Listen, Anarchist! - The Anarchist Library

18 Pages·2012·0.12 MB·English

TheAnarchistLibrary
Anti-Copyright
Listen, Anarchist!
Chaz Bufe
ChazBufe
Listen,Anarchist!
1998
RetrievedonJuly7,2009fromflag.blackened.net
OriginallypublishedbySeeSharpPress/POBox1731/Tucson
Arizona85702
PrimitiveThought wasfirstpublishedinProcessedWorld #22,
Summer1988,pp.1617.
theanarchistlibrary.org 1998

The only way in which population growth can be checked in
a humane manner is through social justice — through abolition
of (private and state) capitalism with its inherent tendencies to-
wardenvironmentaldegradation;throughfairerdistributionofre-
Contents
sources; through the emancipation of women and the abandon-
mentofpatriarchalreligions;andthroughtheutilizationofappro-
priate technologies to provide cheap, easy access to birth control
andtoprovideacomfortablelevelofmaterialwealthforeveryone.4 IntroductionbyJanetBiehl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ListenAnarchist! 8
Marginalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Anti-Work(er)Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Anti-OrganizationalBias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Sectarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ViolentAttacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
MisuseofTerms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Obscurantism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
BacktotheCaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
ReversiontoMysticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
WhatCanBeDone? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Afterword(tothe1987printing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
PrimitiveThought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4OfcourseIamnotimplyingthatalltechnologiesaredesirable—farfrom
it.“Technology”isnotamonolith.Itiscomposedofagreatnumberofseparate
technologies,allwithdifferentenvironmentalandsocialeffects.Someareben-
eficial,suchasmedicalandsewagedisposaltechnologies;someareneutral(in
thattheylendthemselvestobothsociallyusefulandsociallydamaginguses),an
examplebeingradiocommunicationstechnology,whichcanbeusedtodispatch
ambulancesorforpoliticalsurveillance;andsometechnologies,suchasnuclear
technology,areinherentlydestructive.Eventheseclassificationsaregrosssim-
plifications,though,aseventhemostusefultechnologywillhavesomenegative
effects;andeventheworsttechnologymighthavesomebeneficialaspects.And
thevarioustechnologies(steelproductionandsemiconductorproduction,forex-
ample)usedinsupportingothertechnologies(suchasautomotiveandcomputer
technologies)willallhavetheirownpositiveandnegativeaspects.Blindrejection
of“technology”is,toputitmildly,simplisticatbest.
34 3
easeandtherelatedproblemofinfantmortality.Returningtothe
preindustrial technological level of 500 years ago would not only
eliminate the “means” of combatting disease but also (relatively)
safe,effectivemeansofbirthcontrol.Thebirthratewouldsoar,and
manywomenwoulddieatanearlyage,wornoutfromchildbear-
ing. But not to worry — population balance would be maintained
thewayitwasinthegoodolddays:Mostchildrenwoulddiefrom
diseasebeforeadulthood;andif“enough”ofthemdidn’tdie,pop-
ulation would increase to the point where famine would stabilize
thepopulation.
Stillanotherquestionneveraddressedbyneo-primitiveroman-
tics is whether a majority of the population (let alone the entire
population) would ever _want_ to renounce the many benefits of
technological civilization. I for one would not, whether we speak
of music, food, medicine, or books. I doubt that my feelings are
atypical. Considering that most people almost certainly enjoy the
benefitsoflivinginanadvancedtechnologicalsociety,andwantto
continuetodoso,returningtoalow-techorno-techsocietywould
necessarily involve the use of coercion against large numbers of
people,probablyagainstalargemajorityofthepopulation.
These are the implications which the primitivists and “neo-
primitivists” have dodged until now, usually by insisting upon
“natural”checksonpopulationgrowth,suchastheAIDSepidemic
and famine, to achieve their desired huntergatherer society. They
haven’t dared advocate what would really be required to achieve
theirvision:wholesalecoercionandmassmurder.
If any good is to come from this controversy it will be that it
has provoked many people to take a closer look at the questions
oftechnologyandpopulationgrowth,andtheirrelationtothepre-
vailingpolitico-economicsystems.Onehopesthatenvironmental-
ists will go beyond the crude theories and intellectual posturing
of“deepecologists”andthosewhoblindlyhate“technology.”The
questions of population and technology require a more sophisti-
catedapproachthanprimitivism.
