It was supposed to be, they enthusiastically told us, the anarchist century. Many
will surely remember that this prophecy was formulated by, for example, DavidGraeber and Andrej Grubacic in their widely read article "Anarchism or theRevolutionary Movement of the 21st Century". But it would be unfair and unwise tosingle out these two authors as the lone voices expressing such optimism.Although their arguments were clearly influential, they articulated, among otherthings, what was fast becoming a certain common sense of the radical left.Arguably, most of the 20th century can be seen as a slow move away from statesocialism and towards anarchism, but in 2004, when Graeber and Grubacic publishedtheir article, anarchism was everywhere, dominating the landscape of socialmovements and structuring its debates, strategies and norms . He hung around thehalls of universities more and more often. The sense that anarchism's time hadcome, no longer the poor second cousin of Marxism, was as palpable as it wasinspiring.There was another reason for this optimism-just as strong, but ultimately flawed.Whether it was killing people by the millions in gulags or capitulating tocapitalism so fundamentally that any semblance of socialism was destroyed, theleft's various engagements with state power throughout the 20th century failed.Indisputably, another way had to be found to destroy such systems, which arethemselves so relentlessly destructive. However, this truth has too oftenencouraged a fall into binary thinking within anarchism. If it wasn't the oldway, the statist way, the electoral way, the Marxist way, then it had to beanarchism, and it had to be a very specific expression of anarchism asarticulated by these new social movements and their specific understanding ofpolitical and social intervention. But simply pointing to the failures of the oldleft (even old, classical anarchism, or anarchism with a capital A) says nothingat all about the normative and strategic validity of this development of radicalthought. Just as capitalism flourished in the second half of the 20th century inpart because of its ability to present itself as the only viable alternative tothe increasingly disintegrating communist bloc, so the "new anarchism" wasarguably embraced as much for what it wasn't as for what it was. what he was Butwhat was false for capitalism was no less false for anarchism. We need to beconvincing for our own sake, not based on the failures of others.The shortcomings of this binary reasoning, important as they are to recall, donot, of course, diminish the validity of the first reason for anarchist hope. Fora certain period, anarchism undoubtedly formed a radical conjuncture, shapedcommon sense, shaped the debate. But then, almost as quickly as it appeared onthe world stage, anarchism began to disappear. It was increasingly replaced by arenewed interest in electoral strategies and a growing rejection of what NickSrnicek and Alex Williams have described as "people's politics". This "electoralturn" was, of course, enthusiastically welcomed by those who had never beenenthusiastic about the anarchist project, but it seems to have appealed to manyanarchists as well. David Graeber - by far the most prominent champion ofanarchism - became something of a convert to this changing dynamic before hisuntimely death, enthusiastically promoting Jeremy Corbyn and the Labor Party thatCorbyn briefly led. Subtly, anarchists across the UK began door-knocking andencouraging people to go to the polls, a move that was repeated in many othercountries where new or newly revived left-wing parties emerged from the vibrantworld of anarchist-inspired social movements. Friends who had mocked me for myoccasional attempts to help Green Party MPs get elected were now out in fullforce campaigning for their local Labor candidate.The truly remarkable and disturbing feature of this shift was its extent, aboutwhich the anarchists themselves were more or less silent. All the while, almostno one seemed to care about what was happening: was this the end of a briefrevival of anarchism? Or was this approach somehow consistent with the supposedly"new" anarchism of the 21st century? While we can safely assume that in coffeeshops, pubs, and e-mail conferences around the world people have been thinkingabout these questions, there has apparently been no sustained or collectiveattempt in the academic world of anarchist studies to take an honest and criticalassessment of these last few years.There are a number of reasons for this, some of which are not only justified, butalso completely positive from my point of view. I have always been concernedabout the way in which anarchism is coming back to life, and I have argued thatprefiguration - that defining feature of contemporary anarchist practice - is toonarrowly defined within a body of practices that ultimately still focus onprotest rather than sustained construction new world. I was not alone, of course,and it is clear that many anarchist academics are now engaged in examining themyriad examples of alternative grassroots organizing. At some level, it isdesirable that such research does not concern itself with the current status ofsocial movements that are in (or disappearing from) the front pages ofnewspapers, and instead focuses on localized projects and practices that remainalmost invisible to the rest of the world. However, both are not without mutualrelation.Cultural theorist Stuart Hall has always tirelessly reminded people on the leftof the importance of keeping a close eye on the conjunctural terrain: theparticular social and political makeup of a given moment and the possibledirections it might take. Part of this conjunctural analysis was an understandingof the role that common sense plays in shaping social practices and the ways inwhich that common sense can change, sometimes subtly but no less powerfully.Anarchism undoubtedly helped shape the common sense not only of the radical left,but also within a much wider field of social practice (for example, organizing byconsensus or horizontal structures became the norm in many groups); likewise, itemphasized prefigurative practice and DIY culture, rather than solving ourproblems with the help of the state. But that culture can and probably willchange if anarchist-inspired social movements continue to decline and arereplaced-which is possible, but by no means inevitable-by more overtly vertical,or even authoritarian, leftist ideas.But if it is true that the anarchist century did not get very far before it hit aquick detour on the "electoral turn," it is equally true that this change in thelandscape of social movements is far from permanent. The path we are on hasalready taken us somewhere else. Not back to anarchism-not yet, anyway-but to theopen landscape. When it comes to radical politics (and indeed many other things),the current conjuncture is largely uncertain and contested. As Owen Worthdiscusses in this issue of Anarchist Studies, the limitations of electoralstrategies became apparent (to those who had not yet seen them) almost as quicklyas interest in them (re)emerged. The various electoral movements that emergedwith Corbyn and Sanders, Syriza and Podemos will have to find a new way tounderstand their own failures and decide how to respond to them. Here, Worthproposes a counter-hegemonic approach built on genuine left convergence-aposition that is likely to gain traction, but which many anarchists will stillresist.Regardless of these recent defeats of the electoral left, there are still thosewho argue for the necessity of such a policy by pointing to the recent failure ofanarchism. The Left has had over a century to correct Marx's defeat of Bakunin,and has failed, again and again; that anarchists have been unable to destroyglobal capitalism in less than two decades is hardly an argument for theirinadequacy as a political project, much less an argument for a return to apolitics that has failed more consistently, spectacularly, and murderously formore than a century. But once again: the inadequacy of this argument in no wayjustifies our own policy. Frankie Hines argues that the centrality ofprefiguration to contemporary anarchism is largely motivated by the ongoingeffort to distance anarchism from Marxism, implicitly reminding us again thatboth the "anarchist-prefiguration" and the "electoral" turns of recent years seemat least partially motivated and shaped by mutual rejection. However, in contrastto the growing criticism of anarchism and anarchist-inspired social movementsemerging from the electoral corridors, Hines raises questions that challenge notanarchism per se, but its contemporary preoccupation with prefiguration andabsolutist rejection of violence.Of course, we could never afford the luxury of not having to think seriouslyabout leftist strategy, but the current terrain presents us with particularchallenges-and potentially opportunities. But in order to begin to move forward,we need to engage more explicitly with this present moment, which also meanscritically and honestly examining our recent past. How did we get to where we are- and where are we? In 2004, the idea of someone like Graeber defending the LaborParty was unimaginable: we were supposed to change the world without seizing(state) power. It is desirable that individual and collective strategies arechanging, but the apparent unwillingness of anarchists to honestly address andunderstand these changes is curious, to say the least. In an interview withGabriel Kuhn, we discuss the reasons for this silence and consider, as Kuhn hasdone in other places, what's next in the anarchist century. Of course, the answerto this question is not simple or absolute, and while reading his thoughts and atthe same time looking at the other two articles published here, it occurred to methat today's anarchism seems to have lost common sense and the associatedpossibilities of mass mobilization. Of course, anarchists never tire of repeatinghow they value diversity, but the anarchist century became imaginable preciselybecause diversity was in many ways contained within the relatively narrowparameters of a certain radical idea: anarchist common sense.Occupy didn't change the world, any more than a return to the ballot box: thereare plenty of other ways we could hope it would, and many anarchists - and notjust you - are apparently fine with their own chosen strategies. However, if weare to reunify into something that feels like a mass movement with any real hopeof challenging the current hegemony, we will need to come together to more humblyconsider how we got to where we are now and what we plan to do next. At the veryleast, it seems intellectually and politically incorrect to collectively push foran anarchist century and then quietly walk away when things don't go quite asplanned.Matthew Wilson is an academic and activist who uses both roles to explore thecounter-hegemonic potential of the co-operative movement. His book Rules withoutRulers was published by Zero Press.https://www.afed.cz/text/7880/co-se-stalo-s-anarchistickym-stoletim_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten