|
The State of Anarchy
by Steve Booth of Green Anarchist
|
Steve's views on welfare in this piece have excited much attention, and so we have added some of the comments and responses below.
|
For too long, anarchists have been messing about on the sidelines. For too long, we have been irrelevant and marginalised. In the face of this, the oppressive and totalitarian state [England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales] has had a clear run.
This must stop. We need a constructive and engaged anarchism. We need to be much more businesslike and focused in our work. This represents a complete break with the previous patterns of failure.
People need the anarchist approach because it addresses the centralising, dictatorial tendencies of the state and system. Anarchism has so much good to offer in theory, but almost everywhere it has failed to yield much good, in practice. Many anarchists are a bad advertisement for our political philosophy. This said, we need to celebrate cases where we have been successful.
Traditionally, anarchists are averse to organising. Core principles of effective political activity are ignored and disparaged, productive methods are despised and derided. Rather than life, fruitfulness and growth there is often a cult of snarling ugliness. Yet, behind the scenes, some of us have been working hard to change things for the better. We need to shift our attention and efforts away from idealistic visions of jam in the distant future (perhaps), towards the practical realisation of the reality of bread today. If we can change something for the better today, through a series of incremental steps we might be able to work towards the larger goals tomorrow.
Seeking positive politics
There is something about anarchism as it is practiced which tends to be negative. One big factor is the culture of protest and demonstration, which by its nature is usually against something. The problem is that the anarchists have not yet decided what they are for. It is not wrong to protest against things like War in the Gulf, for example, but this has to be tempered by a positive politics.
The Myth of Direct Action
Often, there is a romantic attachment to the ideal of 'Direct Action'. I make no criticism of the principle here, but we must be careful about the methods we choose and the ends we seek. No, the real problem with 'Direct Action' rather lies with its reality. For example, an animal rights group breaks into a vivisectors' breeding centre and removes 1,000 guinea pigs. Some would criticise the aim, but for the animal rights protester, this action is justified and judged successful. The fact is that the guinea pigs will not be experimented on, and have been saved from a horrible, cruel, painful and lingering death. As a counter example, the workerist looks for that myth of a workers' uprising, a strike, the bourgeoisie overthrown. Talk of 'Direct Action' in this case gives the appearance of strength. 'Brothers, we must wait for the working class to liberate themselves from their oppressors ...' The day of Direct Action will surely not tarry long. There are real actions which bring good results, like the Scottish estate residents occupying a Sheriff's office during the poll tax struggle; and then there are the myths and hopes built around tactics which will not work, strikes which will not spread and galvanise the proletariat, crowds which will not materialise and beat down the prison gates, a revolution which will not happen, on the way to the lottery ticket terminal. Where it is a myth, 'Direct Action' is a problem.
Negative politics
Negative politics attracts negative people, and this carries through into the character of anarchism itself. One aspect of this is the internecine character of some anarchist groups. We have all seen the genealogical charts of Trotskyite splinter groups, but we should not laugh so loud, anarchy shares much of the same characteristic. The root of this is our political failure, dogmatism and petrification. Allied as it is to the utter negativity of Marxism, workerism in particular is thereby doomed to failure. With that lack of progress comes division. A stalled paradigm is implicitly fissiparous in nature. Yet the older, classical type of anarchism, as expressed by such as William Morris, Peter Kropotkin and Colin Ward, has much to offer that is positive. It tends to draw people together, unite them.
Longevity
There are a number of anarchist organisations which have been here for a long time - Freedom Press, the Solidarity Federation, the Kate Sharpley Library and Class War, for example. All of these should be strengthened. If anyone who is a member of one of these groups reads this, please go back to your group and be more active, more involved in it. Try to make your group more effective.
Facts on the ground
What I am pleading for here is a new kind of anarchist approach, pragmatic anarchism, which breaks free of the previous patterns of failure, of dogmatism and petrification. Pragmatic anarchism is not so bothered about protest, but which rather sets about creating something positive, facts on the ground. Firstly, anarchism is about ideas in peoples' heads. It is cultural. So the question here becomes one of producing cultural artefacts which present anarchism in a positive light. The things we produce must be better than those of our rivals, and the distribution of them must be more effective. Partly, this is a matter of propaganda, but mostly it is about realities, and the positive mental attitude of the writers and editors. Secondly anarchism is about the creativity and activity of the anarchists themselves.
