Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:24:15 -0800 (PST)
From: villon sasha k <il_frenetico-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Katsiaficas: "Coexistence With Islamic Fundamentalism


Hi all,
  I don't have time to make a long response to this
interesting thread, but perhaps that is for the better
since it seems that there is an identifyible key point
in the discussion.  So instead of responding to every
point I'll comment on a few then go to the main point
of disagreement.


I agree with Shawn that this isn't a disagreement
about whether the west should be able to impose
anything on the rest or about secularism versus
spiritualism/religion.  

This thread started out questioning whether anarchists
should respect Islamic Fundamentalism (I.F.) or not. 
Jason defends Katsiaficas' call to respect I.F. saying
that we don't know much about I.F.  and that we must
repsect difference.   I would say we certainly know
enough about I.F. that we should be critical of it,
that we should not automatically respect it.  Being
critical would involve learning about it (something I
have tried to do).  

I read the Zizek as well (thought it was a very
interesting book).  But I understand it very
differently than Jason does.  I say it as a very
explicit critique of multiculturalist tolerance, a
critique of the kind of politics that Katsiaficas is
showing in his article.

Here I think we begin to get to the heart of the
matter.  I quote Jason:

"since to demand that all resistance
conform to Western standards is to claim that there is
in fact only one way to live, and frankly if you think
this is the case, then like Emma Goldman, I do not
want to live in your world or be a part of your
'revolution' (this is what I meant when I said the
Insurrectionists seem to have little respect for
difference, in other words if your universality is one
that embraces 'true' universality, then my difference
is one that embraces 'true' difference - is there a
meeting place between?? Can not a supposed respect for
difference, a supposed universality that vehemently
effaces any nonsecular discussion as oppressive become
its opposite??)"

Of course, no one here, and I doubt anyone in this
discussion ever, has said that there is only one way
to live.  So who is the "your" in the "your
'revoltuion'"?  YOu suggest it is insurrectionary
anarchists (I.A.).  One of the main points of I.A.
(and I have read a lot of this stuff and written some
as well) is that people will find many ways to live in
a world without capitalism and the state.  This is one
of the main critiques of other anarchisms that I.A.
puts forth; so how is it that you read I.A.s as saying
there would be a singular way to live in the
world?????  That makes no sense at all, and you say
nothing to back it up.  Who "vehemently
effaces any nonsecular discussion"?  KKA had an
article against the idea that the critique of
oppressive aspects of religion had to be for
secularism.  So I would really like to know why you
are pointing fingures at I.A. here.  Why is it that
you see I.A. at odds with a respect for difference? 


As i said earlier, the statement that my universal
value is AN EQUALITY OF ACCESS TO THE CONDITIONS OF
EXISTENCE included the idea that what people do with
that access is up to them and that I assume people
would chose to live in many different ways.  So when
you ask is there any meeting place, I would say, as I
did before, that IN NO WAY DOES THIS UNIVERSALITY MEAN
THAT DIFFERENCES WOULDN'T BE RESPECTED, INFACT, I
WOULD SAY THAT THIS UNIVERSALITY IS THE CONDITION UPON
WHICH DIFFERENCE COULD TRUELY FLURISH.  Without the
condition of equality of access (or justice as some
might call it) difference can easily end up being
oppressive (see Shawn's serial killer example, or much
of islamic fundamentalism).  Difference in and of
itself is not a value.  I think shawn pointed out that
the value you are putting forth is "respect", not
difference.  And that is exactly what Zizek was
attacking as a value in his book on Totalitarianism. 
"respect" alone is not much to build an anti-politics
of anarchism upon.  

Anarchism needs a universal other than simply "respect
of difference."  Especially if the value of "respect
of difference" is primarily based at the level of
cultural blocks (which is usually where it is based,
as it was with the Katsiaficas article).  When I was
in Turkey I.F.s bombed McDonalds with people in it
during Ramadan, when I was in Pakistan I.F.s beat up
women who wouldn't wear head scarfs and keep laws in
place that stated that women could not testify at rape
trial, only men could.  Feminists in Pakistan were
trying to change this law and were criticized as being
unIslamic and Westernized.  In other words, at what
level do we respect difference?  These contradictions
should point to the fact that a value of "respecting
difference" can't be the only basis for anarchism. 

As shawn says: "As i said, "differences differ," as do
forms of "respect
for difference." Your claim that postmodern
capitalism's
"respect" is "limited" is questionable, since,
arguably, 
it is a "purer" form of respect than yours or mine.
But 
that's because anarchy is more than just respect for 
difference or even openness to differance. We wish to
see
cooperation and justice in relations - beyond the
mediation
of "the market." 

I think this is what I was trying to get at earlier,
that capitalism's respect for difference was "purer",
in a sense.  I think part of the problem is that Starr
seems to take the general anti-globalization line that
it is a matter of culture against capitalism (small
versus big, is another way this is often framed).  I
think this is a false dichotomy.  For more on that you
could read my article in the first issue of Hot Tide
on "capitalism and the scale of resistance" (I think
that is what it was called).  find it at
http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/analysis.html .


I would also agree with Shawn that:
"Respect for difference" has to be tempered, for
anarchists,
with our commitments to other projects - freedom,
justice,
etc. And the working-through of those projects
requires
dealing with specifics. I'm not arguing that
differences
need to be "real" is some specific philosophical sense
- 
and certainly not in terms of "essence" (the critique
of
essentialism being one i have repeatedly criticized as
at
least vague). My concern is that "respect for
difference"
alone is all too close to the status quo of postmodern
capitalism."

best,
   sasha
   










---------

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

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! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools