Anarchism and Political Theory: Contemporary Problems – Uri Gordon

189 Pages·2014·0.74 MB·English

Anarchism and Political Theory
ContemporaryProblems
Uri Gordon
2007
Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Introduction 7
ContemporaryAnarchism:Afirstlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
TwoAgendas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
BetweenPhilosophyandParticipatoryResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
PartI.ExplainingAnarchism 25
Chapter1:WhatMovestheMovement? 26
AnarchismasaPoliticalCulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
TheA-word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
FromNetworkstoPoliticalCulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Formsoforganisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Campaigninganddirectactionrepertoires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Discursiveaspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Broaderculturalattributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
TheRoleofIdentity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Old-schoolandNew-school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Chapter2:ThreadsofResistance 45
TracingtheGenealogyofContemporaryAnarchism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
DefeatandStagnation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
AnHaphazardRebirth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
AnInternationalMovement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Chapter3:WhatAnarchistsWant 55
TheLogicofAnti-AuthoritarianPoliticalLanguage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
StruggleAgainstDomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Prefigurativepolitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Open—EndedPolitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2
PartII:AnarchistAnxieties 71
Chapter4:PowerandEquality 72
LeadershipandPowerinAnarchistOrganising,PartOne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
“Butwedon’thaveleaders…” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
FromLeadershiptoPower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Power-overasDomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Power-toandPowerasInfluence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Power-withorpower-among . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Equalityand“ActivistResources” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Chapter5:Power,InvisibilityandSolidarity 91
LeadershipandPowerinAnarchistOrganising,PartTwo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Decentralisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
BetweenEnforcementandCoercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
AnarchismandDemocracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
TheTyrannyofStructurelessnessReconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
TheForumandtheCampfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
PowerandSolidarity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Chapter6:Beyond“DiversityofTactics” 111
Re-assessingtheAnarchistDebateonViolence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
ContextualisingthePresentDebate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
MessyDefinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
LimitstoJustification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Empowerment,RevengeandArmedStruggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Chapter7:LudditesandHackers 133
DefiningaBroad-BasedAnarchistPoliticsofTechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
AnarchistsandTechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
DominationandtheTechnologicalComplex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
AnarchistConcerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
TheCaseofNanotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
ActualisingtheCritique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Luddism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Hacking,CrackingandE-Piracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
RevivingCreativity,Lo-Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Chapter8:UnholyLand 156
Anarchism,NationalismandIsraeli-PalestinianPeace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
AnarchismandNationalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
“Supporting”Statehood? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
ThreeThreadsofIntervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
LinkingIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
3
Non-violentDirectAction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
GrassrootsPeace-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Conclusion 172
References 175
4
Formyparents,ShifraandZe’evandinmemoryofYosefGordon(1920–2005)
Abstract
This thesis explores contemporary anarchism, in its re-emergence as a social movement and
political theory over the past decade. The methodology used combines participatory research
andphilosophicalargumentation.
Thefirstpart,“ExplainingAnarchism”,arguesthatitshouldbeaddressedprimarilyasapolit-
icalculture,withdistinctformsoforganisation,campaigninganddirectactionrepertoires,and
politicaldiscourseandideology.Largelydiscontinuouswiththehistoricalworkers’andpeasants’
anarchist movement, contemporary anarchism has come together in the intersection of radical
direct-action movements in the North since the 1960s: feminism, ecology and resistance to nu-
clear energy and weapons, war and neoliberal globalisation. Anarchist ideological discourse is
analysedwithattentiontokeyconceptssuchas“domination”and“prefigurativepolitics”,with
attentiontotheavowedlyopen-ended,experimentalnatureoftheanarchistproject.
