Excellent!  I look forward to printing this out at work tomorrow.  I wonder if Bob ever approached Feral House about publishing this?

An irrelevant asshole writes a book lambasting a dead, irrelevant asshole. I'm so excited.

Then do us a favor and just ignore it instead of treating us to your personal irrelevancies. There's no need for you to add absolutely nothing to any possible discussion.

Really? A new book by Bob Black that deals with Murray Bookchin?

Sounds totally irrelevant to anything happening in the world today.

Black is still a jackass and his behavior towards other anarchists is indefensible.

Chuck0

I'm disappointed in you, Chuck0, for a couple of reasons.  First of all, whether or not Bob Black is an asshole who has behaved badly towards other anarchists is totally irrelevant.  The question is, does he have anything to say in this book that is worth reading?  Secondly, it doesn't sound like you have even glanced at Nightmares of Reason, so what are you basing your judgement on?  I haven't gone into it deeply yet, but I can already tell that he is using a critique of Bookchin only as a basis for a much larger discussion of anarchist theory in general. 

I'm sure I will have much more to say about all this after I finish reading Black's piece.

When it comes to Bob Black, I choose to start with his history of behavior against other anarchists. Let's face it, Black is the Brandon Darby of anarchist writers. I'm sick and tired of so-called anarchists who excuse his behavior, minimize his behavior, or attack those who call Black to accountability. As a person, I simply find Black's behavior to be abohorrent. That people consider him to be an anarchist of any kind is bizarre to me.

I have no interest or intention of reading this book.

Chuck0

I'm not attacking you, Chuck0, nor am I trying to excuse, ignore, or minimize any of Bob Black's "behavior".  I am simply saying that the issue is irrelevant in terms of judging the quality of his writing, or its importance to anarchists.  If you choose to stay out of that discussion, then so be it.

I remember "Green Anarchy" used to have to give out free copies of "Anarchy After Leftism" with every purchase.

Interesting title. Boring book.

Here are the main lines of attack when you don't like something but are wholly incapable of generating any kind of coherent argument:

1. Say it is unoriginal.

2. Say you perhaps agree with the goals but not with the methods.

3. Say the author is an impossible (or reprehensible or dangerous...) person.

4. Say the author is a liar.

5. Say the subject is dated and/or boring.

All of these positions derive from a posture of moral superiority and detached purity, and are unworthy of any actual anarchist who is committed to honest discussion, good faith argumentation, and reasoned analyses and conclusions.

The anarchist critique of the ideology of Progress and Telos did not begin with Bookchin's paeans to World Historical Forces; the anarchist critique of electoralism and democracy did not being with Bookchin's praises of the New England Town Hall Meeting; the anarchist critique of Marxism did not begin with Bookchin's maudlin nostalgia for "The Left that Was" and his support of the Sandinistas; the anarchist critique of the crushing of the individual did not begin with Bookchin's demeted category of "lifestylist"...

Murray Bookchin Thought just happens to be a convenient foil to use in demolishing those phenonema since he embodies all of them in one package.

Those (and a few other) topics remain critical points of contention among anarchists and between anarchists and other folks who say they're for revolution. Sharp, honest, and biting critiques are necessary for as long as these tensions are not resolved, and for as long as Bookchin is cited as a relevant anarchist writer. Critiques of Proudhon and the other Big Men (and a few women) are no less necessary. Critical (re)appraisals of our intellectual forebears is an important aspect of moving through history without needing to reinvent the wheel in every generation -- no matter how many intellectually lazy anarchists insist otherwise.

I suppose we part ways at this being worthwhile of discussion.

Me thinking the book was boring was not a pro-Bookchin response.

I do not see Bookchin nor Bob Black's books to be topics that anyone around me, radical or especially otherwise, to "remain critical points of contention among anarchists and between anarchists and other folks who say they're for revolution."

"Sharp, honest, and biting critiques are necessary" - I agree whole-heartedly. 

