudenmaier further claims that: “The actual history
of the left includes numerous instances when such
innovative critical approaches emerged to contest the
conformism and repressiveness of the cadre model.” I
bet you can guess by now that he doesn't give even one
example of what he's talking about. What
“numerous...innovative and critical approaches”
advanced the model of anti-authoritarian, anti-statist
self-organization outside of the anarchist milieu?
Looking at the historical record there's not much
evidence for any. Of course, if Staudenmaier actually
means that there were really a few timid criticisms
made of the excesses of leftist organizational
fetishism (let's not be quite so rigid, let's allow
the common people to contribute ideas once in awhile,
let's vote on our party policies) this isn't the same
thing at all as what post-left anarchists argue, and
it would be absurd to think it was. 
Staudenmaier does make one good, though entirely
irrelevant, point in all this. He argues: “some
leftists have been thoughtful and resolute allies of
anarchism at crucial junctures in our history.” But
nobody has claimed otherwise. A few exceptional
leftists—like George Orwell—had some anarchist
sympathies, despite their abhorrence for anarchist
indiscipline, subversion and bad manners. Daniel
Guerin is another example. Nobody has claimed that all
leftists are incapable of working with anarchists,
just that non-anarchist leftists have a significantly
different theory and practice than anarchists that is
basically incompatible with anarchy. This should
really be no surprise. They're just not anarchists. 

Individualist Delusions and Myopic Autonomy 

We get to the heart of one of the biggest differences
between anarchism and leftism when we assess the place
of individuals in communities and in social change.
Anarchists (at least, those anarchists whose anarchism
is stronger than their leftism) generally argue that
free individuals and free communities cannot be
coerced into existence. Leftists argue otherwise.
Anarchists contend that individuals and communities
should be autonomous (self-governing, self-directing)
rather than dependent upon government and the forced
imposition of heteronomous decisions. Leftists, for
the most part, can hardly conceive that people free to
make their own decisions might ever be
socially-conscious, much less able to carry out a
social revolution in the right situation. (This
attitude is exemplified by the infamous Leninist
insistence that workers are only capable of
“trade-union consciousness,” and the corresponding
delusion that only the Leninist party can be
consistently revolutionary.) In fact, for most
socialist and communist leftists (and, unfortunately,
also for many left-anarchists) individualism seems to
be nothing but a dirty word. 
The difference between anarchism and leftism here is
the difference between a specific meaning of the word
“individualism”Note 4 and a specific meaning of the
word “collectivism.”Note 5 Anarchists are all
individualists in the narrow and specific sense of
“...favoring freedom of action for individuals over
collective or state control.” (New Oxford American
Dictionary) Leftists are collectivists in the specific
and narrow sense of favoring “...social organization
in which the individual is seen as being subordinate
to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a
race, or a social class.” (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Left anarchists of various types make a range of
uneasy compromises between these two positions—some
closer to anarchism, some closer to leftism.Note 6
This particular difference between anarchism and
leftism has nothing to do with the various ideologies
of individualism or of individualist anarchism, none
of which have a significant presence within the
contemporary anarchist milieu, anyway. Yet
Staudenmaier objects to my claim that “The anarchist
idea has an indelibly individualist foundation,” by
bringing up the largely irrelevant history of
individualist anarchists despite the fact that in
“Leaving the Left Behind” I nowhere refer to this
history and nowhere defend any ideological
individualism in any form.Note 7 This is another
diversionary tactic. Specifically, it is a
straightforward use of the straw-man fallacy, in which
Staudenmaier argues with a position he's constructed
out of thin air, rather than arguing with the position
that's actually been put forth. To be overly fair,
this is a fairly common tactic used by all sorts of
unscrupulous leftists to attack anyone interested in
individual freedom, which is seen by most leftists as
at best only a bourgeois conceit. This is why almost
all leftists with any remaining semblance of
opposition to capitalism repeatedly denounce anarchism
as merely a form of “bourgeois individualism” or
“petty-bourgeois individualism” or “lumpen
individualism.” But no matter how common it is the
construction of straw-man arguments serves primarily
to reveal the extreme weakness of the positions of
those making them. Straw men are attacked precisely
because leftists are unable to counter the actual
arguments. 
At this point Staudenmaier explains to dubious readers
that the “insistence on individual autonomy” is
“myopic.” Presumably this means that more far-seeing
anarchists will renounce their individual autonomy
(self-direction) in favor of an organizational
ideology and/or organizational directives and/or
democratic majority decisions made somewhere. If there
is another explanation I'd really like to hear it.
After this his argument reverts to the
www.infoshop.org “Anarchy after Leftism” web
discussion. He complains that “several spokespeople
for post-left positions emphatically declared their
opposition to egalitarianism.” No context or
definitions are given by Staudenmaier, though there is
a long history of anarchist critiques of egalitarian
ideologies which aim to level society by force.
(Bakunin's eloquent dictum, “socialism without liberty
is slavery and brutality” comes quickly to mind.)
Staudenmaier further claims that “a number” of these
people “claimed to reject social institutions per se”
though once again refusing to explain or contextualize
these comments. Who are these “spokespeople” and what
did they actually say? Staudenmaier uses these alleged
comments to argue that “Though the promoters of these
notions strenuously deny it, what this attitude
amounts to is a rejection of the very possibility of
communal existence.” But if they so “strenuously deny”
this, couldn't it be that Staudenmaier either
misunderstands their positions, or is taking liberties
with his description of them? We don't known since he
once again refuses to quote or at least cite the
precise location of these alleged comments. 
But, again, what is the point of all this?
Staudenmaier continues to evade the careful critiques
that have appeared in Anarchy magazine and in the IAS
“Theory & Politics” web column by running away to
caricature and denounce some very likely off-hand
comments that most people will never see, that nobody
can check, and whose importance to anything is far
less than clear. 

