Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:00 PM CST

Aye! There\'s a lot of differences across the wide spectrum of anarchism, but the thing which drew me toward the idea in the first place was that no single, universal, solution is proposed. Let\'s just smash some fuckin\' state and people can work out their issues as necessary for their individual situations afterword.

Woooo!

Sorry, you\'ll have to excuse me, I\'m in some sort of absurd anarcho-cheerleader mood right now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:38 PM CST

Makhno,
My suggestion: write the author if you want him to hear your criticism.
Jeff Luers
#13797671
Oregon State Penitentiary
2605 State Street
Salem, OR 97310

d

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:25 PM CST

With all due respect to a comrade who is clearly sincere about his beliefs, Luers seems to be sending a mixed message in this post. He starts off very badly, by attacking the Green Anarchy article, The Left-Handed Path of Repression in question as \"self-promoting pompous drivel\" - hardly the way to begin a respectful dialogue among anarchists. Furthermore, Luers\' claim to be presenting The Truth about the situation in Eugene is presumptuous, to say the least.

Aside from that, Luers cries out for unity among anarchists, asking us to put aside what he considers petty ideological squabbles, when he has already given a prime example in Eugene of just how much serious disagreement there is in the anarchist milieu. Would he ask that female comrades put aside their concerns about sexism, or that anarchists of different ethnic groups not confront racism in the movement? If these are legitimate concerns, and worth arguing about among anarchists, then why should he belittle the issues that are important to his comrades at Green Anarchy or Anarchy magazine?

If we are to establish strong, cohesive communities, then they must be based on honesty, mutual respect, and a shared vision. Controversy and debate can contribute to the health of the anarchist movement, if they are practiced in a rational and patient manner. Unity should be real and deep, not merely superficial and political.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:12 PM CST

I take from this article that at some point we have to actually do something to back up all our fine words. Jeff has done something we can all learn from and I try and get out and do my bit whenever I can inspired by the Jeff Luers and the Sherman Austins who make mistakes but actually practise anarchism not just talk endlessly about it.I don\'t fear the state and I don\'t fear splits at all - if two disagree then both can hive off and start again; this is a strength of anarchism, not a weakness.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:56 PM CST

Brilliant. Something that has long needed to be said by someone to whom people will listen.

Thanks, Free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:00 PM CST

Yeah, Makhno, I have to agree with you about this. I understand what Luers is talking about, but he ends up promoting the very division he is trying to bridge. I think we anarchists should strive for unity in diversity, that is, understanding that each of us has a complicated take on politics, our lives, and the world. This means that there will often be conflict, controversy and debate between people with different opinions. This is a healthy thing for anarchism and has been with us since the 19th century. The problem comes when people inflate disagreements into permanent divisions. In many ways, many anarchists are guilty of not acting like adults. Instead of arguing and then moving on to work together or agreeing to disagree, we make dramatic moves to create enemies out of people we disagree with, often for extremely trivial and petty reasons.

Luers is right about the truth being a three-edged sword: my side, your side, and in between. Even this metaphor is simplistic, because sometimes there are more sides to a conflict. Often there are false assumptions about a certain side. And from what I\'ve seen over the course of my lifetime, there rarely is a side that is totally bad and one that is totally good. Most conflicts involve bad behavior by both sides. Luers recognizes this in his essay, but he says it in such a way as to encourage those who see one faction as being bad and one as being good.

I have problems with Luers\' argument when he says, \"the one-way slant of these men.\" Part of being in an activist community is respecting the decisions of other activists about their priorities. You can talk about the importance of doing community activism, but you have no right to demonize or marginalize another activist if they don\'t adopt your agenda. Some of us are interested in working on other things. Some of us may be working on what you are acusing us of not working on, but our work is not that visible. Sometimes people don\'t get involved in certain types of activism because they don\'t have the skills. Instead of scolding people into joining you in some type of activism, how about setting an example so people will join you?

My conclusion is that we are all human and should cut each other more slack.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:45 AM CST

In response to Chuck and Makhno, among others... maybe I\'m being too generous, but what I get out of Free\'s piece here is not a call to sweep differences under the rug, but rather an emphasis on the fact that we HAVE to work through these conflicts so we can get the work that needs doing done. You\'d think that anarchists, being all about people working out their relationships together in a non-dominational manner etc. etc., would be specialists in handling conflicts, not specialists in perpetuating and senselessly deepening them.

We can accomplish a fucking lot, but only if we can learn how to minimize the crippling effects of dissension, accusation, etc. and always move forward, eyes on the prize. This means being mature, taking criticism constructively even if it wasn\'t originally intended as such, etc. Please, folks, more of that!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:23 AM CST

In response to \"@\", I would suggest that the \"prize\" is not just revolution in the traditional sense of overthrowing the State and capitalism, but confronting power relations and authoritarian conditioning in all areas of our lives. This difference in emphasis - between purely political and more all-ambracing visions of revolution, between formal structure and spontaneity, between techno-industrial complaisance and a sharp critique of technology and productivity is no minor conflict, but rather a major difference in paradigms; it must be confronted, and all of its implications worked through, before anarchists can presume to speak with a united voice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:22 AM CST

0. i like the gist of this. also, with mahkno that confronting ALL power relations is important; not to jhust get with some program (fight state power) defined by local powers that be.
what he is calling \'egoism\' i call \'messianism\', propheteering, \'holier-than-thou-ism\', \'pc--ier-than-thouism\', or \'supremism\'. its arrogant.
i have noticed it most among \'animal rightists\'. and, christians. but, its found in every ideological and nonideological group. men, straights, races, etc also do it. i know little about the \'swp\' but i see they and ansrchists also do it. (the swp does lie, it seems, but anarchists have their own problems too. if you want others to stop, then one should be a good role model. instead of owning the truth just have atheory and maybe be willing to throw it away.)



people should just have alternative theories. \'i believe jesus is god; i believe in quantum mechanics\'. then, see if you beliueve anything in common, and whether its worht fellow traveling. (unlike free, i dont think vandalizing stuff is all that powerful, so i wouldnt go there with hhim. i respect his right to make his own decisions of course, but i wont defend them, any more than someone who believes in jesus. i got my own theory. and tactic. maybe i can print it in a lil book.


1. jeff even says maybe prison is better. as an antiauthoritarian type, i think this shows openmindedness. some prisoners have made prono movies. even if the prison is state supported, it protects you from some things (ive never been to eugene) , if not others.
maybe one vision of utopia would actually just to make the whole world a prison. can we get a consensus?

i could add a section to the FAQ (in the past, anarchists like Proudhon were sexistas and antistatists; now we are feminisats and want to make prison a universal human right)

this of cpurse is a practical anarchist\' view. \'the state\' is not the \'supreme issue\' if ssome local oppression is conquering me right here, right now. so long as others have their own comfortable prison cell, i want mine too (i forget what that is called---\'gay marriage\'? what about polygamy-----a prison hotel.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 11:49 AM CST

See, here\'s the thing. Knowing plenty of people in the, for want of a better word, \"organizationalist\" and \"anti-organizationalist\" Anarchist camps, I\'m convinced that both are in agreement with what Mahkno writes about the \"prize\": not just revolution in the traditional sense of overthrowing the State and capitalism, but confronting power relations and authoritarian conditioning in all areas of our lives

The anti-organizationalist critique seems to be to suggest that their anarchist \'opponents\' _aren\'t_ truly committed to this, that it\'s some kind of a smoke screen. But that just ain\'t the case. What I get from Luers\' essay, is... why not assume the best of your opponents instead of the worst? Why not figure that you can disagree on strartegy or tactics or organizational models, without being some kind of crypto-authoritarian? [And without being an idiot too]. Isn\'t there a way to debate these actual disagreements (when appropriate), while still working with people who _do_ share the same goals as you? As some other poster said, shouldn\'t anarchists be trying to be experts in this kind of honest dialogue, instead of always assuming the worst of everyone? When we argue, shouldn\'t we seize on the strongest, most dificult to deal with, arguments of those we disagree with, instead of seizing on the weakest part of their argument and assuming they meant the worst possible thing by it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:25 AM CST

I don\'t think Leurs is saying that there\'s my side, your side and the middle ground. He\'s making a deeper point. There will be a plurality of visions and methods, within the anarchist movement and without. In Eugene, it\'s pretty clear that a hard core has developed that is very hostile (not merely critical) of other trends and has worked ideologically to deepen various divides. He says it should stop and that people of conscience should aim their fire mainly at the system and in carrying out their vision.

I\'m not an anarchist of any type and don\'t see anarchy as viable. That\'s me. But I\'m not going to act like anarchists are THE problem.