Putting anarchism on the Gold Standard
Successful political groups relentlessly apply their ideals and principles in practical ways. Successful groups provide a clear place to rally round, a clear focus, direction, movement. They have a clear identity. Such groups count for something because they have influence. They have friends. They can sponsor people within organisations. People in Parliament or in corporations will listen to them. They help shape policy, they have some influence over what happens. Successful groups have real numbers, they have resources, their activities address the situation. They bring results and so more people join. They conduct research, they publish information, they educate. How much of what successful political organisations do can anarchists identify with? How much can we put into practice for ourselves? Could you visualise yourself working within this type of framework?
Stability and Trust
The most effective groups are stable, in the sense that they are in it for the long haul. They keep going, build up their identity, people recognise them, understand their aims. If we have longevity and consistency, there is some possibility of building up trust. Without this, afflicted by a series of here today gone tomorrow twilight operators, trust cannot be found.
Abstention
Society exists. New Labour exists. The War Against Terror exists. Anarchism remains (largely) an ideal which at present cannot be realised. The political system exists. Our influence within or against it is minimal. Too often the anarchists remain aloof from it, claiming an ideological aversion, instead putting their faith in the activity of the masses. At best, such a position is motivated by sincerely held principles. If so, this is laudable, but it needs to come back to the facts. At worst, such an attitude may be held because of bloodimindedness or laziness, and is therefore to be condemned. It is too difficult to do the work, they hold, too hard to become involved, to step by step bring about a free society. I believe that this focus on doctrinal purity instead of bringing about incremental, positive practical results, is mistaken. This article is a plea for you to reconsider.
The political world exists. Your abstention leaves the field clear for the shysters and power-maniacs. There is a real need for all the decent people to get involved and to overcome political corruption and oppression. Your presence too, is needed on this battle front.
Culture of Engagement
We need a culture of engagement. Take a good hard look at your own political activities and the way in which you connect with the people around you. In what way have you made any real and positive contribution to how things are? It is all about making things better in the here and now. This is a question of the concrete, the particular and the practical. There are lots of different areas and community groups. Addressing poverty, the alienation of young people, health provision, disabled issues, education, debt, public transport, fighting planning blight, anti-racism... One isolated person can go into an organisation. They will make some practical difference to it. By working with people of a similar mind and outlook, that individual will make a bigger impact.
A practical bloc
Think of the anarchist 'movement' as a political party or a social bloc. Supposing for example, we tackled poverty and debt. We might use a range of approaches from recycling furniture, forming co-operatives and housing associations, across to credit unions, Lets schemes, debt counseling - all the time encouraging people to take control over their own choices, and to take responsibility for them.
Responsibility
Responsibility cuts both ways. We cannot expect people to take responsibility for their own society if anarchists do not behave in a responsible way towards our own politics. We cannot afford to be satisfied with failure. There is an absolute divide between the people who genuinely and sincerely want social conditions to improve, and work for this; and the lethargic, disinterested do-nothingers, lifestylist wreckers. This latter category need to be shunned, they are a large part of the reason why we fail. Responsibility implies that we get to grips with the way things are, that we push forwards, that we create the conditions for success and build upon them.
A thought exercise
Brace yourselves for a radical proposal! Few people have remarked how there is an implicit contradiction in some anarchists' dependency upon state benefits, and their call to abolish the state. The dole makes people passive and pliant - witness the way identity cards will be applied to the unemployed first. Rather, the benefits system should be scrapped, the government bureaucracy supporting it abolished. Instead, local communities and the voluntary sector should be given the capacity to employ people to perform socially useful work. Benefits need to be abolished.
Unemployment and welfare dependency are very great evils. In practical terms, what is the anarchist movement doing to challenge this?
A practical campaign
How would an anarchist campaign to abolish unemployment benefit and social security shape up? Think how such a campaign would be framed. On the one hand there would be the publicity campaigns to persuade taxpayers of the advantages of this. Then there would be the lobbying to persuade the political parties to adopt this as a policy. On the other hand there would be the work necessary to create the organisations and voluntary sector support needed to provide the socially useful work. It could be tied in with urban regeneration, attacking poverty and sickness, or clearing up our environment. But the emphasis would be on people taking responsibility for their own world.
