It is not that “identity” is something that the left wants to create dividing lines around, but instead, for some people, a piece of their lives through which they have been oppressed, and therefore need to create solidarity with others who share the same background of oppression. To say that white people are in the same boat as people of color in terms of racially defined oppression is offensive right from the start.”
This statement completely ignores a central argument I made in my previous response.
The most common objection that is raised to this perspective by the Left is the claim that many in the former category of social groups represents oppressed or subordinated classes of people, while many in the latter category represents hegemonic or “privileged” categories. Obviously, there is a considerable degree of truth to some of these claims in a historical sense, depending on the group in question and the specific historical context, but such claims are increasingly dubious within the context of contemporary demographic, cultural, generational, socioeconomic, and political realities. Sorry folks, but Barack Obama’s America is not the America of Dwight Eisenhower or even Ronald Reagan, let alone Andrew Jackson, and this will be increasingly true in the years and decades ahead, particularly as WASPs lose their historic demographic majority in the United States, and become just another minority group like everyone else (and therefore reasonably entitled to an identity politics of their own).
The Western civilization of 2015 is hardly the Western civilization of the nineteenth century or even the mid-twentieth century. The bottom line is that AFN has failed to update its ideology in order to recognize the nature contemporary Western liberal democratic capitalist societies as they actually are in their present manifestation. As I previously stated:
I have thoroughly documented how what I call “totalitarian humanism” is the self-legitimating ideological superstructure of contemporary Western liberal democratic capitalist regimes. In trying to trace the origins of PC, it seems to represent the convergence and cumulative effect of a range of historical, cultural, and ideological forces. There is the legacy of Christian “slave morality” (see Nietzsche), Protestant pietism and Puritanism (see Rothbard), Enlightenment universalism and egalitarianism, Marxist eschatology and dualism, progressive Christian revisionism (the “social gospel,” see Paul Gottfried), critical theory (see Lind on the Frankfurt School), Gramscianism, black Marxism (DuBois), American Stalinism (Allen and Ignatiev), Western Maoism (Weather Underground), a general backlash against the legacy of European colonialism, the American and South African racial caste systems, and Nazism, WW2, and the Holocaust, the growth of therapeutic, consumer culture within the context of a post-scarcity managerial society, and the rise of a left-wing capitalist class from outside of the traditional Western elites, which includes the newly rich generated by newer high-tech industries (like media and computers), the coming to power of elites among traditional outgroups (racial minorities, women, homosexuals), and the hijacking of all of these by the state as a means of creating a self-legitimating ideological superstructure and moralistic posture to mask imperial hegemony (see Chomsky on “military humanism”) in the tradition of liberal imperialism.
Let’s take a look at some more claims from AFN.
“Preston often likes to cite obscure pseudo-anarchists from history, while ignoring ninety-five percent of anarchist history and theory.”
What??? Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Duhring, Spanish anarchism, Tucker, Faure, Rocker, Tolstoy, Day, Goldman, Landauer and the IWW are “obscure pseudo-anarchists from history”?
The best example of anarchist social organization existed in response to the rise of the Fallange fascist party in Catalonia, and were eventually crushed fighting for survival against the Catholic nationalists. Anarchists rose up as primary actors in fighting the fascist party machine in Italy, Romania, Austria, and Germany, all of which show the history of the radical right as being the direct inverse of anarchism and dedicated to its destruction. As you prance around the National Policy Institute and promote your Americanized pan-libertarianism, you are celebrating the forces that have been the historic enemy of the anarchist movement and who have murdered anarchists by the thousands.
Well, this is a rather interesting accusation given its source. What are the roots of the “antifa” anyway? As a friend states:
“The Antifascist Action the antifa claims as their legacy today was originally a highly nationalist and authoritarian branch of the German Communist Party (KPD). It was the follower of the Rötkampfer Bund, the paramilitary branch of the KPD, which was banned in 1932 by the German government.
It would be pretty much the same as NA claiming the Swastika as a symbol for anarchism. The historic ignorance of the Antifa/AFA is pretty stunning, considering the nationalist and even ‘anti-Semitic’ (the KPD reached out to the same crowd as the NSDAP and thus used the same anti-Jewish sentiments) past of their symbol (the one “Anti-Fascist News” uses) and name.”
Where exactly did the present day leftist-Marxist “anarchist” movement originate from? In the 60s and 70s, Communism was the general thrust of the radical left, and anarchists were considered a tiny, freakish sideshow. But during the 80s when it was becoming obvious that the Soviet Union was on its way to becoming a failed state, and that Communism was just another tyrannical bureaucracy, many Marxists started reinventing themselves as Anarchists. There was some of that in the 60s but I think this trend started to grow in a big way in the 80s, which was the time when I first became involved in left-anarchism. I remember a veteran leftist telling me at the time that Anarchism had finally surpassed Communism as the dominant ideology of “radial progressives.” So it seems as though what happened is that as the PC Left that came out of the 60s with all of its privilege theory, critical theory, etc became increasingly institutionalized, a lot of these people started claiming the Anarchist label to differentiate themselves from Soviet-style Communism, even if they retained all of the underlying neo-Marxist presumptions. Hence, the failure of Communism meant that Marxists merely refashioned themselves as Anarchists.