Thanks, Jeff. These are intense times and your voice on this issue is appreciated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 12:47 PM CST

Jonathan\'s comments indicate that he hasn\'t really tried to come to grips with the post-left anarchist critique, anymore than Luers has. There have been plenty of exchanges right here on Infoshop that show just how resistant many left anarchists are to broadening critique and practice beyond the traditional categories, and how they constantly ignore or misrepresent the positions of those they are debating with. Luers\' post is a prime example of this, when he starts off in the very first sentence with that remark about \"self-promoting pompous drivel\". Which is not to say that left anarchists are incapable of intelligent discussion of these issues, only that few of them, as far as I can tell, seem interested in trying it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:16 PM CST

A label for everything and everyone with a label in place.
Should keep you in place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:56 PM CST

I accidentally cut off my label. Does this mean that I\'m going to be sent to jail?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:30 PM CST

I think both \'sides\' mis-represent the positions of those they are debating with---largely by picking on whatever is _easiest_ to pick on in some statement of the \'opponent\'. Whatever should have been worded better, or can be taken to mean something especially horrifying, focus on those---becuase it\'s the easiest way to score debate points, and assure yourself you are right and they are wrong. It would be a lot harder if you assumed that your \'opponent\' were well intentioned, assumed the best instead of the worst about the argument, and focused on the parts of the statement that are most challenging to your own view, interpreted the most generously to make them the most challenging, instead of interpreted the least generously to make them the stupidest. It woudn\'t get one as many debate points, but it would be a lot more useful for developing your theory and praxis.

I wasn\'t accusing either \'side\' of doing this more than the other. I think it\'s charecteristic of current written anarchist debate in general. And it\'s too bad.

It\'s an excercize left to the reader to decide for themselves which posts, if any, in this discussion are guilty of what I\'m describing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:42 PM CST

Pursuant to Anarchist Penal Code #1X334: Removing one\'s label, through the act of cutting, burning, discarding, or any combination of the above; whereas such an act invalidates the classification system wherein all shall be placed, identified, described and/or castigated as need be; punishment for said act automatically brands offender with no less than three more labels: \"Not An Anarchist\", \"Authoriatarian\", and \"Wishy-washy\".

Really! I have the anarchist Handbook!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:53 PM CST

Jonathan,

Can you point to anything specific in my critique of Luers\' post that you believe misrepresents or fails to do justice to his argument?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:31 AM CST

Hey mishap, did you make this up? Could I use it?


\"A label for everything and everyone with a label in place. Should keep you in place. \"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 11:12 AM CST

off the top of my head, feel free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 11:55 AM CST

Re: \"Can you point to anything specific in my critique of Luers\' post that you believe misrepresents or fails to do justice to his argument?\"

I\'ll have a go.

Makhno wrote: \"With all due respect to a comrade who is clearly sincere about his beliefs, Luers seems to be sending a mixed message in this post. He starts off very badly, by attacking the Green Anarchy article, The Left-Handed Path of Repression in question as \"self-promoting pompous drivel\" - hardly the way to begin a respectful dialogue among anarchists.\"

Jeff never said this. \"Makhno\" has conflated two different statements separated by four paragraphs (albeit short ones) in order to make this charge.

\"Makhno\" then says \"Furthermore, Luers\' claim to be presenting The Truth about the situation in Eugene is presumptuous, to say the least.\"

Jeff never said this either, which is probably why \"Makhno\" merely asserts it without reproducing the nonexistent quote.

\"Makhno\" presents the following: \"Aside from that, Luers cries out for unity among anarchists, asking us to put aside what he considers petty ideological squabbles, when he has already given a prime example in Eugene of just how much serious disagreement there is in the anarchist milieu. Would he ask that female comrades put aside their concerns about sexism, or that anarchists of different ethnic groups not confront racism in the movement? If these are legitimate concerns, and worth arguing about among anarchists, then why should he belittle the issues that are important to his comrades at Green Anarchy or Anarchy magazine?\"

Not surprisingly, you will not find a call for suppression of debate anywhere in Jeff\'s piece. What you do find is the passionate suggestion that the issues dividing anarchists are neither as deep nor as profound as those that divide anarchists as a whole from the authoritarian state, its minions and its structures. Consequent to this, anarchists should not be directing their main fire at one another. Moreover, Luers was explicit in holding all tendencies accountable for the problem he\'s addressing.

\"Makhno\" insists, \"If we are to establish strong, cohesive communities, then they must be based on honesty, mutual respect...\"

Indeed. I leave it others to decide how well these sentiments jibe with Makhno\'s actions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 05:21 PM CST

thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]