33
derdeveloped”countries,accompaniedbyredistributionofwealth Introduction by Janet Biehl
and abandonment of misogynist religions and attitudes, fertility
therewouldcertainlydecrease,probablyquiterapidly. The republication of Anarchist!, 13 years after its first appear-
Theprimitivistsatleasthavethehonestytoacceptsomeofthe ance is a particularly welcome event. In only a few pages Chaz
conclusionsoftheirMalthusianarguments.Theyacknowledgethat Bufe succeeds in diagnosing many of the ills of North American
reversion to our “natural role” of hunter-gatherers would require anarchism,bothinideasandactivities.Thepowerofthepamphlet
amassivedepopulationoftheEarth.For“MissAnnThropy,”“Eco- derivesnotonlyfromthepithinessofitsinsightsanditsunpreten-
topiawouldbeaplanetwithabout50millionpeoplewhoarehunt- tious style, but from its clear and forceful exposition and its will-
ingandgatheringforsubsistence.”3 Otherprimitivistshavepostu- ingness to speak out against immorality and injustice within the
latedapopulationofonlyfivetotenmillionasthemaximum,and movement.
in Atlas of World Population History, Colin McEvedy and Richard Lamentably, the intervening years since 1987 have not cured
Jonesstatethattheprehistoricpopulationofhuntergathererswas themalaisesBufediagnosed.Onthecontrary,theyhaveacquired
probablyintheneighborhoodoffourmillion. greater virulence. Fifth Estate, for example, has continued propa-
Other“neo-primitivists”(itsoundsclassierwiththeprefix)have gating its anti-technological, primitivistic, and mystical doctrines.
advocatedanagrariansocietyusingnotechnologybeyondthatof David Watson (aka George Bradford, among other pseudonyms)
simplehandtools.Reachinga“no-tech”agriculturalsocietywould has even tried, in Bookchin, to appropriate the term “social ecol-
involve almost as many deaths as reaching a hunter-gatherer ogy” for these regressive notions, attempting to supplant a body
society.Thelastperiodinwhichalargemajorityofthepopulation offorward-looking,rational,andhumanisticlibertarianideaswith
livedapastoralexistence,usingforthemostpartnothingbeyond hisownbenightedprimitivism.
hand tools, was the Middle Ages, when the world population AtaboutthesametimethatWatson’sessayappeared,aneditor
was about 300 million. Let’s assume a technological level of the of the English magazine Green Anarchist came out in support of
year1500 (perhaps acceptable to no or low-tech advocates, and the Unabomber, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Aum Shin-
at which point world population was roughly 400 million), and rikyo cult, which released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway.
that, due to improved agricultural techniques, enough food could (Green Anarchist is an anarcho-primitivist periodical that regards
be grown and distributed to support five times the population Fifth Estate as one of its precursors.) This appalling development
thatlivedthen.Thatwouldleaveuswithapopulationof2billion showed,amongotherthings,themeritofBufe’scriticismofprimi-
people (which would require a modest 60 percent reduction in tivismandmysticism:“ifanarchistsrejectrationalityandrevertto
populationtoachieve).[Today,itwouldrequirea65%reduction.] mysticism,it’sasafebetthattheytoowillgogoosesteppingoffin
Whether even this population figure could be maintained at that increasinglyauthoritariandirections.”Onlyinthefallof1997,ina
leveloftechnologyishighlyquestionable. discussion of Green Anarchist, did Watson finally begin to retreat
Historically,theabilitytogrowfoodhas_not_beenthelimiting fromhisprimitivistviews.
factor in population growth. The limiting factors have been dis- Inthemeantime,RobertC.BlackhasgoneontocelebrateAnar-
chyAfterLeftism,inabookwhosesmokescreenofinsultandvitriol
3“MissAnnThropy,”EarthFirst!,December22,1987. hidesabasiclackofideasaboutwhat“anarchyafterleftism”really
32 5
represents, apart perhaps from the supremacy of self-interest. In duce at least as much food as destructive, chemically-based meth-
thesewritingsanarchism’slongstandingsocialistdimensionisjet- ods in the short run; and in the long run, they can increase the
tisonedinfavorofindividualescapades.Black’spersonalconduct “value”oflandandpreservehighlevelsofproduction.
