The Ads Are The Price Of A Free Site
So Please Feel FREE to IGNORE THEM
LAF TEXTS updated 1st Sep 2007
This page is for texts of talks given at LAF events
As of 2007 5 Texts have been posted
Talk And Discussion On Sexism In Computer Culture
he direct link is:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/volodya/LAF_2007Mar31_SexismInComputerCulture.ogg
The link to the episode on Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast with this
audio:
http://freedom.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=200986
----------------------------------------------
Talk And Discussion On Political Linguistics
17th Feb 2007
Link to the file itself can be found here:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/volodya/LAF_2007Feb17_PoliticalLinguistics.ogg
Link to the post on the podcast is here:
http://freedom.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=183252
-----------------------------------------------
Talk On William Blake By Steve Ash 24th Sep 2005 Note title is slightly different to one used at LAF
http://www.blackcatpress.co.uk/LAF/Blake.htm
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.whengendarmesleeps.org/misc/essays/LAF/Anti-social%20act%20in%20an%20anarchist%20society.pdf
IS ACTIVISM COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY?
A provocative talk and discussion held at the LAF on 25th June on the eve of the G8 meeting
given and facilitated by Steve Ash, a long term attendee and part time coordinator
of the London Anarchist Forum, and self styled 'anarchist communist individualist'
Soon a horde of demonstrators from a wide range of political backgrounds will be filling the streets of Scotland engaged in a what has been traditionally termed 'activism'. A large number of these will also define themselves as 'anarchists'. What I shall be asking tonight is why, and of what use this 'activism' is supposed to be to the 'anarchist cause'. I shall open with a critique, partly as a devil's advocate but also from and genuine critical position. We can break for discussion after, I'll then follow up with a more 'optimistic' analysis.
To begin with, what is 'activism'? This is a label that covers many things, and I should say from the start the kind of activism I shall be primarily addressing is not single issue, specific case activism, such as saving your local wood from developers - which I think can be effective, though do not regard as a particularly radical, or life enhancing, thing to do - but the kind of broad based activism that aims to catalyze some kind of general change in the society, i.e. the anti-capitalist demonstration. I have nothing against specific case activism, and have supported one instance of this earlier tonight, but I consider this activity to be a defensive one, firmly within the realm of survival and support, rather than part of my affirmative anarchist agenda to assist in the transformation of society (which fortunately does not take up all my time!). The dedicated anarchist activist might respond that it is through a multitude of such specific actions that we do actually change society. I disagree and suggest this is merely tackling the symptoms rather than the disease. While this may, and often does, have some merit, and may occasionally be absolutely necessary, particularly in terms of life and death issues, I maintain that this alone will have no lasting effect while the disease remains, and if allowed to replace the tackling of the disease will even be counterproductive. Faced with a dysfunctional culture, and an insidious sociopolitical economic system, as ours is, such piecemeal defensive actions may have important local success, occasionally, but this will often only be a temporary victory, to be negated by future events. Such a vain strategy will only be the source of ultimate frustration in the main, and may impede more realistic means of progress. It can in fact be likened to 'pissing in the wind'. It is thus best engaged in only in part. What is really needed is forward motion rather than just defensive response, and ultimately not partial system reform but total system change. The revolutionary anarchist, that is the true anarchist, knows that the current system cannot be made better it can only be abolished. Our current system is the most efficient means of exploitation ever to have been devised, in fact it has evolved over time to achieve that dubious distinction. One of its most disturbing features is its ability to absorb and recuperate all opposition, something that history has amply demonstrated. Moreover, as Nietzsche observed, even in the event of the system being reformed, as it undeniably has to a minor extent in the past, this is likely to reduce its exploitative efficiency and so lessen its effectiveness as a provider of comparative wealth for some. Thus we would transform a society of haves and have nots into a society of have nots. You can't have a fair system of exploitation! This is a point not lost on the more ruthless exponents of capitalism, but seems lost on liberals. The anarchist accepts this too, and thus says then smash the system!
Anarchism for me is about revolution, by which I mean not the revolution of the authoritarian left, a circular motion leading to a new ruling class, or inverted hierarchy, but rather a revolution as a total radical change in a society, a replacement of one system not with its opposite but with something better, with a free and egalitarian society, that empowers all its members equally. I do not have delusions of an immanent revolution (though this can never be discounted), nor do I think this revolution will be a universal panacea. Rather I think it will be a necessary period of accelerated evolution, and a purgation, hopefully to occur sooner rather than later. When it does happen it will be a beginning rather than an end, for the real work (and play) starts then, as positive social evolution is freed from its restraints. Failing which further revolutions will become necessary. The cliché of a 'permanent revolution' may in fact be true, like most clichés. But for true anarchists such a revolutionary change is not about imposing a new order, but about forcefully removing unnecessary constraints on freedom, and creating the space for a million new orders, in a non hierarchical, decentralized, patchwork of diverse communities. Such a reality may come about through spontaneous mass insurrection (vanguards being a mere government in waiting), or through system collapse, probably both. And will include both destructive and constructive moments. You cannot rebuild your ship in mid ocean, only build an alternative then sink its predecessor. Another reason reform is impossible for those desiring a real alternative.