Objections
Of course, the anarchist movement is unwilling to, and incapable of mounting such a campaign. One can almost hear the howling of objections from the dole-claiming lifestyle anarchists who see their benefits disappearing and themselves actually having to get out of bed in the morning. All sorts of arguments would be deployed against the premise that dependency upon state benefits strengthens the power of the state and weakens individuals. There is the ready acceptance of the view that unemployment is a political weapon used against the proletariat. There is an unwillingness to see that dismantling the state benefits system is a necessary part of the anarchist project. It is understood that were the benefits system to be abolished today, there would be a violent revolution tomorrow - bread riots, mayhem on a grand scale. The 1970s press cutting in the Larry Law Spectacular Times booklet indicates that the state is well aware of this. At the same time, the state is locked into a cycle of dole cuts, campaigns against the black economy, and retributative workfare schemes, the so-called 'Drip Feed Genocide'. To stave off the bread riots and burning barricades, it has to maintain the appearance of offering support, even though it does not.
Paradox
Paradoxically, one consequence of a campaign to abolish state benefits could be that the state raises benefits in order to make people yet more dependent. (the law of opposite effect) From a moral point of view, it is not enough to say "we should abolish state benefits". Rather, we have to put the alternative in place at the same time. A sudden cessation of benefits would be socially convulsive. The change-over has to be managed. Perhaps the campaign to help communities realise their responsibilities would be the hardest part of this.
Implications?
What are the implications? Firstly, if it could be achieved, the power of the state would be reduced. It would be necessary to reduce central taxation. Communities and voluntary groups would have to become more active. Individuals would cease to be dependent upon the benefits state. Such a campaign and process would have a beneficial impact on the anarchist movement. We would gain too. People would grow in their political skills and confidence from the lobbying and networking necessary to bring the proposal about. People would gain from having to organise their own work. The idea is subversive in the extreme.
- – Steve Booth
From: "alan brown"
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:56:40 -0000
Hi Tim -
(snip) I hope you don't mind - there now follows a
short rant...
As I said when we spoke I still prefer to call
myself an anarchist but when I read naive twoddle by
the likes of Steve Booth that claims to be
'anarchist thought' it is at that moment when I have
my doubts about my self-labelling. It is one thing
to make an observation that if there were no
benefits then there might be more self-organisation
amongst the poor. You could even make inferences
from the reverse of the proposition and say that the
introduction of the UK NHS after the war meant that
there were none of the workers health co-ops that
existed before, or say that the introduction of free
secondary education in Spain after the war was a
factor preventing the resurgence of the secular free
schools. Its one thing to make an observation :
another to line yourself up with the Neo-cons and
demand its abolition. It might be slightly less
forgivable if the result was an inevitable
insurgency but such a thing has no guarantees - many
countries have no benefits or the World Bank has
acheived their reduction or abolition ; the result
has been an increase in the general misery. It has
certainly meant more investment from the state in
the tools of repression but the Revolution has not
been the universal result.
(snip)
I really don't know what I'd
say if some unemployed family 'lording' it on £150 a
week said to me "So Alan is this Anarchism - you'd
take away the very little that we've got in an
experiment to see if there was a revolution ?"
'The idea is subversive in the extreme'. If we
replace the word 'subversive' with 'juvenile' and I
think we might be edging towards the truth.
If his article is a joke it is in poor taste. End of
Rant...
Seasons Greetings
Alan
Hi Alan,
(snip) ... [I too felt] Steve's piece was verging on US-style
idiotic libertarianism with it's concommitant
naivete about the ability of the people to self
organise spontaneously into a viable co-operative
on the face of disater.
I believe that over time this can emerge, but a
massive crash in support for the poor and the
unfortunate is hardly the answer. It would cause
chaos and starvation and the only group to benefit
significantly would be the bloody Nick Griffin's
of the world.
My own qualms about "anarchism" per se revolve
arond these issues. It was a reason why I liked
Bookchin, who, apart from a different label,
"social ecology", seems to embrace a kind of
Popperian piecemeal praxis based around his
concept of municipal libertarianism [though he
too likes the pretty lights of revolution and,
like Marx over Paris, would no doubt fully support
the workers in a collapse should it come to it,
even if he had reservations over the likely results].