Thesecondpart,“AnarchistAnxieties”,isasetoftheoreticalinterventionsinfourmajortop-
icsofcontroversyinanarchism.Leadershipinanarchistpoliticsisaddressedthroughsustained
attentiontotheconceptofpower,proposinganagendaforequalisingaccesstoinfluenceamong
activists, and an “ethic of solidarity” around the wielding of non-coercive power. Violence is
approached through a recipient-based definition of the concept, exploring the limits of any at-
tempttojustifyviolenceandofferingobservationsonviolentempowerment,revengeandarmed
struggle.Technologyissubjecttoastronganarchistcritique,whichstressesitsinherentlysocial
nature, leading to the exploration of Luddism, the disillusioned use of ICTs, and the promotion
oflo-tech,sustainablehuman-natureinterfacesasstrategicaldirectionsforananarchistpolitics
of technology. Finally, questions of nationalism are approached through the lens of the Israeli-
Palestinianconflict,addressinganarchistdilemmasaroundstatehood,andexploringapproaches
to “national conflicts” that link multiple forms of oppression and that employ a direct action
approachtopeacemaking.
Acknowledgements
Myfirstandforemostdebtistomysupervisor,MichaelFreeden,withoutwhosesupportand
guidance this thesis would have never been possible. In his patient yet uncompromising way,
Michael has provided a great deal of perspective, insight and criticism which were invaluable
throughoutmywork.
David Miller and Elizabeth Frazer read drafts of four of the chapters in this dissertation and
offeredimportantsuggestions.KatherineMorris,mycollegeadvisor,wasalsoofgreathelpand
supportduringthedifficultandanxiousprocessofwriting.
Somanyindividualcomradesandcolleagueshavecontributedtothisthesiswithoutreading
mywrittenworkthatIcouldnevermentionsomewithoutdoinginjusticetoothers.Ifyou,reader,
have ever exchanged ideas with me in conversation, then something of the following pages is
yours,asismyheartfeltthanks.
During research for this thesis I have enjoyed the hospitality of several infospaces and col-
lective houses, whose living example of “anarchy in action” will always be remembered: Can
5
Masdeu (Barcelona), Centre Autonome (Lausanne), Cecco Rivolta (Firenze), CIA (Amsterdam),
Equinox(Manchester)Eurodusnie(Leiden),FortePrenestino(Roma),LesNaus(Barcelona),Les
Tanneries (Dijon), Le Tour (Geneve), Ragman’s Lane (Wye Valley) Salon Mazal (Tel Aviv) and
Talamh(Lanarkshire).
Finally,myparents,Ze’evandShifra,mysisters,NoaandIf’at,andmypartner,LucyMichaels,
havebeenthereformethroughout,tooffertheirunconditionalsupport.ItistothemthatIam
ultimatelyindebted.
6
Introduction
Stirling, Scotland — July 6 2005 — 4AM. From the temporary “Hori-Zone” eco-village, where
anti-G8 activists have been camping for the past week, a mass exodus is in progress. In small
groups,thousandsofpeopletrekthroughfieldsandhills,makingtheirwaytotheM9motorway.
Itisstilldarkwhenscoresofmeninblackriotgearemergeoutofpolicevanstosurroundtheeco-
village,butmostofitsinhabitantshavealreadymadeittothetarmac—nowdraggingbranches
and bricks onto the road or staging mass sitdowns. The intention: to block delegates, staff and
workers from arriving at the prestigious Gleneagles hotel, the G8 summit venue. Meanwhile,
emerging from within the camp, a remaining five hundred protesters begin pushing their way
throughonepolicelineafteranother,ontheirwaytothemotorway.Someusea“batteringram”
madeoflargeinflatedtyre-liners.Othersconvincelinesofriotpolicetoretreatbypeltingstones
at their large transparent plastic shields. As reinforcements rush to the scene, the celebratory
defacement of corporate retail outlets quickly ends in favour of a rush to the motorway. Then
news arrives that the railway approach to Gleneagles has been disabled — the tracks raised off
thegroundwithacompressor,tyressetaflameaswarning.
Meanwhile on the M9, police remove one group of protesters from the motorway, only to
have another group blockade it a few hundred metres down. At that point, all access roads to
Gleneagles from the north and southeast are simultaneously blockaded by six affinity groups,
targetingthemostobviouspressure-pointsfortransport.ThereisnoexitfromPerthorCrieff,and
AmericanandJapanesedelegatesareforcedtoturnbackatKinkellBridgeandYettso’Muckhart.
