negations

by Jordi Berenguer

(From El Mostrador, July 22, 2007. English Translation by Chuck Morse)

* * *

Life. The world. Society. Everything or at least almost everything offers new opportunities. Today there is an opportunity for ideas that were forgotten–poorly interpreted or obscured when the world was divided between two choices–to make their contribution to the possibility of a freer, more generous life. I refer to anarchist or libertarian ideas, which, though marginal, are significant for many adults and young people in this country and around the world.

I am not thinking of individuals who repeat anarchist slogans to be fashionable or who might look like anarchists because of their style, but those who genuinely embrace the vision. And it is necessary to demystify the word and dispense the negative charge attributed to it by those in power, by the media, and by all those who want to erase the very thought of a society built upon liberty and equality and in which mutual respect is a central foundation. Although the image of assassinations, robberies, and generalized disorder has always predominated, nothing is further from the anarchist spirit and idea.

If we were to select a quotation to sum up the primary conviction of this ideology, we could use a statement that Michael Bakunin made when he speaking of the Paris Commune. He described himself as a “fanatical lover of liberty . . . the only environment in which human intelligence, dignity, and happiness can thrive and develop. . . . I mean the only liberty worthy of the name, the liberty which implies the full development of all the material, intellectual, and moral capacities latent in every one of us; the liberty which knows no other restrictions but those set by the laws of our own nature. Consequently there are, properly speaking, no restrictions, since these laws are not imposed upon us by any legislator from outside, alongside, or above ourselves. These laws are subjective, inherent in ourselves; they constitute the very basis of our being. Instead of seeking to curtail them, we should see in them the real condition and the effective cause of our liberty.”

When noting that anarchist ideas have been forgotten, I think of the Spanish Civil War, a key event for the European anarchist movement and yet the moment when libertarian ideas went into hibernation (with the exception of May 1968). However, as radical thinker and linguist Noam Chomsky once explained, anarchism has broad shoulders and can support many things upon them, which is exactly why it has been able to reassert its relevance in recent years.

This is also true, in part, because of another issue underscored by Chomsky: “What I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism is the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met.” Certainly the few times that we have demanded such proof from our authorities in the last century have only highlighted the importance of the criterion.

That is why today, as the historian Luis Vitale points out, “a new anarchism has emerged under neo-liberalism. . . that rescues from its ideological ancestors a libertarian sense of life as a response to the authoritarianism of the contemporary state apparatus and its assaults on the individual and collective freedom of the oppressed.”

Is anarchism only a beautiful utopia? An appealing but impractical idea? It would be easy to say so, given that it can seem to be the least practical of all the ideologies, even if one sees its precepts instituted in various historical moments. However, in the context of the present world, our survival demands that we search for new alternatives and exhume Josef Proudhon, Bakunin, and other thinkers that will help revive our faith in the future and demonstrate that there is more than just the ideology of the free market.

Manuel Castells is one of the leading intellectuals of our time. His work has had a significant impact on sociology, urban studies, communication, and many other fields. Anarchists may be especially interested in his writings on social movements and the city (particularly The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements) and also his comprehensive and inspiring trilogy, The Information Age. Anyone looking for a general introduction to his ideas will benefit from watching this interview with him.

In addition to being an extremely productive scholar, he is also a public figure who comments on trends and developments in world affairs. He is best known in Spain and Latin America, where he regularly contributes columns to daily newspapers. What follows is a translation of an essay that he published in Catalonia’s La Vanguardia on May 21, 2005.

Neo-anarchism

By Manuel Castells

Anarchism’s new vitality, an ideology for the 21st
century with the support of technology

* * *

We do not live in an era of the end of ideologies but the rebirth of those that resonate in the present. This is the case with anarchism, which was long taken for dead by its many gravediggers and yet today, expressing itself in new ways, 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.

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 (“que se vayan todos!”).

And while old left intellectuals, especially in Latin America, still regurgitate the mediatic catchphrases of the movement, popular sympathies lean toward loosely organized and largely self-managed patterns of mobilization and discourse, as evidenced at the most recent World Social Forum in Porto Alegre.

Likewise, the autonomist perspective, which is so closely linked to anarchism, has a very strong presence on the theoretical and political terrains. Michael Hardt and Toni Negri articulate this view, as does the Multitudes magazine group, which is a direct heir of France’s May ‘68. (Hardt and Negri’s most recent book–also named Multitudes–has a very high ranking on the sales list at Amazon.com.)

