(From The New Formulation, November, 2001)
Editorial note: the exceptional nature of the September 11th terror attacks and the consequent war seemed to merit a momentary departure from The New Formulation’ s book-review-only policy.
September 21, 2001
Dear Comrades,
We are living through scary times. Clearly the U.S. Government and its allies believe they have a grand opportunity to realign domestic and international relationships in their interest. This is frightening: major shifts in the political landscape threaten to tear the ground from beneath our feet.
However, these glacial shifts in the political scene also offer anti-authoritarians a unique opportunity to obtain a new, more secure footing in our struggle against economic exploitation, political hierarchy, and cultural domination. Political conditions are changing radically and, if we respond correctly, we have the chance to advance our movement to a much higher level.
First of all, we must not be cowed by present circumstances, as disturbing as they are. On the contrary: recent events call upon us to exercise political leadership in the best, most principled and visionary sense of the term. This is our challenge, and one that we can meet with an anti-authoritarian vision and politics.
We believe it is imperative that anti-authoritarians formulate a coherent response to the war build-up and their role within the growing peace movement. We must not allow our perspective to be subsumed under more prominent but less radical tendencies in the Left. Also, the peace movement is presently defining its politics and structures and we have a great opportunity—at this moment—to engage the movement and push it in the most radical direction.
The purpose of this letter is to explore the contours of an anti-authoritarian position on recent events. We encourage you to discuss this letter with your friends and comrades and to prepare for broader discussions that we intend to initiate in the near future.
We want to address three important issues in this letter: structure, politics, and the future.
Structure:
We anticipate that the anti-war movement will experience divisions similar to those that beset the peace movement during the Gulf War. In other words, national organizing efforts will be split into two organizations: one will be pacifist and more libertarian in character, and the other will be more militant and Stalinist. Both will be top-down mobilizations, built around well-known “leaders,” and awash with a moralism that would turn off even the most open-minded citizens and activists.
Thus, we think our immediate challenge is to ensure that the anti-war mobilizations are decentralized and democratic in structure: specifically, that those doing the work make the decisions in these organizations. We recommend the model of assemblies, spokescouncils, or other horizontal networks of small, decentralized groups that are unified around an anti-authoritarian vision of social change. This will assure that those at the base hold decision-making power and thus that the mobilization reflects the political consciousness of the base, which is typically more radical and sane than that held by the leadership. It will still be possible for sectarian groups to infiltrate the base, but much harder for them to seize control. We believe that instituting such a decentralized structure is consistent with a principled commitment to democracy and should be our first act of defense against the party building hacks and the omnipresent “leadership.”
Politics:
Decentralized political structures have little significance unless complemented by a decentralized, radically democratic politics. We need to have radically democratic goals as well as methods, anti-authoritarian means and ends. Our response to the war must be concrete, immediately comprehensible, and one that gives political content to our democratic structures.
Presently we are aware of two positions on the war:
The right-wing position asserts that the United States is entitled to take unilateral military action against whomever. This position is not reasoned, just retaliatory, and is thus utterly barbaric. The argument crumbles when faced with questions of social justice.
The liberal-left position condones military action against Osama Bin Laden if—and only if—the UN or some pre-existing international legal body decides that such action is required and determines its nature. This appears to be Z Magazine’s position, as well as many others.
This position is inadequate because it appeals to the political authority of the UN (and/or similar bodies). This is untenable because the UN is an illegitimate political body and thus incapable of determining a just or unjust response to the terror attacks. The UN is illegitimate because a) it presupposes the nation-state, which is inherently anti-democratic and b) because the United States has veto power over many of the UN’s most important decision-making bodies, such as the Security Council.
The anti-authoritarian position must obviously be much more radical than the liberal-left position. We believe that anti-authoritarians should advance the following demands:
Future:
We believe that anti-authoritarians should work to radicalize the anti-war movement. We should ensure that it is democratic and decentralized in structure, that its demands are anti-authoritarian in content, and that we use this movement to build cooperative relationships with the oppressed and enraged throughout the world who share our horror at the U.S.’s impeding military action and the world it seeks to create.
We believe there is a great potential to create a radically democratic and deeply oppositional movement against the war. We believe this movement could sustain the accomplishments of the struggle against global capital and bring our movement to a new level of engagement, diversity, and radicalism.
Another world is possible,
Marina Sitrin (active with the Direct Action Network)
Chuck Morse (active with the Institute for Anarchist Studies )
Share on Facebook
Chuck, thanks for bringing this article to my attention.
Here are my replies to some of what you and your co-author wrote:
“Thus, we think our immediate challenge is to ensure that the anti-war mobilizations are decentralized and democratic in structure.”
How would you evaluate the anarchist movement on this? I would say, all too often, anarchists simply latched onto existing demos organized by ANSWER and UFPJ. This is understandable. If anarchists organized their own demos. the turnout would be mediocre, at best. So I realize the libertarian left is in a bit of a bind.