Small groups of people, who have been lying low near their targets overnight, now lie on the
tarmaclinkedthroughmetalarm-tubes,orattachedtoanobstructingvehicle.Tacticsdeveloped
through two decades of anti-roads protests and resistance to forest clearing are now creating
long queues of vehicles around Scotland delaying the start of the meeting of the leaders of the
sevenmostindustrialisednationsoftheworldandRussia.
Aleafletdistributedearlierthatweekatthe“MakePovertyHistory”marchinEdinburgh,its
textreproducedhere,explainstheblockaders’motivations:
MakeHistory:ShutDowntheG8
The G8 have shown time and time again that they are unable to do anything but
furtherthedestructionofthisworldweallshare.CanwereallybelievethattheG8
will“MakePovertyHistory”whentheironlyresponseistocontinuetheircolonial
pillageofAfricathroughcorporateprivatisation?Canweexpectthemtotacklecli-
mate change when whether or not it is a serious problem is up for debate, as their
ownleakeddocumentsshow?Marchingisonlythefirststep.
Moreisneededasmarchesareoftenignored:thinkbacktothemegamarchesagainst
theIraqwar.TheG8needtobegivenamessagetheycan’tignore.Theycan’tignore
usblockingtheroadstotheirgolfcourse,disruptingtheirmeetingandsayingwith
ourbodieswhatwebelievein—abetterworld.However,wedon’tneedtoaskthe
7
G8tocreateabetterworld.Wecanstartrightnow,forexample,withthousandsof
peopleconvergingtogethertodemonstratepracticalsolutionstoglobalproblemsin
aneco-villageofftheroadtoGleneagles—basedonco-operationandrespectforthe
planet.
Startingtodaywecantakeresponsibilityforouractionsandtheworldwewillinherit
tomorrow.Wecanallmakehistory.
TheG8blockadesrepresentonlythemostovertmanifestationofamuchwiderphenomenon.
Thelastdecade,thisthesisargues,hasseenthefull-blownresurrectionofanarchism,asarecog-
nisable social movement in its own right, with a scale, unity and diversity unseen since the
1930s. Contemporary anarchist politics represents an intriguing site of praxis and articulation.
Anarchistsarecomingtodefinedistinctculturalcodesofpoliticalinteractionandexpression,in
thebroaderpolitybutnolesssointheirownorganisingandhumanrelations.Thesiteinwhich
thesecodesarereproduced,exchangedandundergomutationandcriticalreflectionisthelocus
ofanarchismasamovement—acontextinwhichmanyveryactivepoliticalsubjectscansaythe
word “we” and understand roughly the same thing — a collective identity constructed around an
affirmedcommonpathofthinkinganddoing.Anarchistsarealsopossessedofarapidlyevolving
conceptual ensemble for explaining their politics to themselves and to others, one which is nu-
ancedand,initsownway,coherent—whileleavingagreatdealofroomfordisagreementand
indiscipline. Nonetheless, contemporary anarchism has received very scant academic attention
—ahandfulofpapers,oneortwoanthologies,andseveralrecent,unpublisheddoctoraldisserta-
tions.Thisestablishesthespaceforabroad,exploratorystudyofcontemporaryanarchism—as
amovement,culture,ideologyandtheory—elementswhichareinseparable.
This introduction begins by briefly spelling out some of the baseline understandings about
contemporaryanarchismsuggestedinthethesis,allofwhichwillbeelaboratedandsupportedin
thecomingchapters.Thediscussionofmethodologicalissuesistheninitiated,bypresentingthe
relationship between the tworesearch agendas informing the present study — an investigation
ofanarchismasamovement(withitspoliticalculture,historyandideology)andinterventionsin
anarchistpoliticaltheory.Third,Ielaboratethemethodologicalapproachbymakingthecasefor
anintegrationofengaged,participatoryresearchmethodswithpoliticaltheory.Ifinallyreview
the concrete research stages undertaken, and discuss the issues of reliability, engagement and
scholarlydistanceraisedbyactivistscholarship.