Though organized anarchists are few in number-–for example, Spain’s CNT newspaper has approximately 6000 subscribers and there are roughly one hundred thousand members of the CGT, a union which I place in the libertarian tradition–the principles of anti-statism, international solidarity, individual liberty, and free association are common to otherwise very diverse movements (from Barcelona’s squatters, to the Ecuador’s “outlaws,” to Argentina’s piqueteros, to Italy’s autonomists). All these share a commitment to an emancipation accomplished without delegating power to professional political intermediaries.

What is the source of anarchism’s new robustness, which seems like an ideology for the 21st century while Marxism appears confined to the one that just ended? The strength of ideologies (whose myths are ahistorical) depends on the historical context. And it is my hypothesis—in contrast to popular opinion– that anarchism was ahead of its time.

A pervasive ideology in the early days of the workers’ moment (the First International), from Andalusia and Catalonia to Tsarist Russia, the French Charte d’Amiens, and Chicago, the birthplace of May Day, organized anarchism did not survive the repression it suffered under both capitalism and communism. Its vulnerability was above all a consequence of the fact that it identified the nation-state as the cardinal enemy at the very moment that the state was becoming the center and principle of social organization. After all, the twentieth century was the century of the nation-state.

Classical anarchism encompassed a broad ideological spectrum, from Stirner’s irreducible individualism to Proudhon’s social cooperativism, to Bakunin and Kropotkin’s libertarian communism. It inspired social struggles in contexts as distinct as Makhno’s peasant revolution in Russia, urban social movements in Mexico in the 1920s, and the embryonic social revolution that Spanish and Catalan anarchists attempted during the first phase of the Civil War.

In this varied ideological current, which millions fought for and embraced, there is a central idea: the complete liberation from the ultimate source of oppression, the state. This, just when the Nazi-fascist, Stalinist, and liberal-democratic war machines were arming themselves to exterminate one another and using the state to take control of as many people as they could.

And yet the state’s victory, under whatever flag, led to a crisis a half-century later. Communist governments were unable to absorb precisely that which Marx had intended them to absorb: the development of the productive forces. This is because the informational, technological revolution could not take place without a society that is informed–that is, autonomous from the state. And capitalism, in its expansive dynamic, globalized itself and thereby undermined the foundation of the nation-state, upon which it rested politically. The economy became global, the state remained national, and society–between the two, orphaned by the state and at the mercy of global fluctuations—became increasingly entrenched in the local. Or, it transformed itself into a collection of individuals, each with his or her own preoccupations and plans. As a result, many people, particularly the youth, who have yet to write their ideological page, have stopped believing in politicians, although not in politics as such, not in another politics. So, while the great powers position themselves in the complex relation between globalization and the nation-state, survival and resistance emerges from the individual and the local: in other words, from the material with which anarchist ideology is constructed.

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. Instead of large factories and gigantic bureaucracies (socialism’s material base), the economy increasingly operates through networks (the material foundation of organizational autonomy). And instead of the nation-state controlling territory, we have city-states managing the interchange between territories. All this is based on the Internet, mobile phones, satellites, and informational networks that allow local-global communication and transport at a planetary scale. This is not only my interpretation; it is also explicit in the discourse of the social movements, as Jeffrey Juris’s recent book on the topic splendidly documents. There too we see a call for the dissolution of the state and the construction of an autonomous social organization based on individuals and affinity groups, debating, voting and acting through an interactive network of communication. Is this utopia? No, it is ideology. Consider the distinction: utopia prefigures a desired world. Ideology configures practice. With utopia one dreams. 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.

Well, one of the two instruments: while anarchism cries out “no God, no master!” as it always has, its chief competitor in the rebellion against global capitalism proclaims: “God is my only master!” In the face of an out-of-control global capitalism, and a socialism settling into retirement, resistance arises from the contradictory opposition between fundamentalism and neo-anarchism.

* * *

Translated to English by Chuck Morse.

Translated and published here with the kind permission of La Vanguardia.

From a statement released on Sunday, July 1, 2007 (more photos here):

Bakers without Borders and Co-optation Watch take action today at the US Social Forum to demand accountability from a self-appointed “spokesperson” whose actions further the commodification of resistance and sabotage our movement’s sustainability and credibility. This person’s actions benefit the NGO Industrial Complex at the expense of real democracy and solidarity.

In particular, we hold Medea Benjamin accountable for:

- Publicly siding with the police and municipal authorities against direct actions performed at the World Trade Organization protests of 1999.

- Administrative authority in an organization that hordes funds raised for community organizations in Guatemala

- Administrative authority in an organization that solicited the economic dependency of residents in Cuba and then abandoned the project, pushing the Cuban participants deeper into poverty.