"for as long as these tensions are not resolved, and for as long as Bookchin is cited as a relevant anarchist writer."

Well, there are a lot of people who are claimed to being 'relevant anarchist writers' that I definitely agree do not help with the project of changing our material conditions. And, might I also refer to other points of social media, such as youtube, where, if one we're to type in "anarchism" in the search engine, one might take a while to find anything that I find worth while in the discussion of anarchy/anarchism - in furtherance of us "getting power". 

So, if you are in the project of tearing down not-worthwhile 'anarchist' authors, then I get it. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

I've read many of Bookchin and Black's books and writings. I'm pretty well-versed in this particular debate, having followed it on websites, magazines and forums for years. I've had numerous discussions on the controversy, including with people who are in the middle of it.

My take on this whole thing as being outdated, irrelevant and meaningless is an honest intllectual take on this topic. This obsession with obscure conflicts between anarchist writers is representative of the anarchist movement of the late 20th century. Most of us familair with the debate have moved on. The younger and newer folks are probably mystified as to why this stuff still generates debate. But if people want to pulish books and fill magazines with this crap, they are free to do so. It's just that nobody else really cares.

Chuck0

You should really use "I" sentences as conclusions too. It's not that "nobody" is interested; it's you. Stay uninterested then, and ignore it instead of rambling on and on about how uninteresting, outdated, and irrelevant it all is. See my numbered points above (specifically where I mention that saying "it's boring" is no substitute for being capable of generating a coherent argument). For all the intellectual analysis you've supposedly undertaken, you've never shared any of it with the rest of us. Your intellectual conclusion seems to be the verbal equivalent of throwing up your hands in despair, which is hardly convincing. It's too bad that you and others who find the Black/Bookchin debates to be irrelevant can't see the larger philosophical and political issues involved. It reminds me of those who say that the fights between Marx and Bakunin during the First International are outdated or irrelevant because it was just two old dudes yelling at each other. There were real issues that started those fights and they never got resolved; Marxists and anarchists continue to fight about them. The debates around Bookchin have to do with his general retreat from anarchist principles, a creeping reformism, and an ultimate rejection of anarchism -- all the while preseting himself as the only real anarchist on the planet. That's too fishy to ignore. But you go ahead and find it boring. Just do me a favor and stay out of it.

The only rambling here come from Black and those who think this crap is interesting. It'sa  pretty safe bet that the vast majority of anarchists don't care about the Black-Bookchin thing, even if they are aware about it. From my experience talking with anarchists over the years, they have little interest in this controversy and don't understand why a certain group of anarchists are so precoccupied with it. Most people can't get past the fact that Bob Black is a douchebag and an extremely poor example of an anarchist, if not a human being. Normally, I would argue that a person's ideas should be addressed despite their character issues, but with Bob Black, you just can't get beyond his character issues.

It just represents poor thinking to want a discussion of these political and philosophical issues with Black's writing being the vehicle. It's kind of like anarchists with poor tactical and strategy skills who keep beating the black bloc tacic to death. There are so many tools in the toolbox, why not use those, instead of centering the discussion around a person like Black?

People are already addressing these various political and philsophical issues through the anarchist media.

Chuck0

Chuck0, if you think that this book is about nothing more than "obscure conflicts between anarchist writers", then you are really missing the point. In the first section, "A Word from the Author", Black says the following:

More or less unexpectedly, this book gave me the opportunity to develop my own ideas,some of which find their first or fullest expression here, and influence my future direction. This is where I came to the conclusion that the rejection of democracy is the most important task for contemporary anarchists.