Contemporary Anarchism: A first look
Thecontemporaryanarchistmovementis“new”inthekeysensethatitdoesnotformaconti-
nuitywiththeworkers’andpeasants’anarchistmovementofthenineteenthandearlytwentieth
centuries — which met its demise under European Bolshevism and Fascism and the American
RedScare.Rather,itrepresentstherevivalofanarchistpoliticsoverthepastdecadeintheinter-
section of several other movements, including radical ecology, feminism, black and indigenous
liberation,anti-nuclearmovementsand,mostrecently,resistancetoneoliberalcapitalismandthe
“globalpermanentwar”.Becauseofitshybridgenealogy,anarchismintheageofglobalisationis
averyfluidanddiversemovement,evolvinginarapidly-shiftinglandscapeofsocialcontention.
The architecture of today’s anarchist movement can be described as a decentralised network
of communication, coordination and mutual support among autonomous nodes of social strug-
8
gle. Lacking any one centre or permanent channels of interaction, this architecture has been
likenedtothatofa“rhizome”—thestemless,bulbousroot-massofplantslikepotatoorbamboo
— a structure based on principles of connection, heterogeneity, multiplicity and non-linearity
(Cleaver 1998, Sheller 2000, Adams 2002a, Chesters 2003, Jeppesen 2004a. The metaphor is bor-
rowedfromthediscussionofknowledgeinDeleuzeandGuattari1987:7–13).
What animates these rhizomatic networks, and infuses them with content, is anarchism as a
political culture, a shared orientation towards ways of “doing politics” that is manifest in com-
monformsoforganisation(anti-authoritarian,non-hierarchical,consensus-based);inacommon
repertoire of political expression (direct action, constructing alternatives, community outreach,
confrontation); in a common discourse (keywords, narratives, arguments and myths); and in
morebroadly“cultural”sharedfeatures(dress,music,diet).
Implicitinalltheculturalcodespropellinganarchistactivityarethemoreabstract“political”
statementsofanarchism.Thesearealsoframedexplicitlyinrepresentativeartefactsofthemove-
ment’s political language, such as the “hallmarks” or “principles of unity” that activist groups
employ, which form the basis for an ideological analysis of anarchism. These statements gener-
allyemphasisetwothemes.First,arejectionof“allformsofdomination”,aphraseencapsulating
themanifoldsocialinstitutionsanddynamics–mostaspectsofmodernsociety,infact–which
anarchists seek to uncover, challenge, erode, perhaps overthrow. It is this generalisation of the
target of revolutionary struggle from “state and capital” to “domination” that most distinctly
drawscontemporaryanarchismapartfromitsearliergenerations.Second,wefindreferencesto
anethosof“prefigurativepolitics”wherebyliberatoryaspirationsaretobeactivated“inwardly”
inthemovement’severydaypraxis.Reflectingthedo-it-yourselfapproachanimatinganarchists’
action repertoires, the ethos of prefigurative politics thus combines both dual power strategies
(buildinggrassrootsalternativesthatareto“hollowout”capitalism),andthestressonrealising
libertarianandegalitariansocialrelationswithinthefoldofthemovementitself.
Whatanarchistideologicalexpressionoverwhelminglylacks,ontheotherhand,aredetailed
prognosticstatementsonadesiredfuturesociety.Thisdoesnotmeanthatanarchismismerely
destructive, but that its constructive aspects are expected to be articulated in the present-tense
experimentation of prefigurative politics – not as an apriori position. This lends anarchism a
stronglyopen-endeddimension,wherebyiteschewsanynotionofa“post-revolutionaryresting
point”.Instead,anarchistshavecometotransposetheirnotionofsocialrevolutiontothepresent-
tense. Non-hierarchical, anarchic modes of interaction are no longer seen as features on which
to model a future society, but rather as an ever-present potential of social interaction here and
now–a“revolutionineverydaylife”(Vaneigem2001/1967).