has mirrored his amoral views. In 1996, he acted as a police nar- In some of the European countries, notably Germany, popula-
cotics informant against Seattle author Jim Hogshire, resulting in tion “decline” through lowering of the birth rate has already be-
apoliceraidonHogshire’shome. gun. In his article “Fertility in Transition,” in the Spring 1986 is-
ManyoftheillsBufedocumentsinListen,Anarchist! deriveulti- sueofWorldFocus(journaloftheAmericanGeographicalSociety),
mately from anarchism’s individualistic tendency, whose animat- JamesL.Newmantracesthecausesofthedeclineinfertilityinthe
ingspiritisthe19th-centuryanarcho-egoistMaxStirner.Fromthe European countries. He concludes that there were three reasons
dragon’s teeth that Stirner sowed have sprung, most recently, a foradeclineinthebirthrate.Onewasindustrialization:“Outofit
legionof“fashion”or“lifestyle”anarchistswhoappeartobeunfa- camethepublichealthdiscoveriesthatreducedmortality,followed
miliarwithanarchism’sclaimtoconstituteanethicalsocialism. by a new lifestyle which no longer necessitated large families…
Infact,oneofthemostdisquietingobservationsthatBufemakes Whereas on farms and in cottage industries children contributed
isthatsomeanarchistshavereactedtoincidentsofimmoralityand their labor to the family enterprise, in the city they became con-
even violence with indifference: “Sure Bob Black is a destructive sumers. Only a few offspring could be afforded if the family was
nut,“hequotesoneassaying,“buthehasn’tattackedus.”Similarly, tomaintainor…improveitsstandardofliving.”2Thesecondreason
a comrade in the Netherlands — where Black’s writings have, as- forthedeclineinfertilitywasbirthcontrol.It“wastheanswerto
tonishingly, gained some popularity — has told me that when he thesenewsocialandeconomicrealities.”
tellsBlack’slocalfansofhisviolentandunethicalactivities,theyre- The third element in lowering the birth rate was the relative
spondwithequalindifference.CurrentlyintheU.S.,despiteBlack’s emancipation of women. In the developed countries, birth rates
narcing on Jim Hogshire — a widely known betrayal of anarchist tend to be high only among economically deprived groups with
principles (contact Loompanics for details) — at least a few vocal little hope and relatively little access to birth control devices and
“anarchists”continuetosupportBlackandhisbrandofamoralego- information,andamongpatriarchalreligiousgroupswhosemem-
ism. bersbelievethatitisawoman’s“duty”tohavealargenumberof
Such unconcern is a far cry from the left-libertarian ethos that children.(AcaseinpointistheMormonchurch;amongactiveMor-
onceproclaimed, “Aninjury to oneis an injuryto all!” Apathyin mons,nuclearfamilieswith“atleast”fourchildrenarethenorm.)
thefaceofimmoralandunjustbehaviortowardone’sfellowanar- If there were a more equal distribution of wealth and income,
chists,letalonetowardone’sfellowhumanbeings,reflectsagrave andifmisogynistic,patriarchalreligionsdeclined,thebirthratein
breach of the ethical standards with which anarchists have long thedevelopedcountrieswouldalmostcertainlybelowerthanital-
identifiedthemselves,incontrasttomanymarxistsand,especially, readyis;andiftherewererelativelyrapiddevelopmentinthe“un-
leninists.
Ethics lies at the heart of a truly libertarian movement that of-
2Newman, of course, is not implying that all aspects of European indus-
fers a vision of a cooperative and humane society. An anarchism
trializationwerebeneficial.He’smerelynotingthattherisingstandardofliving
thatdismissesevengrossviolationsofbasicethicalstandardswith attributabletoindustrializationwasinstrumentalinloweringthebirthrate.
6 31
lesshassleforbeveragemanufacturersanddistributorstouseplas- an anemic shrug has not only lost its moral high ground as the
ticbottlesratherthanrecyclableglass.Stillanotherexampleisthe libertarianalternativetoauthoritarianorstatesocialism;ithasun-
toxicwasteproblem.Onereadsalmostdailyreportsofcompanies dermineditsclaimtorepresentamovementforbasicchange,indi-
dumpingdangerouswastesintostreamsandriversratherthango- vidualaswellassocial.Insteadithasbecomeapseudo-rebellious
ingtotheexpenseoftreatingandproperlydisposingofthem. conceit, a self-serving gloss, a passing stage of late childhood de-
Thistendencyofthecapitalist,profit-basedsystemtowardenvi- velopment,orasBufeputsitverywell,afashiontrend.