In Chapter One, he goes on to say this: 

For over ten years I have relentlessly pursued a single goal: “Through my satire I make unimportant people big so that later they are worthy targets of my satire, and no one can reproach me any longer” (Karl Kraus). For it ought not to be “rashly assumed that those attacked by a respectable philosopher must themselves be philosophically respectable.” I can at least say, as did one of my reviewers, that what was a joy to write is a joy to read.¹ This book should be interesting, if it is interesting at all (and it is), almost as much to those who are unfamiliar with Bookchin as to those who are. It should satisfy those readers who, pleased as they are with the rebuttal of SALA [Social Anarchism vs. Lifestyle Anarchism], wish I had elaborated the critique of libertarian municipalism and other Bookchin dogmas.¹¹ It is an expose, at once entertaining and informative, whose hapless subject is merely a pretext for me to show off. My method is no more original than my message. I cribbed it from Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain and Karl Kraus.

So, as much as Bob Black enjoys skewering Bookchin yet again, Nightmares of Reason also contains important discussions of anarchism, democracy, libertarian municipalism, "lifestyle anarchism", primitivism, etc. I would also like to add that it is a pleasure to read a contemporary anarchist writer who does so much research, and makes such good use of footnotes.

Leaving aside Bob Black's irrational obsession with Murray Bookchin, Black hasn't had anything interesting to say in at least 10 years.

There are dozens of anarchist writers out there who are far more interesting than Bob Black. It saddens me that old friends continue to think that the Black-Bookchin thing is interesting or relevant.

And many people can't get past Black's history of behaviors against other anarchists. The final straw for me was Black's abhorrent attack on Ramsey Kanaan. And I know about shit Black did in his past that most people don't even know about. It really bothers the hell out of me that people I respect continue to excuse Black.

Chuck0

Well, then, if, as you say, Black hasn't had anything interesting to say in ten years, then you have no excuse for not reading this book, as it was written thirteen years ago.  Alternatively, you could just stop posting in this thread, since you are just repeating yourself, and trying to make your refusal to engage in an intelligent discussion about this author's work sound like a virtue.

You've demonstrated my point. If this book was written 13 years ago, then not only does it rehash controversies nobody cares about, but it shows that there has been no demand or interest in Black's writings in the past decade. There is nothing stopping Black from having started a blog to feature his new writing. Does he have anything new to say? Doesn't sound like it. There are lots of anarchist writers out there saying more interesting things and they aren't going around trying to get other anarchists deported.

Chuck0

Mark Twain's autobiography is being published for the first time next month, one hundred years after the author's death, and I suspect quite a few people will be interested in reading it.  Not that Black can be compared to a great writer like Twain, but the issues such as primitivism, democracy, and "lifestyle anarchism" that he discusses in Nightmares of Reason are just as relevant to anarchists today as they were in 1997.  Of course, you wouldn't know that, since you haven't read any of it.

Bob Black is no Mark Twain. I knew Mark Twain...

The issues of primitivism and lifestyle anarchism aren't on the table anymore when it comes to topics that anarchists discuss these days. The amount of publishing from primitivists have dropped to zero. I don't see any other writers talking about primitivism, other than the usual suspects. Lifestyle anarchism is an even more dead topic.

Do you understand what I'm talking about? The U.S. anarchist movement before the Seattle anti-WTO protests was still a movement that was dominated by these controversies. The Black-Bookchin debate was like a big fish in a small pond. The anarchist pond has turned into a small lake. The movement has changed a lot since 1999 and there is another generation of writers that are writing all kinds of interesting things about anarchism, politics, culture and so on.

Black used to be interesting in part because he was shocking and provocative. His old act is quaintly antiquated in this era of Internet forums and list flame wars. You can go to any dozen of anarchist forums today and find more provocative statements posted in one day than Black wrote in any of his books.

But if you want to read and discuss this book, knock yourself out. I'm not that interested and I'll stop posting in this thread.

Chuck0

Move along folks; nothing to see here...

Yeah, nobody pays any attention to "lifestylism" anymore. That's why discussion boards like Anarchist Black Cat and LibCom are littered with people using that epithet for anyone they disagree with -- which is exactly what Bookchin created it for, like when Stalinists or Trotsyists call their enemies "fascists."