- Acting as self-appointed spokesperson of the “American Left”. One egregious example is publicly refusing to endorse a call by hundreds of Lebanese citizens for Israel to unconditionally withdraw from Southern Lebanon in the 2006 war, claiming that the American Left would not swallow such a demand.

- Exploiting and dominating movement space, resources, and publicity in the global justice and associated movements.

WATCH THE VIDEO!




by Frank Furedi

I can just about live with my daily round of commercial spam. Without a blink I know how to get rid of e-mail offering Viagra or another irresistible commercial opportunity. What I find more troublesome is the rising tide of academic spam. I now wince when I look at my e-mail and see “Call For Papers” in the subject line. Announcements of new journals and online publications are automatically deleted. But sometimes I get caught unawares by a cleverly crafted message that purports to be a private communication, only to realise that it has been transmitted to the whole world.

It is difficult to avoid the impression that there is now a veritable journal and conference industry that preys on academic insecurity.

Conference organisers have learnt a thing or two from old-fashioned vanity publishers. They promise a place for everyone and guarantee an automatic entry for your CV. Many conferences with fancy-sounding titles attempt to appeal to people’s desire for recognition. And it costs only $420 to register!

Many of these events do not even require that you leave your office. For example, an e-mail informing me about a Symposium on the Arts in Society assures me that virtually every form of presentation is invited. It says that “presenters may choose to submit written papers for consideration in the International Journal of the Arts in Society”. If you can’t attend, no big deal: “Virtual registrations are available that will allow you to submit a paper for review and possible publication in the journal.”

It is worth noting that literally the same phrase appears in the call for papers for an International Conference on Learning in Johannesburg. The advert assures us that “virtual registrations are also available, which allow you to submit a paper for review and possible publication in the journal”. And, surprise, surprise, a Conference on Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations in Amsterdam advertises pretty much the same thing. It appears that the same ghostwriter has been employed to flatter academic vanities throughout the world.

No doubt many of the unsolicited calls for papers are straightforward scams designed to rip off naive academics. But are they qualitatively different from the many pointless extracurricular activities that academics engage in for the sake of their CV? There are far too many academic conferences that simply go through the motions of providing an opportunity for the exchange of ideas.

I recently talked to a young scientist who paid out serious cash to be given an opportunity to make a poster presentation at an international conference. When I asked what this was, I was told that it was literally that – exhibiting a poster that outlined a few paragraphs about his research. It appears that there was some kudos attached to being mentioned in the conference programme.

Every profession is afflicted with meaningless ritual and forced to undertake meaningless activity. In recent years, higher education has become a hothouse for pointless initiatives. Reports about student progression, learning outcomes or skills acquisition bear no relationship to the real world. They are a pointless expenditure of energy that demonstrates compliance with the latest managerial fad.

Do we need poster presentations, virtual papers, phoney journals and conferences? Do we need to publish in outlets that virtually no one reads? Do we dare take a long sabbatical from the treadmill of our pointless extracurricular activities?

[This article is from here]

All radicals go through ups and downs. It is exhilarating when you are part of a movement that is changing the world. You are in the news and influencing debates on issues that you care about; your relationships with friends (and enemies) become more impassioned; and unanticipated political and personal opportunities open up before you. All the years spent on the margins of political life seem to be vindicated. Suddenly everything makes sense.

But then there are the downs. Whether it is because of internal problems, an inability to respond to changes in the political landscape, or because you actually accomplished many of your aims, there is a sharp deceleration in activity. Attendance at your meetings drops, reporters stop calling, and your group turns inward. You are back on the fringes.

Although we “know” that our political fortunes will vacillate, dealing with a downward shift in movement activity is always tough. It is common to feel depressed, estranged from friends, and without a sense of purpose. In fact, many people drop out of politics altogether after a particularly sharp decline.

In my case, I struggled to remain focused after the disintegration of the environmental and anti-globalization movements (in the early 1990s and early 2000s, respectively). I got through it and remain committed, but it was a challenge.

During the process, I tried to reflect on what was happening and remain attentive to strategies that helped me cope. Below I’ve compiled a list of the five that I found most useful.
Continue reading →

Last night, there was a very thoughtful discussion of one of New York’s most challenging, radical sons: Paul Goodman. The event was called “The Habits of Freedom: Legacies of Paul Goodman.” It was sponsored by the Libertarian Book Club and held at the new Living Theatre location.

Below are three photos from the evening:

Taylor Stoehr, author and Goodman’s literary executor, laying it all out. Continue reading →