Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 00:27:44 -0400
Subject: A Response to =?iso-8859-1?Q?=93Stick?= It to the 



From: wolfi landstreicher <venomousbutterfly-AT-onebox.com>

STUCK IN THE MUD OF IDEOLOGY:
A Response to “Stick It to the Manarchy”


   From the first word of “Stick It to the Manarchy”, it is obvious that
we are not dealing with a critique, but with an ideological construction
with a not so hidden agenda. This word is a neologism under which the
authors place a variety of different attitudes and behaviors that are
actually separate and individual. The term “manarchy”, like the term
“feminazi”, clarifies nothing and is nothing more than an ideological
evasion of the necessity of critique, carefully avoiding the examination
and analysis of specific matters that is necessary to move our struggle
forward, because this would bring up too many difficult questions;
better to construct an artificial concept through which to view
everything,
because then we’ll always have an answer, an explanation that proves
that what makes us uncomfortable is always wrong. Such a pathetic way
to go about justifying one’s fearful avoidance of revolution.

   The Rock Bloc Collective (RBC) then go on to define “manarchy” in
such a way that no self-respecting anarchist could possibly support it,
and yet write about it throughout the article as if it were an ideology
that certain anarchists put forth. This projection of a non-existent
ideological mindset onto a disparate group of individuals, attitudes
and behaviors guarantees that—no matter what legitimate basis there may
be for some of their complaints—the RBC will be unable to carry out a
real and usable critique. Rather they will filter everything through
their ideological construction and leave us with a ridiculous whine that
comes across as an attempt to denigrate an uncompromising revolt that
they are not prepared to carry out. Why not rather say what their limits
are and act on that? Intelligent anarchists carry out their revolt in
accordance with their capabilities and do not judge those whose
capabilities differ. But there is a bottom line: in the methods of
carrying out their struggle, anarchists do not compromise or negotiate
with the ruling order. This is what distinguishes anarchists from
liberals, reformists, socialists and communists. It is the basic
anarchist principle that the ends for which one struggles already exist
in the means by which one carries out one’s struggle.

    Here, we can begin to understand the meaning of the concept of “no
compromise”. Of course, “within a capitalist system, we all must
compromise” (emphasis added). That is precisely why in the context of
struggle and revolt, where compromise is not compulsory, we would do
well to hold onto that shred of dignity that is left to us and refuse to
petition, compromise or negotiate with the ruling order. When I say “no
compromise” this is precisely what I mean: in a world in which my life
is
perpetually compromised by social conditions beyond my control, I will
not
compromise my attempts to overturn those conditions by negotiating with
or
petitioning the state or the ruling class. In this way, I retain some
dignity, some self-determination and some genuine life at least in the
realm of my struggle against this order. And this uncompromising
struggle is the only way to achieve our ends against an enemy so much
greater than us. It is important to realize that the refusal of
compromise is a negative
proposition—that is, a proposal of what not to do if we wish to maintain
our anarchist principles—not an affirmative program of what to do.
Therefore, anarchists in all sorts of economic, social and physical
conditions can and do refuse compromise while carrying out the sorts of
actions which their capabilities, situations and propensities allow. The
refusal of compromise in one’s struggle is not a dogma, but a decision,
more specifically a decision to exercise self-determination in the one
area in which we can in this society—that of the struggle to destroy it.

   Sadly the ideological blinders through which the RBC view these
matters makes their attempts at critiquing specific situations fail,
because these matters are turned into supports for their ideological
constructions. Thus, a possibly tactically unwise attempt to break
through a barricade in Boston during the presidential debates there is
not examined in terms of tactics, analyses of the situation or
principles, but is simply
labeled “tough” and spoken of in terms of the alleged
more-radical-than-thou attitudes of those involved in the action. It is
necessary for the RBC to speculate in this fashion in order to make the
situation fit into their conception of “manarchy”. This speculation
about the underlying feelings behind other people’s actions and words
continues in the so-called critique of the man at the Black Bloc meeting
who said: “If you’re not willing to take a hit…and you’re not willing to
go to jail, don’t march with the Black Bloc.” While the situation in
which he found himself isolated, confronting cops, certainly raises a
lot of questions both tactically and in terms of principles, these are
not questions of toughness or machismo; they are about communication
among individuals in affinity groups and in larger groups, about real
solidarity in the midst of a concrete situation of revolt, about having
it together to have each other’s backs when we choose to take to the
streets in these repressive times (and at all times for that matter). To
blame the man who found himself deserted in the face of the cops for
feeling deserted and to accuse him of machismo is a classic case of
blaming the victim. His statement is not divisive nor an attempt to
declare who can and can’t be in the Black Bloc; it is a realistic
expression of the risk involved: if a person takes part in a Black Bloc,
she is risking being beaten or imprisoned. To deny this or try to hide
it is irresponsible. In fact, this is true not just of
the Black Bloc, but of any form of participation in a demonstration,
particularly in the present repressive atmosphere. The RBC’s implication
that openly saying such things is macho or elitist is not convincing.
It seems to have little to do with fighting machismo and a lot to do
with not wanting to face the reality of the increasingly repressive
situation in which we are struggling.