So is activism compatible with such an agenda? As I've already shown, specific defensive activism is not part of it, but is the more general anti-capitalist form one of its means? Generally I would argue no. Certainly if say the anti G8 demonstrations are about stopping a small group of world leaders playing golf, then no single focus action could be more of a waste of time and resources. Fortunately I think they are more than this, they are attempts to catalyze broader change. But do they work? This depends on their agenda. No doubt some demonstrators think they can pressure leaders to change their policies, but even if this unlikely scenario were possible, all it would do would affirm the legitimacy of those leaders. Such change may be good, but with it we fall back to the defensive position of reform. The gullible activist still believes we live in a democracy and is oblivious to the oligarchic nature of real political society. Even after millions filled the streets of London denouncing a war that went ahead anyway, they still believe the State will listen to them, and that we live in a democracy. How stupid is that? Even the anarchist venting his or her spleen at leaders they do not acknowledge is exercising their right to demonstrate, and so reinforcing the myth of democracy. An illusion invented in the age of revolutions to pacify the gullible. Today we see through it. But can such demonstrations actually cause change in themselves, beyond the conventional political framework? It is hard to see how most existing forms can. Confrontations on the whole dig both sides into trenches and create the impression that the opponents of the existing system merely want to impose their own arbitrary alternative. Much is made today of 'non-confrontational' opposition and 'non violent' protest, and some of the alternatives are indeed innovative, but what do they ultimately bring but the increased brutality and sadism of the authorities, whose violent nature gives them a hatred of such 'pacifists'? Whats more such universal 'pacifism' isn't even possible when all it takes is a few thugs, whether vanguardist or agent provocateur, who didn't attend the consensual planning sessions and fluffy workshops, to trigger a backlash from the authorities (assuming they need it). The presence of any opposition could be argued to be a demonstration that the system does not have universal support and that opposition is strong, determined and united. But the rest of the nation will be oblivious to this in the media non-coverage. And why should the oligarchs care? If a cord was struck they may be more likely to act repressively, as we see with the phoney war against terror, than loose their nerve. It is very hard to see what political gains could come from the kind of mass demonstration that normally occurs at events like the G8. When those that go return I'd like them to think what has really been achieved? I suspect an answer will be nothing. A similar argument can be made against other oppositional actions. Does blockading a military base really change defense decisions, does challenging a corporation really change economic decisions? It seems incredibly naive to think so. The only successes I can think of have been targeted acts of sabotage, but again we are back to specific defensive actions with no revolutionary potential. Propaganda is the only other defense, but what good is that without media coverage? I suggest that such demonstrations are in fact impotent and a waste of time and resources. And if anything can only trigger a negative response, one more injurious than life enhancing or progressive.
Worse than this I'd suggest that such impotent forms of resistance are actually a source of frustration and disillusionment. The latter leading to eventual defection of activists from any revolutionary movement, if not their actual burnout. The former leading to increasingly desperate measures, that can only lead to unnecessary violence, authoritarianism and a fascist rather than a libertarian opposition.
Finally I'd suggest that activism itself is not just an impotent and counterproductive revolutionary method, it actually has negative features of its own. These can include a politically correct, 'holier than thou' moralistic attitude, that tends towards elitism and exclusion, if not outright authoritarianism, as well as a vanguardist attitude that perhaps prefigures the next 'Green State'. Even some anarchists have their own coercive structures! It also generates hierarchies. How many G8 activists will feel superior to those who 'didn't go', and how many will feel 'guilty' if they didn't? How many 'planners' feel they are part of a virtuous elite. Such a heroic mentality can also lead to a repugnant form of egoism. This is hardly revolutionary thinking. On the other hand there is another type of activist, the martyr and masochistic victim. For this type success is the last thing they need, their only agenda, sometimes hidden to themselves, is to be the suffering saint, constantly defeated by the evil tyrants. Such self defeating mindsets are common and have deep psychological roots.
I conclude this first section with the claim that activism is indeed a counter-revolutionary phenomena and should be avoided at all costs!
SOME POINTS RAISED IN DISCUSSION
Point 1 The System is not closed in the sense it is
undefeatable and never changes, but continues to evolve in
response to changing conditions and opposition to it.