I see the work of tendencies like ATS and NAM as a necessary corrective to anarchism having gotten off course due to Marxist infiltration. Also, ATS and NAM actually have a workable theory of anarchism based on decentralized, pluralistic, particularism that recognizes the legitimacy of identities such as ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, race, language, history, tradition, regionalism, local community, in addition to preferred economic arrangements, abstract political ideologies, and sub-cultural variations. These are what most people identify with anyway rather than some kind of One World utopia or arcane economic theories that most people don’t even understand.
Historically, there has been just as much repression of anarchists by authoritarian regimes and movements of the Left as there has been from the Right. I might take the “antifa” seriously when their anti-communism becomes as virulent as their “anti-fascism.”
Preston himself now has zero connection to larger anarchist movements and seems to have been deemed persona non grata from all political arenas except the far-right.
The “far right” is presently the only milieu where a comprehensive critique of imperialism as it actually exists in its present form can be presented. The “center-right/center left” mainstream paradigm is fully committed to neo-liberalism. While strands of the “far left” profess opposition to imperialism and capitalism, the Left utterly fails to critique or even recognize neo-liberalism’s legitimating ideological superstructure of totalitarian humanism because the bulk of the Left shares the same fundamental ideological and cultural presumptions as neo-liberalism on these questions such as globalism, multiculturalism, uncritical acceptance of mass immigration, therapeutic culture, the managerial state, victimology, “political correctness,” and military humanism. It is forbidden to criticize many of these things on the “far left.” In addition, the bulk of the “far left” has degenerated into outright silliness as demonstrated by
its fixation on trigger warnings, safe spaces, so-called “call out culture,” and the ongoing sectarian wars between feminists and the transgendered, transsexuals and transvestites, vegans and vegetarians, anti-anti-Semites and anti-Zionists, white anarchist youth and anarchist people of color, gender feminists and sex workers, anti-BDSM and pro-BDSM, gays and socially conservative immigrants, Muslims and feminists, etc. etc. etc. etc. In other words, the Left has become utterly worthless as any kind of authentic opposition force The “far right” is the only place where my own anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-statist, “anti-American,” and anti-totalitarian humanist perspective can be heard at the present time.
Sorry folks, but that’s how it is.
18
“Visions So Radically Different…”
“Anti-Fascist News” has generated another round. Here is my “response to response to response to response.”
“The exchange between anarchism and Marxism has been complex and ongoing, yet this idea that Marxism has infiltrated anarchism and that is why it has adopted socially left values is not just bizarre, it has a zero basis in fact. Today, Marxist factions, as small and scattered as they are, are continually a socially conservatizing force and several steps behind in these struggles. This has always been true in older periods of Marxism where struggle is centrally set on a united working class along economic lines, not along lines of other oppressed identification.”
I would agree that the focus of the Left has shifted over the past half century from a focus on class-based politics of the kind found in traditional Marxism to a focus on cultural politics. No argument there.
“The idea is then proposed by neo-fascists (sic) that the Frankfurt School completely reshaped all social struggles on every level so that anti-racism and anti-patriarchal struggles would supplement class struggle. The main purpose of this conspiracy theory is to create a narrative whereby it is actually Jewish philosophers that have started this process and, therefore, must be only done for Jewish domination.”
I would agree that the influence of the Frankfurt School has been very important in the shaping of the modern Left, though I reject the “Jewish conspiracy” explanation for this, or the view that roots of PC can be fully explained by Marxist influences.
“There are literally no Marxist academics or organizers that would agree with the radical right’s estimation of Marxism as the driving force towards social progress through the Frankfurt School.”
See Martin Jay’s The Dialectical Imagination.
“The KPD, the failed German Revolution, and the position of racism within their party is a history that fails to have a connection to modern anti-fascist organizing since the dynamics of state allied communist parties is past, but it does actually show the degree to which Marxism fails to address issues like racism, patriarchy, and queer liberation.
Ideologically, the anarchist project of modern times owes so little to Marxism in all the ways that most people understand Marxist theory. Marxism does not see the power dynamics that are central to interpersonally identified oppressions, such as race or gender, as foundational. Instead, economic relation act as the base to the larger superstructure by which other forms of oppression can rest alongside disparate pieces of culture. This runs counter to most contemporary anarchist’s conception of oppression, where anything beyond class struggle would have to be secondary.”
And yet AFN seems to fall back on a “workerist” position which is arguably even more self-defeating that the normal “race/gender/gay” paradigm of the left-anarchists given that membership in unions is at an all-time low in the US (maybe AFN is not in the US), the transient nature of employment in a service industry-driven economy, and the fact that the few influential unions that are left are largely public sector unions whose employment interests are directly connected to the state.
