Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:24:33 -0800 (PST)
From: villon sasha k <il_frenetico-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Katsiaficas: "Coexistence With Islamic Fundamentalism?"


The criticism that anarchism is contradictory because
it is intolerant of intolerance, or that it is
fundamentalist in its rejection of fundamentalism is
quite common.  But it completely misunderstands what
anarchism is.  Simply being against all fundamentalism
is a pretty weak principle to base one’s anti-politics
upon.  It is very abstract and, I would argue, mostly
meaningless.  Anarchism needs to be based on some sort
of universal to have any radical content.  I would say
this universal is the equality of access to the
conditions of our existence.  Most fundamentalisms, of
course, do not allow such equality of access; thus,
anarchists stand against such fundamentalists, Islamic
fundamentalism included.  
 	
To say that we should respect difference and not be
against Islamic fundamentalism is a pretty weak
position.  First, what categories of difference are
being respected here?  It seems that cultural
categories take precedence: we respect the difference
between cultures, between Islam and the west, for
example.  But in so doing we have taken part in the
maintenance and strengthening of cultural boundaries
that block horizontal linkages.  Do we not stand with
those who are oppressed under Islamic fundamentalism? 
Those who are struggling against it from within?  If
we do then, we are against Islamic fundamentalism, not
because we are fundamentalists, but because we are
universalists.  

And, that katsiaficas could be interpreted as
multiculturalist should make us question his position,
not support it.  Multiculturalism is a favorite of the
TNCs; it fits very well with late capitalist
marketing.  Multiculturalism is a weak, liberal
tolerance of repression.
  
Sure, Islamic Fundamentalism has some anti-capitalist
content (as does most third-world national liberation
movements).   The problem is that such content has
been trapped within a very limiting form.  Instead of
allying ourselves with that limited form of struggle
(an all or nothing stance based on the idea that
nationalities or cultures are privileged and
unquestionable blocks), we need to be a bit more
nuanced and look for the lines of rupture within these
“blocks” that push the limits of its form, that push
to break out of these limits.  Just being tolerant of
fundamentalism because it opperates in another culture
is a very weak and lazy position.

Where Jesse says "it is our duty oppose all
fundamentalsts", nomad responds "this statement to me
sounds fundementalist and dogmatic,who am i to tell
people what their duty is?"  To me, it seemed that
jesse was talking about what anarchists should do
under particular circumstances.  Should anarchists not
be allowed to discuss what they think anarchists
should do???  This is taking anti-authoritarianism to
such an absurd level.  Anarchists seem more worried
about smashing the use of the word "should" than they
do about smashing capitalism!

best,
 sasha

none none writes:
>"it is our duty oppose all fundamentalsts" this
statement to me sounds fundementalist and dogmatic,who
am i to tell people what their duty is? and what is
fundalmantalism?how can we call people that we barely
understand that?isnt that the states job?you miss the
point i see with this statement of what katsiaficas is
saying,he pointing to a "diffrance" and is could be
interpeted as being "multicultural"what ever that
means im not sure-nomad


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

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!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html