ronmental destruction exists regardless of the size of the popula- Thediffusionofsuchmoralindifferenceamonganarchistswould
tion.Intermsoftheprofit-motivetendencytowardenvironmental transformanarchismitselfintosomethingthatmostofthosewho
destruction, it would make no difference if the population of the onceproudlyusedthatlabelwouldscarcelyrecognize.Libertarians
UnitedStateswas24millionratherthan244million[in1988,when todaywhocherishideasofacooperativeandjustsocietywoulddo
this was written]. At the lower population figure, the motivation well to express their outrage at immorality and violence in their
for beverage manufacturers and distributors to use plastic bottles, ownmilieuaswellasinthelargersociety,reaffirminganarchism’s
for example, would be the same as it is now. A large population callforethicalrenovation.Onlythenwillwehaveamovementthat
magnifies the damage rooted in the profit motive, but population deservestogainwidersupport.
size itself is not “at the root of every environmental problem we
face.”
The conclusions the misanthropic “deep ecologists” draw from
their faulty premises are breathtaking. They want us to return to
our“naturalrole”ashunter-gatherers,because,accordingtotheir
faulty reasoning, “Earth simply cannot support five billion large
mammalsofthespeciesHomosapiens.”Thisargumenthasbeende-
molishedelsewhere;thebestworkonthesubject,isFrancesMoore
Lappe’s and Joseph Collins’ Food First. For our purposes, suffice
it to say that there is actually a huge surplus of food at present.
AccordingtoLappe,approximately3600caloriesofgrainaloneis
produced on a daily per capita basis.1 That doesn’t even take into
accountfruits,vegetablesandgrass-fedmeat.Thisisenoughfood
that, if the grain alone were equally distributed and all — or even
two-thirds—ofitconsumed,mostofuswouldbeasfataspigs.It
shouldalsobeemphasizedthatproductionofthisamountoffood
does not “necessarily” involve environmental degradation: Non-
environmentallyharmful,organicmethodsofagriculturecanpro-
1“ThePoliticsofFood,”TVdocumentary.
30 7
In a similar vein, “Miss Ann Thropy,” a regular contributor to
EarthFirst!,hasarguedthatAIDSisa“good”thing,becauseitwill
reduce population. In the May 1, 1987 issue of that paper, “Miss
Throp”stated:“…iftheAIDSepidemicdidn’texist,radicalenviron-
Listen Anarchist!
mentalistswouldhavetoinventone[anepidemic].”IntheDec.22,
1987issueofEarthFirst!,heorsheaddsthat“…theAIDSepidemic,
rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the in-
ANARCHISMhasneverfoundwideacceptanceinNorthAmer-
evitablereductionofhumanpopulation.”
ica. Neglecting the reasons why this did not happen in the past,
TheconnectingthreadbetweentheargumentsinfavorofAIDS
it’s necessary to ask why anarchism remains a marginal, misun-
andstarvationisacrudeMalthusianism.(The19thcenturyBritish
derstood philosophy. Conditions certainly seem ripe for a flower-
parsonThomasMalthusargued,inhisEssayonthePrincipleofPop-
ingofanarchistideasandactivity.Popularmistrustofgovernment
ulation,thatunlimitedpopulationgrowthwastheprimarydanger
andbusiness,asmeasuredbypublicopinionpolls,ismuchhigher
to humanity; that population increased geometrically while food
than it was 25 years ago. Official unemployment figures continue
supply increased arithmetically.) A latter day disciple of the good
tohovernearsevenpercent,whileactualunemploymentisproba-
parson, Daniel Conner, a “deep ecologist,” self-aggrandizingly ex-
blyfarhigher.Thesuicidalmadnessofthearmsracecouldhardly
pressedhisfaithinMalthus’principleintheDec.22,1987issueof
beplainer.Andthebankruptcyofmarxismisalltooobvious.Marx-
Earth First!: “Population pressure, they [’thoughtful environmen-
istregimestheworldoverhaveutterlyandabjectlyfailedtocreate
talists’]claim,liesattherootofeveryenvironmentalproblemwe
anythingapproachingfree,equalitariansocieties.
face.”
Yet interest in anarchism and the amount of anarchist activity
Contrary to what Conner would have us believe, there is noth-
inNorthAmericaremainpitifullysmall.Why?Alargepartofthe
ing “thoughtful” in the belief that population “lies at the root of
blamemustbeassignedtotheeducationalsystem,themassmedia,
everyenvironmentalproblem.”Thatideaisonaparwiththesim-
organizedreligion,andthehierarchicallystructuredunionswhich
plistic belief that “technology” is the sole cause of environmental
have strangled the labor movement. But external factors provide
destruction. It ignores the key element in environmental destruc-
onlyapartialexplanation.Internalfactorsmustalsobeconsidered.
tion:profit.Forexample,coalburningpowerplantsareaprimary
cause of acid rain, yet utilities have invariably put up resistance
Marginalization to installing scrubbers, which would greatly reduce the amount
ofpollutantsemittedbytheirplants.Thereason?Installingscrub-
One major problem is the deliberate self-marginalization of berswouldreducetheirprofits.Anotherexample:Plasticbeverage
a relatively large number of American anarchists. Anyone who containers become non-recyclable trash, are a visual blight, take
has been around the U.S./Canadian anarchist movement for any hundreds, if not thousands of years to break down, and a particu-
length of time quickly becomes familiar with the “marginals” larly toxic type of plastic, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), is often used
and the “fashion anarchists.” (Marginals consider themselves in their manufacture. (PVCs leach into beverages.) Why are they
anarchists, while “fashion anarchists” simply use anarchist — and used? The answer is what you’d expect: It’s cheaper and involves
8 29
engaging in or condoning such practices as making anonymous punk — trappings.) These people often run around with huge
deaththreats,vandalizingtheofficesofpoliticalopponents,using circle-“A“spaintedontheirjackets;loudlyproclaimthemselvesto
thestatelegalapparatusagainstpoliticalopponents,andviolently be anarchists, and for the most part have never studied anarchist
physically assaulting political opponents. Those who commit or theory and couldn’t offer a coherent definition of anarchism to
condonesuchactsseenothinginherentlywrongwiththemwhen savetheirlives.
directed at those of us whom they see as obstacles to the achieve- Thereasonwhysuchpeople(bothmarginalsand“fashionanar-
mentoftheirscrewballconceptionofAnarchy—if,infact,they’re chists”)choosetolabelthemselvesasanarchistsisundoubtedly,in
interestedinachievinganythingbeyondideology-drivenhowling. manycases,thattheybelievetheworstbourgeoisliesaboutanar-
They believe the end (chaos/amoral egoism) justifies the means. chism — that it’s a synonym for chaos and an extreme everyone-
Thustheyendupnotonlyproclaimingtheworstauthoritarianlies else-be-damned form of individualism. They use “anarchism” as
aboutanarchism(thatitconsistsofunbridledegoismandrejection a blanket justification for irresponsible, antisocial behavior. (I’ve
of organization), but they also end up adopting the philosophical even heard “anarchism” used as an excuse for smoking in pub-
foundation of the capitalist society they profess to hate so much, lic places.) It’s unfortunate, to say the least, that such people are
astheirguidingprinciple—thattheendsjustifythemeans. themostpubliclyvisibleproponentsof(whattheyconsider)anar-
The belief that the ends justify the means is the cornerstone of chism.
authoritarianism.It’stheantithesisofanarchism.Thecornerstone
ofanarchismisthebeliefthatmeansdetermineends.
Anti-Work(er) Bias
If anarchism is ever to be a real force in this society it must be
basedonethicalbehavior—notonthatsickparodyofanarchism,
A troubling aspect of the marginalized milieu is the anti-work
amoralindividualism.
(and often anti-worker) attitude frequently displayed by the
marginals. This is un-fortunate for two reasons. One is that work
Primitive Thought mustbeperformedinorderforsocietytoexist,andadoptionofin
anti-work, anti-worker attitude simply begs the crucial question
Oneofthehottesttopicsin“progressive”circlesthesedaysisthe ofhowworkshouldbeorganized.It’sallwellandgoodtosaythat
EarthFirst!controversy.ProminentmembersofEarthFirst!,such work should be replaced by play, but how do we get from here to
as Dave Foreman, the organization’s founder and the editor of its there?