Abstract and Indeterminate Evasions 

Staudenmaier gets even more clever in his tactics of
evasion when he actually does finally quote a very
short, direct comment from the infoshop.org “Anarchy
after Leftism” web discussion site: “I want to be left
alone.” Although he doesn't indicate where in the vast
discussion this comment was made or who has made it, I
actually recall reading it, and the fact that he
quotes it allows anyone with access to the internet to
search the infoshop.org discussion site for the
comment...and discover immediately that it is taken
out of context and completely falsified by
Staudenmaier's deliberate misinterpretation of it to
mean “free of all the annoying attachments of social
life, without other people interjecting their own
opinions or offering critical comments on each other's
behavior.” But this complete falsification doesn't
keep Staudenmaier from sermonizing about things nobody
would disagree with in the first place. He actually
condescends to argue that “liberatory forms of social
interaction sometimes require us to challenge each
other's opinions and actions rather than just
accepting them....[blah, blah, blah.]” Oh my, please
tell us it's not so! 
But this insipidly intentional misunderstanding by
Staudenmaier gets even worse. As with any effective
sermonizing a devil must be produced, which in this
case is a devious serpent he calls “post-left
repressive tolerance,” whose “deeper implications” he
divines to be “an invitation to intolerance and
parochialism.” My, my, my. So much to divine from so
little (manufactured) evidence! Let's be crystal
clear. Post-left anarchist critiques are based upon
the careful study of world history, including the
history of the left. They are critiques of well over a
hundred years of the whole range of actual, sustained
leftist theories and practices, with all their gory,
too-often totalitarian or just-plain brutal results.
Post-left anarchist critiques do not call for refusing
to learn from history or from the vast experiences of
peoples around the world in revolt. On the contrary,
post-left critiques call for examining and seeking to
understand every significant form of contestation in
which people engage around the world, in every level
of society and in every sphere of life. Constructing a
mythical “post-left repressive tolerance” from an
out-of-context quote that “I want to be left alone” is
simply a breathtaking exercise in bad faith. 
Moving on from this, Staudenmaier hesitates for not
even a second before launching a different—but nearly
as breathtaking—evasion, this time seeking to minimize
into nonexistence the criticisms of leftism (most of
which it is now clear he dare not ever explicitly
acknowledge in any detail) that I make in “Leaving the
Left Behind.” He alleges that I focus my attention “on
the manifold shortcomings of contemporary radical
politics.” (Who would have guessed?) And that I charge
that “leftists have incomplete, self-contradictory
theories about capitalism and social change.” But he
acknowledges this focus and this charge only in order
to dismiss them absolutely from either importance or
consideration by saying simply, “But we all have
these.” Okay! We all have incomplete,
self-contradictory theories. Who cares if some lead to
dictatorship and others lead to incoherence, if some
lead to support for repression and others lead to
support for all forms of contestation? We're all in
the same leftist boat according to Staudenmaier, and I
shouldn't be rocking it. No matter that I have made
detailed and highly specific criticisms of leftism in
my essay. He argues that “Capitalism is a
contradictory system. Revolutionary social change is
an incomplete process. Working through these
contradictions requires close attention to the
concrete determinants of currently prevalent modes of
domination and hierarchy, so that we can create forms
of resistance adequate to the particular demands of
our specific historical and social situation.” Wow. I
guess that means as long as we don't raise any
criticisms of the left, then, everything will be
hunky-dory! As long as we don't do anything rash like
speaking of “a commitment to 'general social revolt,'”
which according to Staudenmaier would “promote the
kind of false generalism that is already rife in North
American anarchist circles,” we'll weather the storm
and all will be well. Staudenmaier says it's alright
if we “learn from the civil rights struggle...or the
strategies pioneered by peasant revolts in the global
south” as long as we don't generalize too much or
criticize the role of the left in these contestations.
Worst of all, anarchists should never even think it is
possible that the anarchist milieu could “stand on its
own and bow to no other movements.” The direct
implication is that unless it subordinates itself to
the left the anarchist movement “will be ill equipped
to engage in this sort of learning process.” The only
thing never explained is what the hell subordinating
anarchism to leftism has to do with any of this at
all—except in his own mind? In this case, too much
abstract and indeterminate evasiveness makes for
absolute incoherence. 