“National Anarchism seeks to build up the idea of the ethnic nation as a viable unit of identity and resistance, but we want to counter that notion with the idea that working class unity and broad community is both more functionally successful in terms of struggle and more inspiring to the human soul.”
In the interests of clarity, I should point out that the argument I was making in my previous reply to “Anti-Fascist News” wasn’t about taking anyone’s side in the “Who’s most oppressed?” pissing contest as much as it was to point out the limitations of the approach to political theory and social criticism offered by the contemporary Left.
“Anti-Fascist News” seems to represent a hybrid of sectarian 1930s model anarcho-communism (“workerism”) and Communist-inspired “anti-fascist” movements from the same period. AFN hypocritically waxes hysterical about National-Anarchism, or supposed rightist influences on ATS, while glossing over the legacy of Communist repression of anarchists. In other words, AFN is engaged in special pleading, which is often the case with these hyper-leftist people.
“The influence of Marxism on anarchism is in much of the critiques of capitalism, which you would see in the work of people like Wayne Price (We are guessing you remember him).”
Yes, I am familiar with Wayne Price and his work.
“The Marxism that does tend to maintain some influence in anarchist circles are, ironically, by the Marxists that you cited to make your point. There is differing opinions about the work of Negri and Hardt among our editorial collective, especially as it comes to the de-emphasis of the nation state, yet this disagreement is within a particular framework: namely, the discussion of politics leading towards liberation. If anything, anarchism has influenced Marxism more on social issues than the latter as you can see the emergence in most of the ideas in many of the anarchists Preston sites, such as Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman.”
I am essentially a hard leftist at heart myself. I generally agree, for example, with the critique of the international capitalist system generated by globalization that Hardt and Negri outlined in “Empire,” though I would argue that the Anglo-American-Zionist-Wahhabist axis is the dominant coalition within the “Empire.” I generally agree with the “power elite” critique of domestic American politics offered by C. Wright Mills (plus the “four networks” modification of Mills’ original theory offered by William Domhoff). However, I would argue that totalitarian humanism is the dominant coalition (with the left-wing of capitalism and the left-wing of the middle class being the dominant players on this coalition) within the U.S. system at present.
The problem with folks like AFN is that they are simply unable to recognize the degree to which the narrative of the cultural Left (privilege theory, critical theory, therapeutic culture, victimology, anti-racism, feminism, gay liberation, environmentalism, etc.) has been co-opted by and incorporated into the system.
My position is actually very similar to the position the Left faced in the 1960s when conventional blue collar workers and union types had largely been incorporated into the middle class, and maintained a pro-imperialist position on Vietnam, so the Left had to look elsewhere to build the antiwar movement.
“The issue Preston takes up is if reactionary counter-cultural movements, from neo-Nazis to Mormon Fundamentalists, can be united to challenge the global hegemony of capitalist power. The reality is that with visions so radically different, as well as analysis about power and oppression so different, they hold little tactical or ideological virtue in each other. Simply put: we don’t want the same things, and even in challenging the state we would engage with it in such radically different ways that we do not hold stake in each other’s success.”
Since National-Anarchism seems to be the real sticking point for these folks, here are some examples of how actual N-As describe their philosophy:
On the flags of nations and regions:
“Not participating in this group while they have their flags of the French State in their profiles. Solidarity of NAM of course with the Parisian people not with its state flag.”
“I think in many cases flags, although still official symbols of States, have b
ecome symbols of the people in some way, since several of them have been around for a long time and have gone hand in hand with the representation of peoples and their culture, not just the State/government.”
“What about regional flags, like the flags of Brittany, Galicia, Euskal Herria and the like, though? Would they not be considered symbols of the State too? And if so, are there any flags that are genuine symbols of the people?”
“I think the anarchist black flag will do just fine…”
“The problem I see with that is that that flag might represent people, but not their individual culture/area. I think that regional flags would do just fine, since they can be more closely related to a community/nation/folk than the national flag (regional/provincial flags will have more symbols referring to the local culture), and their “political meaning” is minimal most times.”
“Some flags can represent a cool story even if it represents a state. Like the flag of Bangladesh, it’s green with a red circle in the middle. The green represents vegetation since it’s a tropical biome. The red represents blood because it’s liberation cost 3 million civilian lives over the course of 9 months.”
“I consider my flag to be the black flag of anarchism, and I consider all the flags of the hyphenated anarchist tendencies to represent the many sects and tribes within anarchism. I also appreciate the way some anarchists will superimpose an anarchist symbol on particular national flags.”
On Rojava:
“A nation fighting a nation-state. They are cosmopolitan and not multicultural. They have forged their own culture on top of their traditional culture, and any visitors or residents need to respect that culture or keep moving on to anywhere which tolerates sexual, religious or cultural domination or conflict. House rules are specified on entry, so your culture will be respected IF it adapts to the culture of your host.”
The Tyranny of the Politically Correct Page 19