Comments on: Neo-anarchism by Manuel Castells

By: vladamiraaron

vladamiraaron — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:51:36 +0000

Aipotu, no, anarchism is not an a-historical reality of social relations(ships).

Anarchy on the other hand…

Anarchy is not anarchism.

By: Rafa Grinfeld

Rafa Grinfeld — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:26:29 +0000

I have some problems with this text. Castells says that anarchism “seems to enjoy excellent health in the social movements that sprout everywhere from the depths of the resistance to our increasingly destructive global social order.” I would not agree with this, social movements are not sprouting everywhere and anarchism isn't enjoying excellent health. “It is enough to follow the debates in the movement against capitalist globalization, online or otherwise, to note the prevalence of anarchist principles such as self-organization and the rejection of the state in any form”. Maybe so, but a lack of organization (often an anarchist principle) in this movement is also very present. “Likewise, the autonomist perspective, which is so closely linked to anarchism, has a very strong presence on the theoretical and political terrains.” That's not true, autonomism isn't that much theoretical or political, it can also just be sometimes about fighting in the streets or throwing bricks at people. Ofcourse, I'm not saying that Negri and Hardt do that. But France’s May ‘68 revolt, I guess these writers have been much inspired by that event, was also about these violent things happening in the streets of Paris. “Anarchism’s great difficulty has always been reconciling personal and local autonomy with the complexities of daily life and production in an industrialized world on an interdependent planet. And here technology turns out to be anarchism’s ally more so than Marxism’s.” I'm much more interested in a social revolution than in personal or local autonomy actually. People have to work together, communes too. I don't know why Castells is so positive about autonomy, people often need support from others. I prefer the things Murray Bookchin has written about autonomy at the end of his life, he wasn't that positive about autonomy either, it's just too much individualistic. And to think of technology as an ally of anarchists? Many anarchists don't like the fact that technology is so important these days, some of them have even opposed technology. “And instead of the nation-state controlling territory, we have city-states managing the interchange between territories.” That cities have become statified is largely the result of nation-states controlling territory. And with a striving for utopia one not always dreams, Castells is wrong about that too, it can be realistic to strive for utopias. Then Castells wants us to believe that anarchists don't believe in God and that socialism is settling into retirement. “With ideology one struggles. Anarchism is an ideology. And neo-anarchism is an instrument of struggle that appears commensurate with the needs of the twenty-first century social revolt.” I think anarchism was a lot more suitable for struggle in the 19th century. Authentic anarchism is not an ideology, it's several ideologies in one package. Some of its most known proponents, have not cried out “no God, no master!”. The christian-anarchist Tolstoyans have never done that for example. And authentic socialism that is “settling into retirement”? It's regaining its strength in Europe and Latin America, it's not much libertarian either.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:04:09 +0000

Manuel Castells will speak at the New School in New York City on September 28, 2007. For more info, go here.

By: Giuseppe Bonaccorso

Giuseppe Bonaccorso — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:21:53 +0000

My personal opinion is that anarchism is much more than a social attitude or behaviour. Its basic nature establishes itself upon the opposition between political and maverick person; everybody needs a social cooperation, however sometimes it’s quite hard to accept a particular compromise (often when our inner ego – as fundamental unity- is directly “attacked”) and this is a clear startup for an unaware anarchy desire…

Of course there is no anarchy without a social environment, not only beacause a big human capital is needed in order to realize any anarchist aim, but also because it’s possible to fight against every government institution only when the human ego sees itself in the mirror of an external but extremely analogous entity.

Probably this is a simplicist thesis, however I do believe that any organized behaviour may exist only when every member has always the possibility to accept it or, sometimes, destroy it.

By: Aipotu

Aipotu — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:23:46 +0000

so, vladamiraaron, anarchism is an a-historical reality of social relations?

By: Yvonne

Yvonne — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:29:51 +0000

I’m curious about the relationship between autonomism and anarchism. Does anyone know?

By: vladamiraaron

vladamiraaron — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:23:29 +0000

Anarchy is a natural observable phenomenon. Anarchism is the practiced tactics for living drawn from the observable characteristics of anarchy and the theoretical inferences. Thus we have the tactics and practices of autonomy, cooperation, mutual aid, solidarity, liberty, free association and so on and so forth. Anarchists are those that practice anarchism. Anarchists do this by contracting new personal, social and economic relationships using the above mentioned defining characteristics of anarchy; the goal being horizontal, egalitarian, non-hierarchical, libertarian relationships. We are not utopians –nothing will be perfect- all the ugly realities of life will still be with us but we believe can be lessened to the greatest degree possible. Anarchists value these new relationships because when we look to instances of anarchy we see that they are free from authoritarianism, hierarchy, coercive violence, oppression etc. As anarchy is not static, rigid, situated to a particular history or time other than the immediate or present, it is not “neo”-its instances are not created new but simply exist of themselves and are a continuation of the historical, each relationship unique and defined by the present conditions, needs and desires of those actors creating the web of relation. Anarchism could be “neo” but as it stands I see no break with classical anarchism’s roots. All theory and practice today is a direct continuation and evolution from anarchism’s first articulation. Even if the word anarchy were wiped from the face of the planet and there were no anarchists anarchy would still exist and the observable characteristics would waiting to be picked up again to be practiced as tactics for living by those who find anarchy desirable. Anarchy is not an ideology although anarchism is. -Just wanted to throw in little on the discussion.