The Obligatory Fascist Smear 

Given the history of Staudenmaier's concerns with the
likelihood that any forms of critical theory and
practice except his own are liable to be co-opted by
fascism, it is unsurprising that he raises the specter
of an alleged post-left anarchist susceptibility to
the allures of this bogeyman. His evidence? He claims
that “A few post-left anarchists go so far as to extol
the right wing tendencies within anarchism as a
healthy corrective to the grave dangers of social
equality and the dastardly connivance of anarchists
and power-mad leftists.” Wow. I'd love to see the
names of these “post-left anarchists,” along with the
wild quotations in prominent places that must have led
to Staudenmaier's unconstrained paraphrasing! Oh, I
almost forgot, that's not how Staudenmaier operates.
But couldn't we at least see some sort of citations
allowing us to find the origin of his accusations? Not
likely. Classified leftist information, I suppose. Not
that it's impossible for people to say such things
(one assumes on the anonymous internet...since they
wouldn't likely get into print anywhere). But given a
lack of citation or direct quotation we're once again
left entirely in the dark, just as Staudenmaier
apparently wants us to be. Were these real comments?
If so were they actually made by anarchists or by
people posing as post-leftists? (The latter is always
possible in the almost completely anonymous and
pseudonymous world of internet discussion
free-for-alls where it's impossible to know who is
really speaking, and where it's fully possible to see
people post the most insane comments under your own
name.) 
What these nasty, unverifiable allegations by
Staudenmaier evade is the incredibly huge, dirty
secret that in historical actuality (as opposed to
leftist fantasy), it was ex-leftists in immense
numbers who helped populate the fascist movements
(which, of course, is not to belittle the many
leftists who never abandoned the anti-fascist struggle
during this time). It certainly wasn't a few
insignificant anarchist critics of the left who helped
push fascism into power. And the reason for the easy
conversion of masses of leftists to fascist and Nazi
causes was that leftism and fascism are similar in so
many more ways than anarchism and fascism are.
National socialism (one form of fascism) substitutes
the nation as the collectivist focus, while
class-struggle socialism and syndicalism center on
class as the collectivist focus around which life is
to be subordinated. Red Fascism (Bolshevism) is a form
of national socialism paradoxically built on an
ideology of class struggle. Left anarchists must deal
with this dirty history of the left straightforwardly
if they want to be taken seriously. Making smears
based on unverifiable allegations, while ignoring the
bulk of actual history, does nothing to enhance the
reputation of left anarchism. 

For a Rational Discussion of Anarchism and the Left 

Seldom have I seen a less direct and more evasive
response to anything in the anarchist milieu than
Staudenmaier's “Anarchists in Wonderland.” But putting
it behind us, where does that leave us? Certainly no
wiser about any intelligent, rational arguments
against post-left critiques, though I, for one, am
certain that such arguments can be made and would
welcome them. To repeat the recommendations in the
editorial of the new Anarchy magazine issue might be
the best place to start. (See www.anarchymag.org for
the entire editorial.) 