Yeah, nobody pays any attention to Bookchin's "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism" anymore. That's why it's cited positively in Mark Leier's bio of Bakunin (2006) and in a recent essay in "Upping the Anti" (2010). As if Bookchin's demented arguments hadn't been demolished by Black, Watson, Clark, et al in the meantime.

What does this remind me of? Back in 1970 some vaguardist creep wrote this essay called "The Tyranny of Structurelessness," and it was all the rage among a certain kind of feminist (the pro-statist authoritarian kind). It was responded to by an anarcha-feminist and some radical anti-state communists, who definitively demolished it as a screed that attempted to get an entire generation of American feminists to be shills for the Democratic Party (which is precisely its legacy). Fast forward almost three decades, and this text written by an anti-anarchist gets resurrected by a certain kind of anarchist as a justification for cadre-based, supposedly anarchist, formal membership organizations. But wait a minute! Weren't Freeman's arguments and analyses effectively demolished by her contemporaries back in 1971? Yes; so what happened?

Lazy and/or dishonest anarchists found her arguments about "informal leadership" compelling enough to reprint her essay approvingly despite her own history as a vanguardist leftist turned shill for the Democrats. As if there had been no contemporary anarchist/radical demolition of her screed. Or maybe they didn't know about Freeman or the response, or maybe they didn't care. The point was to turn a semi-famous document to their own use. This is what has happened to Bookchin's anti-anarchist screed: it has taken on some kind of life of its own, divorced from Libertarian Municipalists and Social Ecologists, let alone those who ripped it to shreds. When anarchists (and other radicals) stop their approving citiations of material written by Bookchin during his anti-anarchist phase (1995 until his death), then those of us who question his place among respected anarchist philosophers will stop complaining about his bad faith and dishonesty.

After that, if someone tries to resurrect them, then those of us with long memories will have a ready supply of counter-arguments written contemoraneously to use against them.

Those two citations I came across are random ones that I just happen to remember from the past four years from very divergent sources; I'm certain there are many others. Chuck, you need to use more "I" phrases and stop pretending to speak for so many other anarchists. It is just possible that you do not have your finger on the pulse of North American anarchism.

Does anyone discern a defense of Black in this or my previous posts? That's called a red herring Chuck, and is both transparent and undignified.

You may not have defended Black specifically in this thread, but I'll stick with my criticisms that there are certain people who provide cover for Bob Black.

Like many people, I think Black is a snitch.

I think I have a pretty good take on the pulse of North American anarchism, if not anarchism around the planet. After all, I do run the most popular English language anarchist news and information website. I don't spend very little time on anarchist forums. Perhaps people throw around lifestyle anarchist as an epthet. So what? How dod we know that it isn't the same batch of obsessed sectarians who troll multiple sites? And this example undermines your argument that there is substantial intellectual interest in these topics. First you upbraid me for not providing you with a 40-page criticism of Bob Black with footnotes, but then cite the fact that people are using "lifestyle anarchist" in forums as an example of how relevant this crap is to today's anarchist movement.

Simply ridiculous.

The sooner we bury this garbage in the trash pile of anarchist sectarianism, the sooner the movement for anarchism can mvoe towards being something relevant to average people.

Do you think that the average person who is upset at the government, the corporations and the system would find the Black-Bookchin controversy interesting? No, of course not. They would find that shit to be extremely obscure and crazy.

Really? You guys can't advance the intellectual discussion of these issues without relying on Bob Black? That is pretty sad.

Chuck0

To be fair, Chuck, there's a fight for dominant voice in the anarchist mileu. I know, I know, I've said that for two years now.

You once said that you could tell just how well things were going by how often Bob Black's name gets mentioned.