newspaper,haverecentlyundertakenpolemicsinfavoroffamine The other problem is that most ablebodied people work, and it
andAIDS. wouldbedifficulttofindamorealienatingapproachtothoseofus
In the Australian magazine Simply Living, Foreman stated that, whoworkthantheanti-workattitude,whichineffectstates:“What
“the best thing would be to just let the people there [Ethiopia] you’re doing (work) is worse than useless, and you’re stupid for
starve…”HehasmadesimilarstatementstothelocalmediainTuc- doingit,”whileofferingnoalternativewhatsoever.Thisproblemis
son,whereEarthFirst!(theorganofEarthFirst!)ispublished.[This aggravated by the fact that some anti-work advocates, who could
wasin1988;thepaperisnolongerpublishedinTucson.] workbutchoosenotto,practiceaformofparasitism—theyreceive
28 9
moneyfromthegovernment(extortedfromthosewhowork).It’s extremely odd conceptions of anarchism and of “the personal as
ratherdifficulttotakeseriouslythosewhorailagainstworkwhile political.”
graspingablackflaginonehandandawelfarecheckintheother. To me that phrase means that in our daily lives we should be
(However,thesecommentsshouldnotbeconstruedasanattackon honest,respecttherightsofothers,practicetheprincipleofmutual
welfare recipients. Unemployment is built into the economy, and aid,andgenerallydoourbesttoliveuptoourvalues.(I’mnosaint
it’s undeniably fortunate that forms of relief are available to its anddonotalwaysliveuptothoseideals,butneitherdoesanyone
victims. But for those who most stringently condemn the state — else; all that we can do is to try our best.) My attacker’s concept
anarchists — to deliberately rely on it as their means of support, of “the personal as political” is quite evidently very different. He
robsthemofcredibility.) conceivesofitnotasaguidepostforpersonalbehavior,butrather
asajustificationtopersonallyattackanyonewithwhomheorhis
ideology-drivencohortshappentodisagree.
Anti-Organizational Bias
Behind this disagreement over the meaning of “the personal as
political” lie totally opposed interpretationsof the meaning of an-
An extreme anti-organizational bias often goes hand in hand
archism.Tomeanarchismmeanstherenunciationofgovernment
with deliberate self-marginalization and an anti-work attitude.
and all other forms of coercive authority, and the embracement
This often comes from lack of study of anarchist theory. Virtually
of the principles of voluntarism, mutual aid, and ethical personal
_all_ of the most prominent anarchist theoreticians and activists,
conduct. My attackers have accused me of “moralizing,” and in a
Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, and Goldman among them, have
sensethey’reright.Iconsiderethicalbehaviortobethebedrockof
beeninfavoroforganization.Whatthesethinkerswereconcerned
anarchism.Forwithoutethicalbehaviortrustbecomesimpossible.
withwasnotwhetherthereshouldbeorganizationbutratherhow
Without trust there is no basis for free association or mutual aid.
thingsshouldbeorganized.
Andwithoutfreeassociationandmutualaid,thepossibilityofan
Butthatdoesn’tmattertorabidanti-organizationalists.Several
anarchistsocietyvanishes.
years ago a writer in the Fifth Estate labeled my advocacy of
Thosewhohaveattackedmetotallydiscounttheimportanceof
the classic anarchist position (that it’s how, not whether, things
ethics. They proudly proclaim themselves “egoists” and renounce
should be organized) as “leninist”; and I recently heard another
ethics of any type. In other words, they proudly proclaim that
anti-organizational type claim that all organization is inherently
they’ve swallowed the worst authoritarian lies about anarchism,
“capitalist.” Such persons cannot be taken seriously — they have
hook, line, and sinker — that anarchism consists of rejection of
no concern for the real meanings of the terms they employ and
ethics,rejectionofallformsoforganization,andtheembracement
merely throw them around as epithets — but one shudders to
ofanextremeformofegoism,orindividualism,whichrecognizes
think of the impression they leave with anyone coming in casual
no one’s rights other than the egoist’s. They’ve swallowed the lie
contact with them. (A politically active friend recently told me
thatAnarchyequalschaos.
thatafterencounterswithseveralofthelocalmarginalistsshehad
Given their rejection of ethics, it was entirely predictable that
the impression that anarchists were uncooperative, irresponsible,
theywouldreacttomywritingswithpersonaltrashingratherthan
andselfish.)
discussion of issues. This is entirely in line with their history of
10 27