“1) Always attack the comments made rather than the
author(s). This is accomplished by avoiding a number
of things, and by accomplishing one simple goal. Avoid
making spurious, irrelevant, or patently false
accusations by sticking resolutely to actual points
made in the words and context in which the author(s)
you want to criticize has actually made them! If you
can't quote the author(s) (without distorting the
context) and address your criticisms directly to the
quoted words, then simply don't comment! (Here I guess
I should add that citations of some sort should be
made when referencing lengthy source documents so that
readers can find what you are talking about to check
on its context and meaning themselves.) 
“2) Refuse straw man arguments. Challenge the actual
meaning of the words you quote by either accepting the
definitions used by the author you want to criticize,
or by making it clear why you think the author's
definitions are so inadequate as to require different
definitions. If you can't find any place where an
author actually has said something you want to
criticize, don't argue that she or he has said it, or
would agree with it, or secretly believes it. If one
person makes a particular statement, this does not
mean that all people you may want to group with that
person agree with that statement. If you want to draw
some logical conclusions from the author's statements
in order to criticize them (or to show that the
statements lead to absurd conclusions), then first run
your alleged logical conclusions by several people to
make sure that your conclusions are more solid than
idiosyncratic, and then be sure to acknowledge that it
is your conclusions that are absurd, and not the
author's. 
“Above all, read any texts you want to criticize with
extreme care. Avoid superficial readings and always
make a conscientiousness effort to understand what is
at stake. If there is something you don't understand,
then simply ask about it before you criticize it.” 

Beyond these points we can also learn from
Staudenmaier's peculiar odyssey into his own little
wonderland: 
1) Argue with your opponents strongest positions. If
you want to criticize Marxism, for example, don't
focus primarily on the words of Stalin's barber. If
you want to criticize anarchism, don't settle for a
criticism of Proudhon's patriarchal attitudes. Going
after irrelevant targets of opportunity is a show of
weakness, never strength. 
2) Try a little turnabout. Would your arguments make
sense to you if someone else turned them on you in
some form? If not, don't use them. 
3) Keep your abstractions grounded with convincing
details, examples, quotations and documentation.
Anyone can construct abstract platitudes. It's what
the abstractions mean for everyday practice that makes
any real difference to people. 


____________________ 
NOTES: 

1) According to the New Oxford American Dictionary
“left wing” is defined as “the liberal, socialist, or
radical section of a political party or system. [with
reference to the National Assembly in France
(1789-91), where the nobles sat to the president's
right and the commons to the left].” “Left” or “the
left” is similarly defined as “a group or party
favoring liberal, socialist, or radical views.” In
common usage in North America the left includes
liberals, socialists, communists and a few other
lesser movements (or remnants of movements, like the
Single-Taxers, Distributivists or Mutualists).
Anarchists are sometimes included and sometimes not,
when they are acknowledged by people to exist at all. 
For an interesting diagram representing the U.S. left
from the perspective of U.S. social democrats see the
“Left-Wing Lingo, Ideologies and History” web site:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/leftling.htm#history
Notably, on this web site anarchists are almost
entirely absent from the picture, with only minor
references to “the anarchist wing of the Left Green
Network (LGN), which is the moribund, left wing of the
Greens USA, associated with Murray Bookchin and the
Institute for Social Ecology,” and the Fifth Estate
(described as “eco-anarchist”). 

2) According to the New Oxford American Dictionary
“cadre” is defined as “a small group of people
specially trained for a particular purpose or
profession” or “a group of activists in a communist or
other revolutionary organization.” And similarly,
according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary “cadre” is
defined as “a nucleus or core group especially of
trained personnel able to assume control and to train
others,” or, “a cell of indoctrinated leaders active
in promoting the interests of a revolutionary party.”
I use the word “cadre” in the sense of a person or
people assimilated into organizations whose ideologies
they have learned and reproduce, and to whose goals
they subordinate their own thinking and activities.
Cadre organizations are quite different from anarchist
organizations, which are based upon critical
self-theory, self-activity and
self-organization—preserving individual and small
group autonomy and refusing to surrender sovereignty
to any group, leadership or temporary majority. 