Whiletheforegoingpointsrepresentthebroadconsensusatthebackofanarchistorganising,
themovementhasalsobeenthesiteofagreatdealofintrospectivedebates,dilemmasandcon-
troversies. The most prominent and recalcitrant among these are discussions around “internal
hierarchies” or “leadership” in the movement; debates on the definition, justification and effec-
tivenessofviolence;onanarchistpositionsaroundtechnologyandmodernity;andanemerging
set of dilemmas around international solidarity and support for the “national liberation” strug-
glesofpeoplesinthemajorityworld.Whereastheinvestigationofanarchistpoliticalcultureand
itsideationalcomponentsisaninterpretativetaskofclarification,thedebatesandcontroversies
justmentionedcallforamoreinterventionistapproach,locatedintheenterpriseofdeveloping
anarchistpoliticaltheory.
9
Two Agendas
Thepresentthesis,then,ismotivatedbytwolinkedresearchagendas:
1. Thestudyofaparticularpoliticalculture
2. Interventionsinaparticulargenreofpoliticaltheory
Thesetaketurnsinthefrontseatineachpartofthethesis.Beyondthepossibilitiesandchal-
lenges of each separate agenda, it is argued that that the two are not only complementary but
inseparable.Letmefirstsaysomethingabouteach.
The first agenda is inquisitive and exploratory, and involves making sense of contemporary
anarchismasapoliticalphenomenon.Suchanenterpriseessentiallysetsouttoprovideananal-
ysisoftheanarchistmovementinitsvariousaspects,suggestingatheoreticalworkingenviron-
mentinwhichintelligentconnectionscanbemadeamongitsmanydifferentmanifestations.Key
tasksinthisrespectarea)enrichingouranalysisofthemovement’snetworkarchitecture,ofthe
networks’constituentnodes,andoftheculturallogicsthatanimatethem;b)suggestingarecon-
structionofthemovement’srecentgenealogyandsourcesofinfluence,aswellasitsrelationship
with the “historical” anarchist movement; and c) making sense of the way in which anarchists
makesenseofthemselves:mappingtheideologicalworldwhichanarchistscreateandreproduce,
andtheepistemologiesthattheygenerateinthecourseofpoliticalengagement.Thesetopicsare
examined,inturn,inthefirstthreechaptersofthethesis.
The second agenda involves a more sustained concern with the topics of anarchist debate
and controversy mentioned above. In addressing these, the first task is one of disentangling –
differentiatingbetweendifferentaspectsofadiscussion,identifyingpatternswherebyspeakers
tendtoargueatcross-purposes,pointingtoconfusedusesofthesameconceptindifferentsenses,
andputtingthefingeronquestionswhicharethemostrelevantandmeaningfully-debatableones.
Fromthisfollowsthesecondtask,whichistosuggestdirectionsforthereconstructionofcertain
debates,formulatesubstantiveargumentsofmyown,andaskwhetherandhowtheconclusions
canbeseentofilterbackintoanarchism’sculturalcodes.Thefivechaptersinthesecondpartof
thethesisarestructuredaroundtheseefforts,onethemeatatime.
Presented in this way, there are two directions in which the relationship among these two
agendascanbeseentoproceed.Oneistoviewthesecondagendaasapossibleextensionofthe
first one. The interest in anarchism remains driven by exploratory curiosity, but is allowed to
spilloverintotherealmofconceptualargumentation.Theanarchistmovement,onthisreading,
is to be recognised as one of the many grassroots settings in which political thinking – indeed,
politicaltheorising–takesplace.Asaresult,anarchistdebatesandcontroversiesonaparticular
themeareapproachedwithattentiontotheconceptualtensionsandreconfigurationsthatthey
express,inordertounlockimportantprocessesofpoliticalthinkingastheyunfoldinthehyper-
modernpublicsphere.Havingestablishedanunderstandingoftheculturallogicsatworkwithin
thecontemporaryanarchistmovement,wemayfurtherundertakeanexerciseinpoliticaldebate
fromananarchistperspectiveinordertofollowhowactivists’ideasareexpressed,transmitted
andreformulatedthroughcontinuousprocessofdiscursiveexchange.
More broadly, the political culture / political theory nexus suggested here can be seen as a
sample of a more broadly proposed corrective to much of the accepted methodological corpus
ofacademicpoliticaltheory.Suchaperspectivesuggeststhatpoliticalreasoningmusttakeinto
10