Point 2 The system absorbs everything and turns it to
its own advantage. It cannot be defeated by opposition.
Point 3 It contains contradictions already and can
only absorb so much before these become untenable.
Point 4 Activism does have small successes and we can
build on these with each successive action.
Point 5 Are these real successes?
Point 6 Successful activism is often that with a
specific goal, and one that doesn’t challenge the
system, rather than in general radical
demonstrations like anti-globalist events.
Point 7 This works because it reinforces the illusion
of democracy, without changing very much, so it is not
seriously opposed by the establishment, in fact they
need it to happen. We can work with non-anarchists on
this level. Though this is not revolutionary.
Point 8 But should anarchists put all their efforts
into such reformist campaigns?
Point 9 Small local issues can be shown to be part of
a bigger picture, namely the politico-economic-ideological
culture that shapes everything.
Point 10 We can trojan horse revolutionary messages
into even specific local issues.
Point 11 We need counter events that inspire and show
alternative ways of existence, not ‘demos’ or
‘blockades’.
Point 12 We already have these and they are part of
the G8 demos.
Point 13 Yes, but are they open to all are just the
‘activist clique’
Point 14 We are over intellectualizing and should just act
Point 15 That’s the problem we act with out thought to
what we are doing.
Point 16 Free Will is overrated we are all largely
just automatons preprogrammed by the system, we need
to break away.
Point 17 The Ruling Class, Middle Class and Working
Class are all part of Capitalist Society and are the
three pillars that support it, we need to step outside
of society and pull down all three pillars, both
externally and within ourselves.
Point 18 This going outside of society is not easy, it
is akin to debrainwashing ourselves.
Point 19 It can happen in ‘revolutionary’ situations.
Point 20We can rationally decide on a strategy to
de-rationalise and make the revolution entirely
subjective in the moment.
Point 21 We represent no one but ourselves in this.
Point 22 The revolution will not happen yet we have to
work on other issues first
Point 23 That’s the problem, if we think that we never
will, the revolution is now and has no end.
Part Two
I actually agree with much of what has been said, and want to sound a more positive note now. I don't really think the picture is as bad as I painted it in part one. My main aim here was to emphasize just how difficult the problem is and how it has not yet been solved in practice. What I want to emphasis first is my belief that revolution is about liberation, and that includes liberation from all moral constraints, self sacrificing principles, and ideologies which hinder more than help us. Our natural empathy and universal desire for freedom is all that is required to guide us in life, all else can be discarded, in fact has to be. This is an essential part of any anarchist revolution. Anything that 'deprograms' us and/or shows us alternative ways of life is a revolutionary event. In this respect a mass action can be a transformative experience for those in it, whatever happens. A wild carnival, a surreal happening or even a riot can be equally transforming in their own way, if charged with enough passion. As can anything that breaks the wheel of mundanity. In this respect mass actions are a very powerful means of revolutionary change, but primarily on those taking part. Many people alive today still talk about how they were changed by experiences such as May 68 in Paris for instance. This of course is easily said and harder to perform. Most attempts have so far fallen short, though some have had their own positive moments for many of us, the reason we keep trying again.
One problem with this approach is that it this tends to happen in a closed community of activists, a problem I still have with the concept. What is needed is for far more engagement with 'real people', those who have never demonstrated before in their lives, but might feel sympathy with our cause. The only way to start a revolution is to get everyone involved a few thousand activists focused in one city is a closed system and has no power against the open system we oppose. We need to be far more inclusive. One thing that helps this may be simply the non-political carnival. One of the things I liked about Mayday was that it didn't have a cause, but was rather an affirmation of rebellion against the system. Something that attracted many new people who were normally turned off by nerdy banner wavers. A pure anarchic affirmation of life, such as an illegal street party can open up such happenings to far more people. In this situation continuation can be developed between pure illegal carnivals to socio-political rebellions like Mayday into more focused political 'demonstrations'. Far more people would be attracted to this than the usual politicos, and I maintain this 'countercultural' form of anarchism is far bigger and potentially more revolutionary than any bunch of ideologues. All it needs is direction and its own political consciousness. Of course this is already happening, but it needs far more encouragement and less resistance from the commissars.
The third and perhaps most important point is that such demonstrations actually build a community of resistance, and hopefully one that gets bigger every year. People who attend such events connect with each other, find they are not alone, and build new networks. This is not about building organizations or even 'movements', I say such thinking itself is counter-revolutionary, but is about building connected communities of people not just engaged with each other but with the social and political reality and also with their true desires and aspirations. In such a situation it doesn't matter if the demonstration brings no objective results for even this in itself is a lesson as to the reality of our current situation and the more who realize this the better. Thus true resistance emerges and revolution becomes inevitable.
bravenet.com