3) The fact that Richard Gombin employs an
idiosyncratic definition of “leftism” doesn't,
however, lessen the importance of his book as a study
of some of the most important French currents which
attempted to transcend leftism as it is more commonly
defined, which is why C.A.L. Press has long
distributed it. In his book Gombin defines “...leftism
as that segment of the revolutionary movement which
offers, or hopes to offer, a radical alternative to
Marxism-Leninism as a theory of the labour movement
and its development.” (The Origins of Modern Leftism,
p.17) This extremely narrow definition (Gombin is
aware it is unusual, and calls it a “technical”
definition as opposed to what he calls “the generally
accepted, journalist's” definition) would leave out
most of what is commonly considered the left in North
America, and is obviously not what either post-left
anarchists or Staudenmaier have in mind in use of the
term. Staudenmaier's reference to this book and to
Gombin's analysis is obviously meant to mystify, since
he expects that most people reading his essay will not
be familiar with it, and he certainly has no intention
of putting it in any sort of intelligent context. 

4) According to the New Oxford American Dictionary
“individualism” is defined as “the habit or principle
of being independent and self-reliant.” While the
secondary definition is “a social theory favoring
freedom of action for individuals over collective or
state control.” The American Heritage Dictionary
defines “individualism” as “1a. Belief in the primary
importance of the individual and in the virtues of
self-reliance and personal independence. b. Acts or an
act based on this belief. 2a. A doctrine advocating
freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a
person's economic goals. b. A doctrine holding that
the interests of the individual should take precedence
over the interests of the state or social group. 3a.
The quality of being an individual; individuality.”
And according to the Encyclopedia Britannica,
“individualism” is “political and social philosophy
that places high value on the freedom of the
individual and generally stresses the self-directed,
self-contained, and comparatively unrestrained
individual.” 

5) According to the New Oxford American Dictionary
“collectivism” is defined as “the practice or
principle of giving a group priority over each
individual in it.” This is the way most people in the
U.S. will understand the term. The secondary
definition given, one not used in this essay (nor in
“Leaving the Left Behind”), is “the theory and
practice of the ownership of land and the means of
production by the people or the state.” According to
the Encyclopedia Britannica “collectivism” is “any of
several types of social organization in which the
individual is seen as being subordinate to a social
collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a
social class.” 

6) Every major anarchist theorist—Godwin, Stirner,
Proudhon, Bakunin, Guillaume, Kropotkin, Faure,
Malatesta—has strongly defended the goals of
individual freedom and self-realization in ways both
absent from and incompatible with (non-anarchist)
leftism. Only the most rabidly leftist of anarchists
agree with the bulk of left opinion that even Bakunin
or Kropotkin or Malatesta must be denounced for their
lapses into excessive “individualism.” 

7) Perhaps I should have made it absolutely clear that
not only does the anarchist idea have an indelibly
individualist foundation, but that the actual history
of anarchist milieux and movements has been
overwhelmingly socialist or communist as well. I have
to admit that this seems so incredibly self-evident to
me that I never would have imagined Staudenmaier might
in his wildest imagination attempt to claim or imply I
thought otherwise! As anyone who has read Anarchy
magazine for the last twenty years might realize, I've
never propounded an ideology of individualist
anarchism, though I have consistently championed the
importance of Max Stirner's (widely misunderstood)
phenomenological analyses of subjectivity and ideology
for social revolutionary anarchist theory and
practice. (Stirner, by the way, would have been the
first to deny the label of “individualist anarchist”
that so many wish to pin on him.) I've long considered
myself an anti-ideological anarchist first and
foremost—which means that I am both an individualist
and communist in the nonideological meanings of these
terms. Anyone attempting to construct my
anti-political theoretical and practical positions as
being exclusively (not to mention, ideologically)
“individualist” must first selectively ignore, obscure
or deny at least nine-tenths of what I have written
over the last twenty years or so, and then explain how
the other decontextualized ten percent still can make
any sense. In other words, this would be a task of
blatant falsification (not that other Social
Ecologists haven't already proven their adeptness at
this kind of task).

====-------------

Anarchist Discussion Board -- Also for response to KKA, WD and Aporia: http://pub47.ezboard.com/banarchykka


The Killing King Abacus Page: http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus

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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005