Authored by: Admin on Sunday, October 14 2007 @ 12:27 AM CDT

Yes, we should be skeptical about what state agencies say about radicals, but I suspect that Webb probably committed suicide. Even if the state was involved on some level, Webb's case is the exception. There are many radical journalists out there writing and reporting on the machinations of the U.S. state.

I agree that it is important to analyze the full picture when we look at the effectiveness of any long term social movement. But I also think that it's important for us to frame the big picture in a way that leads to an outcome favorable to our goals. There may be lots of gray areas when it comes to the anti-globalization movement, but I think that we can publicly frame it as a success, or even a victory. I think that the most pernicious thing that anarchists do to themselves is to overestimate the bad things and to ignore the positive.

I agree with you about the use of words like "horizontalism." It's actually an interesting word, but people use it ahistorically and wipe out the history of similar movements. Maybe this word is an example of what I call "Michael Albertism", which could be defined as an effort to de-radicalize terms and use newspeak to redfine radical ideas. Thus, horizontalism replaces anarchism. Paraecon replaces anarchism, cooperative economics and anti-capitalism.

There are perfectly good words which already describe these subjects. Horizontalism is more useful as another way to describe egalitarian social relations. Hell, why not just use egalitarianism?

Chuck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: lampheads on Sunday, October 14 2007 @ 11:34 AM CDT

This is a bit off topic, but I don

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: lawrence on Sunday, October 14 2007 @ 11:42 PM CDT

Sure there are "many radical journalists out there writing and reporting on the machinations of the U.S. state" but the attention they get from the state depends on how close they get to whatever passes as truth. If most of these journalists report on the former School of the Americas or the ways that Blackwater, or Halliburton, or Wackenhut play fast and loose with the Constitution, who among the ruling class really cares? They are pretty much untouchable. But get some real information backed with documented evidence about how the CIA created the crack epidemic by channeling funds back and forth to the Contras, then there might be some embarrassment to the state. With the private mercenaries, there's plenty of plausible deniability--lots of distance between the company executives and the people in the shadow government. Then there's the case of Danny Cassolaro...

That you say "it's important for us to frame the big picture in a way that leads to an outcome favorable to our goals" makes exactly the point of self-congratulatory delusion. Framing events in order to make them seem like victories (when they are not) is manipulative to the point of propagandizing. The anti-globalization movement hasn't stopped or slowed down the agenda of the neoliberals. The efforts of anti-globalizers has merely induced the neoliberals to alter their programs, to be more sneaky. There have been moments of direct contestation to be sure, but the overall agenda of the WTO/IMF continues unabated. How can that be considered a success--to say nothing of it being a victory.

It may be true that many anarchists do not focus enough on the positives, but that's because the better informed of us tend to be pretty critical, even cynical if we've been around long enough. The point that I brought up about irreversibility and/or duration of the experiments that get labeled as successes has apparently gone unnoticed.

I like your neologism of michaelalbertism, but I'd spell it like that.

And the point isn't that we need to foist a familiar vocabulary of anarchism on recent movements, but that we bring to them an understanding of the history of similar moments of radical self-organization.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Monday, October 15 2007 @ 01:20 AM CDT

Sure there are "many radical journalists out there writing and reporting on the machinations of the U.S. state" but the attention they get from the state depends on how close they get to whatever passes as truth. If most of these journalists report on the former School of the Americas or the ways that Blackwater, or Halliburton, or Wackenhut play fast and loose with the Constitution, who among the ruling class really cares?

I read Webb's book and am mostly familiar with his life and work. It's plausible that the government was involved with his suicide, given the subject nature of his work, but I doubt it. It violates Occam's Razor. Why would the government bother to rub him out when he had been effectively marginalized and was off the radar? The state doesn't react to investigative stuff dug up by other radical journalists. On the other hand, the state can be very irrational sometimes when it comes to picking out those which it sees as a threat. The state's overreaction to ELF and the animal rights movement is a good example of this irrationality. I can see why the state was trying to demonize ELF in the 1990s in order to build up activists as the next terrorist threat, but these days they have real terrorists to scare people with.

That you say "it's important for us to frame the big picture in a way that leads to an outcome favorable to our goals" makes exactly the point of self-congratulatory delusion. Framing events in order to make them seem like victories (when they are not) is manipulative to the point of propagandizing. The anti-globalization movement hasn't stopped or slowed down the agenda of the neoliberals. The efforts of anti-globalizers has merely induced the neoliberals to alter their programs, to be more sneaky. There have been moments of direct contestation to be sure, but the overall agenda of the WTO/IMF continues unabated. How can that be considered a success--to say nothing of it being a victory.

I wasn't talking about making up some kind of postive propagandizing. I firmly believe that the anti-globalization movement is a success among many victories and successes. I've made my thoughts on this clear in other posts to this thread. I'm intimately familiar with the movement and the neoliberals, so I think that an excellent case can be made for victories by anarchists on this front

You can be honest and critical about what we've accomplished--critical does include positive assessments--but I think that the responsibility for the radical is to emphasize the positive in order to incite, provoke, and inspire people to engage in further social change. Emphasizing the postive is no more manipulative than harping on the negatives. Anarchism (and radical activism) seems to be dominated now by people who are cynical and who cut down anybody who tries to talk about the positive. Just look at the hostile attacks Graeber has been the target of in this thread.

I also think that any anarchist leader or organizer should understand that part of the job involves putting on a positive face. Yeah, we all have our self-doubts and cynical days, but if you put that forward all the time, you aren't exactly going to inspire people to change things for the positive.

It may be true that many anarchists do not focus enough on the positives, but that's because the better informed of us tend to be pretty critical, even cynical if we've been around long enough. The point that I brought up about irreversibility and/or duration of the experiments that get labeled as successes has apparently gone unnoticed.

Those of us who tend to be positive are pretty well informed. I'm well aware of the full picture when it comes to these subjects. But my conclusion is that there are positives and successes that we don't talk about and celebrate. We could just dwell on the hopelessness of the struggle, but I read plenty of that dismal crap on the leftist LBO list. Those dingbats won't raise a finger until they've lined up all of their "historical conditions" ducks in a row.

I think that an important part of anarchism is its critical attitude towards the state and other powerful institutions. Much of that attitude includes important cynicism, hostility, ridicule and nihilism. Anarchists are pretty good at tearing down, but we too frequently turn our sharp critical tools on each other. I'd like to see more anarchists like myself, who incorporate the negative and positive into their analysis and practice.

I like your neologism of michaelalbertism, but I'd spell it like that.

Murray Bookchin is another example. He invented social ecology, or at least heavily promoted it and became the face of it, because he was uncomfortable with anarchism. I lump social ecology and paraecon in the same boat. Invented political theories by guys with big egos who didn't want to deal with the baggage of anarchism.

And the point isn't that we need to foist a familiar vocabulary of anarchism on recent movements, but that we bring to them an understanding of the history of similar moments of radical self-organization.

Right.

Chuck

[ Reply to This | # ]