   The members of the RBC tell us that they are “all white and coming
from economically privileged backgrounds”. (This latter is reinforced
by their obvious enrollment in a small, private college.) This may
explain their arrogant presumption in declaring what the feelings and
attitudes that underlie other people’s actions are and in setting the
limits of possible action for those less advantaged than them. It most
certainly explains their view of radical activity and revolution as
essentially a form of psychotherapy. They refer to direct action and the
Black Bloc as a tactic for empowerment” and speak of “ working to build
a world where people are empowered and loving.” (emphases added). This
is all
very nice, but 12-step groups talk about the same ideals and present
no threat whatsoever to the present world. As I see it, revolutionary
direct action is a means toward the destruction of the present world
of domination and exploitation. And my aim is to build a world in which
no one can be dominated or exploited, because the practise of
uncompromising, self-determined revolt has made everyone indomitable and
uncontrollable. Asking permission, negotiating, compromising with our
rulers cannot bring this end about. So the refusal of compromise is not
about self-sacrifice. It is the very opposite: taking back one’s life as
far as one is capable and acting to accomplish one’s aims and to destroy
the world that stands in the way of our self-determined existence
against all odds.

   Unlike the members of RBC, I am nor from an “economically privileged
background”. My parents were working class, and throughout my adult life
I have been, by the standards of the state, quite poor—though my
preference for freedom from a job has had something to do with this, I
have also pursued this preference without having wealthy parents or a
trust fund
to fall back on. Contrary to the thoughts of these four well-to-do
college students, those of us who are “economically disadvantaged” don’t
fret over not having money for a lawyer. The threat of arrest is a
normal
part of our lives, because some level of illegality is bound to be part
of our lives to supplement our incomes—and since the cops, in fact, do
not treat us so well, arrest is likely enough sooner or later. In such
a context, why would I or others of my class be more afraid in our
revolt for a fullness of life than we are in our activities for
survival? Why would we hold back? The truth is that it is generally the
more
privileged—like those in RBC—who call for compromise, who get the
permits, negotiate with the pigs and play all the nauseating reformist
games that guarantee the continuance of the world of domination and
exploitation, the world that fucks me over (yes, this is personal). Why?
Because they have
something to lose if this world falls, and they have the means within
the present society to build “ a space that is empowering, accepting,
inclusive, accessible, communicative and community oriented.” People in
my
position—near the bottom of American society—cannot afford to do this.
Our only choice, if we wish to live full and intense lives is, in fact,
to rise up against this world—and that does mean risking (though
certainly trying to avoid) prison or worse—just as so many of our
survival tactics do. When you’re at the bottom, illegality and prison
are not an abstract question. They are part of your reality.

   The RBC talk of solidarity. Whatever their “economic privilege”, they
also suffer from the alienation and emptiness of life in this society.
For this reason, I can recognize their potential as sincere comrades
in the struggle to destroy the social order, but that potential can only
be realized in uncompromising revolt against all domination and
exploitation. I have known solidarity precisely in terms of who will
have my back when I take the risks necessary for taking back my life.
Those from
economically privileged backgrounds, those who actually have a place in
this world as it is, have a choice in this matter. When they use gender
issues and abstract conceptions of solidarity as an excuse to back away
from real revolt, they are in fact choosing to refuse solidarity to
those of us who will not back down, because the fullness we demand from
life depends on it. It is obvious that when push comes to shove, the RBC
cannot be trusted to have my back.

   A critique of the Black Bloc is, indeed, in order, but “Stick it to
the Manarchy” fails completely as a critique of anything. The subject
of their critique is merely an ideological construct in their own heads,
a moral high ground on which they stand to condemn those immersed in
a struggle for their lives. With existence becoming ever more miserable
and precarious, I consider it irresponsible for those anarchists who
are not themselves prepared for total revolt against this world to argue
for pacification. This world needs to be demolished. When do we begin?

Wolfi Landstreicher
venomousbutterfly-AT-onebox.com

-- 
wolfi landstreicher
venomousbutterfly-AT-onebox.com - email
(415) 430-2160 x6003 - voicemail/fax