This fight for dominance is in voice ("You use bad grammar!" and "You need to cut the academese!"), it's in tactics ("People need to stop using the black bloc!" and "Only an idiot supports local projects!") in strategy ("We need smaller groupings so that we can have friendships, that succeed before, during the revolution/insurrection/fall" and "We need mass movements! Direct Democracy!") and ego ("Anyone who disagrees with me is a liberal/lifestylist/bureaucrat/christian/puritan").

The Black vs. Bookchin dichotomy never went away. Your name-calling against people who use the black bloc funnels into that. Lawrence funnels into it, I funnel into it, we all do it. The fight never went away! You can't say something without someone else smirking and thinking "lifestylist" because basically, "lifestylist" simply means, "I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU THUS YOU ARE A DOUCHEBAG FOR NOT FOLLOWING MY VERSION OF ANARCHY YOU PURITAN FUCK!"

And now, that insurrectional anarchism is dead, there's a sewer full of yesterday's shit. Bash Back's gone, instead anarchy club is bashing each other full force. This let's hate black blocs/insurrection/queer thing that showed up in past year smells of "better than you" politics that both Black and Bookchin were notorious for. The same can probably be said of disklike of the JJWU, even though they make my skin crawl. Honestly, I think that when a lot of people's local projects fell apart, they blamed insurrectionists rather than the Obama Bubble.

So, not only is it relevant, we are all acting out this motif, and we have been since about RNC 2008. It's like the Feds keep winning.

LOL. Very interesting points.

It's funny you remember me saying something about how you could judge the strength of the movement based on how much Bob Black's name comes up. When I made that observation some time ago, I was refering to the state of the U.S. anarchist movement in the 1990s and what happened to it after the post-Seattle movement took off. During the period between 1985 and 1995, the discourse in the movement was dominated by debates between writers like Murray Bookchin and his critics. The movement was a small pond back then and Bookchin was a notable writer beyond the anarchist mileau. The anarchist movement was dominated by sectarianism up until around 1996, when the post-Seattle movement started gaining steam.

When the movement was involved in projects, campaigns and politics on a bigger stage, it was dominated by intellectualism and sectarianism. If you recall the atmosphere in the movement post-Seattle, the amount of sectarianism and intellectual navel-gazing was at an all time low. That's because many of us were busy with organizing. There was lots of exciement in the air. Lots of new people.

In reent years the movement in the U.S. has slipped into more inactivity and obscurity, so people spend more time talking and debating issues. In this case, we have an older generation of anarchists, who once were the dominant platform for anarchist politics, coming back around with some old topics.

I've never really said that anybody doing black blocs are stupid or doing something wrong. I think that black blocs are an effective tactic, but they've been rendered ineffective by lazy organizing. I think that black blocs have turned into the equivalent of permitted rallies and mass marches. The success of the post-Seattle movement wasn't because we just relied on black blocs. We were organizing with other groups, including non-anarchist groups. We were using a range of tactics and strategies. This is my issue with contemporary use of black blocs. People aren't doing anything else. That's just lazy and ineffective.

Some people doing the black bloc tactic also make the mistake of seeing it as some kind of battle with the police. The black bloc tactic was never about the police. If you want to fight the police, there are more effective ways of doing that.

I'm actually pretty optimistic these days that anarchism is moving back into an active mode like we saw in 1999-2002. The biggest hurdle is not government repression--which has been pretty ineffective given recent developments--but anarchists and radicals collectively thinking that nothing can be done.

Chuck0

Yo vernasi, I'm really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but how does "insurrectional anarchism is dead" make any sense?

Realizing that insurrectional anarchism is NOT a new fad, but that it has existed throughout the history of anarchism, it is NOT just the recent texts of french folk or pro-academics, but the impetus of attacking now.

How is this dead? Are you just refering to the U.S? How did you even arrive at that conclusion?

OMG. You are correct! Now that it is no longer an identity, it can go back to being a practice! I guess I got so wrapped up in destroying it as an identity, I bought into the myth. It's fucking surreal that you could identify the average insurrectionist by their garb and language. Jesus, and I was one of the first to note that these identifications were logical holes. Celebrate! So yes, identity dead. Practice: it just is, like peddling a bicycle rather than gliding downhill.

I am with Chuck on this one (not in its specifics of this fight).  I don't know Black from shit,  but his reputation precedes him and from my personal experiences people like him in our movements.  Just because they espouse some good ideas , we forget what assholes,  sexist jerks, drunks, and in some cases snitches they are.  From coast to coast I have run into this.  People can do good things, but be complete assholes and get a pass in their communities.  Without sounding puritanical. What happened to trying to have our ideals and the actual more closely resemble each other?  I mean on the extreme end if we want to find writers with great ideas  (and ignore their lives or how fucked up they were) then we can throw a rock in any direction to find one (Stalin, Mao, Guevara to name a few anyone?).  I would rather read and hear from people who  put great ideas into practice, even if they are fallable people.  I think seperating people from their writing is like voting on what you think someone represents. Its empty.

I am sick of people who can dream of a better world , but cannot maintain relationships with anyone.  And as for good ideas or people willing to do actions, we have thousands of people around us with both of those skills.  I don't need to read some old fucking beef between someone and a dead guy.  Are Bookchins ideas really gaining so much ground within our movements that we need to step in line behind Black's ideas?  If he really wanted to move ideas forward (sarcasm or not) toss the detritus that I call baggage in his 'book' and shorten the damn things to an essay. Theng get some mental health support. 

This reminds me of  when a sometimes snarky anarchist magazine (who I have no problem with) wrote a shitty review of AK Press's catalog a few years back because they have some beef with AK. AK made a poster out of it and hung it at the SF anarchist bookfair.  Then  members of the magazine got into a useless tizzy about the poster and caused a stupid time wasting scene.   The point is it made them look like assholes in a fight none of the rest of us cared about. This Bookchin/ Black thing is like that.  Its would be about as interesting as me and the snitch/ provocateur Darby going at it for the next 10 years. 
 

And from my perspective it has no where near the weight of the marxism/ anarchist split.  I would think that would be elevating to quite a lofty space.

When are we as communities (real and virtual) going to realize that we waste a lot of energy, ink and emotional space on people like them?  Instead of holding them accountable , removing them, or marginalizing their impacts on our real aspirations, thoughts and actions to move forward.

Thanks for listening.

Scott: You raise some important issues that the anarchist movement needs to address more competently. I've been thinking about these issues for years. I'm a laid back guy and very open-minded, but more recently I've decided that I have to adopt a zero tolerance policy towards dysfunctional and fucked-up people who are attracted to radical politics and organizations. I've learned the hard way that if you give these people an inch, they will find some way to fuck up your organization or your life. While it's good that anarchists are open-minded and tolerant of many different kinds of people, we really have to be more vigilant towards people that are dangerous to us.

Bob Black is a writer, not an activist. His behavior towards other anarchists is mostly limited to what he writes. What should worry more of us are people like Brandon Darby. These types come in a variety of personalities with various character flaws. The worst of these people are snitches, rapists, and so on. Other people with mental problems and personal issues acan be a serious problem for radicals and radical groups. There are many radicals out there with mental health issues, but I'm talking here about seriously fucked-up people. It not be an accurate method, but if your gut tells you there is something bad about a person, your gut is probably correct.

Our groups need to have better ways of dealing with these people. Frankly, I think the clearcut cases should be told to leave. Many a radical group has been derailed because it attempted to deal with problem individuals within the group.

I think this is something different than accountability. Somebody who is seriously fucked up is incapable of ever being accountable to a group. People need to stop being nice and make it clear that these individuals are unwelcome.

We also need to avoid the tendency of some anarchists and activists to inflate human behavior to a level that is out of proportion. It's normal for people to have intrapersonal conflicts, have bad days, be annoying and so on. And just because somebody says something that you disagree with, or says it in a way that causea flame war, doesn't make that person a bad person.

Chuck0