Take my advice—distance yourselves from all Stalinists and authoritarians—and you lose influence. But ignore my advice, and you ensure than anti-war mobilizations are dominated by Stalinists and authoritarians. This is not an enviable situation to be in.
“Decentralized political structures have little significance unless complemented by a decentralized, radically democratic politics.”
I’ll be frank. I do not think *most* anarchists are concerned about politics. Sure, there are some individuals who are, but most people involved in the anarchist movement are more concerned about the environment, economics, culture and society, etc. than politics and political institutions. In fact, a key differentiation between anarchists and other leftists has been this disdain for politics.
I think you are describing extremely marginal ideas that have a minimal—if that—influence on politics. For example, when you claim that the “U.N. is an illegitimate political body” because it “presupposes the nation-state” you must realize that you are placing yourself on the fringe of political discourse. As such, you can expect to be ignored by most people, not simply elites.
I know this seems harsh but it is the conclusion I have come to after spending much time on the anarcho-left. Things may seem different at the Institute for Social Ecology, surrounded by people who agree with your political ideology, but I encourage you to get out and talk to people in Jackson Heights, Flushing, Jamaica and other neighborhoods in Queens.
Feel free to visit and comment @ “The New Centrist” any time.
I think it’s fair to say that anarchists have failed to articulate a third camp, anti-authoritarian position in the anti-war movement. However, I do not think that it makes sense to assert that anarchists are unconcerned about politics. You say that anarchists are concerned with the “environment, economics, culture and society”: those are political issues! Also, you seem to assume that being on the margins of political life is necessarily a bad thing. Of course it is in some cases, but it is probably good during times of war and nationalist frenzy (which was the case when this essay was written).
Yes, you are correct. These things *can* be political. I should have been more specific. I guess I am more arguing about political *impact*. For all the anarchist events, organizations, etc, that I’ve been involved in, when I look at the political impact, the results have been less than encouraging. In other words, these activities may make the participants feel good about their political orientation, but they do not impact political decisions.
Which brings me to your (or my) point about marginality. If you consciously want to be marginal, fine. Nothing wrong with that. But, if as I suspect is the case, you prefer some sort of major social change, let alone social revolution, you need to be engaged with folks on the ground and not simply enaged with folks in your own isoloated and marginal political communities.
Sure, isolation is (by definition) a bad thing, but I think it is incorrect to imply that anarchists have done nothing more than hang out with their buddies. For example, anarchists played a major role in the anti-globalization movement which–for the first time in thirty years–forced a serious debate about the economic and political structures that govern our world. Did we make a revolution? No, but I think the accomplishment is significant nonetheless.
Yes, agreed. But anarchists were only a small part of that movement. It was only by working with (non-anarchist) labor unions, enviornmentalists, etc. that the Seattle mobilizations were as great as they were.
Also, I would contend that the anti-globalization movement is actually an amalgam of a variety of (often conflicting) ideologies and movements. For example, a world without borders versus protectionism, nationalist farmers vs. urban anarchists, etc.
You write:
“for the first time in thirty years–forced a serious debate about the economic and political structures that govern our world.”
Really? 30 years? From the 1960s-1990s there were no “serious debates” about capitalism? I must disagree. Surely you are familiar with the New International Economic Order of the 1970s. The NEIO actually impacted policy–on the ground– in these countries.
I’m confused: in one comment you claim that anarchists only engage with people in their “own isolated and marginal political communities” but in another mention anarchists working with “(non-anarchist) labor unions, environmentalists, etc.” That seems contradictory to me.
It was a poor choice of words. I’ll try to be more specific.
Of all the groups and organizations that went to Seattle, anarchists were one small segment, a minority. Other social actors–unions, environmntal orgs., NGOs, etc.–sent many more people. Anarchists, together with a wide variety of other groups, did take to the streets. This is what I meant.
As far as anarchists actually “working together” with these mainstream or liberal groups, I think that was quite limited. I know what anarchists think about liberals. Unfortunately, many consider them a worse enemy than the authoritarian (even the totalitarian) left. As I’ve written at my blog this a huge mistake and has resulted in the slaughter and imprisonment of anarchists.
Most of the NGOs and liberal groups–especially the unions–went to Seattle not simply to protest, but to actually change the policies of the WTO. This placed them at odds with so-called revolutionary organizations. Palliatives, reformists, “sell outs,” you know the lingo, I’m sure.
This is really the key to my point about politial marginalization. Anarchist ideology and policies (really, the lack thereof) simply do not appeal to the vast majority of people in the country. Same with communist ideology and policies. They may have appeal elsewhere, but here in the U.S., not so much. Many anarchists feel this is simply due to the bad rap anarchism has received. I think it has to do with the actual content of the ideology. Again, I would say the same thing about communism.