For myself, I think even my eighties self had
sufficient empathy with those as the bottom of
the heap to not be trustful of SWP-style "bring
the revolution forward by making sure the state
shit on the workers harder are sooner" political
shenanigans. And now, having been made redundant
twice and having thus had only welfare support
between myself and the void, cannot support Steve's
views here at all.
I see where he is coming from - there is an element
of dependency culture in welfare, at least as it
is currently formulated. However, the old saw about
democracy, that it is a shit system, but the rest
are shitter, I think also applies here. Welfare is
for those in the shit who need it, and a small
fallout of "spongers" is the acceptable price we
pay when in "liberal society" mode. This all misses
the point of where we really need to be, but is
a pragmatic necessity. I would support reform [well
certain types of reform] of the welfare system,
but absolutely not it's abolition. When "our
grandad's" - well, not mine, but we know what we
mean - fought in "the War" the only thing they really
got out of it at all that was positive were the
grudging halfway measures of the welfare reforms, and
it would be a shame to piss them away in some
misguided belief that the oppressed would magically
form a new society apart from the TNC's etc if
the rug was pulled out from under...
Perhaps you should write up your rant and post it
to me as a repost for the website... or join the
yahoo forum and put it there! I'll post your comments
and mine to Rob and Steve...
cheers
Tim
Hi Tim,
thanks for the rejoinder. I'll send a fuller reply in due course, but on reading what was said, I think he has missed the point really. It is important to stress that I was not saying nothing should be done to help people who are unemployed. The support should come from the local community, not the central government.
It is also nothing to do with the neo-Cons, but I suspect that was more of a knee jerk dismissal than a properly thought through objection.
With best wishes
Steve
The state of anarchy article
To: tim_decenter@yahoo.com, alan.brown...
Hello Tim and Alan,
Thanks for your comments about my article 'The State of Anarchy'. I think the article makes it clear that the local alternatives have to be properly put in place before the centralised state benefits are taken away. For example, towards the end of the article, in the paragraph headed 'Paradox' it says: "From a moral point of view, it is not enough to say 'we should abolish state benefits'. Rather, we have to put the alternative in place at the same time."
TWO ASPECTS
I think there is a problem inherent in making a proposal of this sort, in that it does come across as a bit 'Norman Tebbit'. The problem is that we are all so dependent on the state, that we only see that half of my argument, the abolition of the centralised benefits system, and perhaps have no faith ('naive twoddle', 'juvenile') in the local alternative ever being put into effect. Somehow we have to challenge that reaction in our own thinking.
REVOLUTION ?
I was NOT arguing for a revolution (in the traditional, violent sense) on the back of a sudden cessation of unemployment benefit. I think the article readily enough shows this. This interpretation was not even intended in an ironic sense. The Larry Law 'Spectacular Times' reference was specifically included to counter this interpretation.
WAYS and MEANS
Partly it is about ways and means. I think you both would accept we need to strengthen the local, but you disagree with what I proposed as an effective or as a moral method of realising this. In my opinion, this is a legitimate response to what I wrote. I feel frustrated at the very negative aspects of much of radical politics, and that, for a variety of reasons, we mostly fail to make real progress. Some of this gap is addressed in the first half of my article.
CATASTROPHE
The article has obviously been seen as a plea for a 'massive crash in support for the poor'. This is not what I am arguing for. What I propose is no more this than (a parallel, analogous argument) - spending a greater proportion of your money in the local shops rather than an out of town hypermarket would be 'a massive crash in support for the economy'. I do not support the Marxist view about 'Verelendungstheorie' (that things have got to get massively worse before they can begin to get better) school of thinking. You rightly criticise the SWP for holding to this.
IMPROVEMENT
What I am really about is trying to leverage an improvement in real conditions (no matter how small) in the here and now. I think that in the long run, catastrophe theories (whether Marxist or Primitivist eg) discredit what we are doing. Which is not to say that the oil economy and globalisation are not, of themselves heading for disaster; but rather that we should not gloat about this, try to suggest positive ways out of this mess we are all in.
REALITIES
What we do needs to be real. We have to be better than the thing we oppose. This is a question of facts, realities, organisation. If what we do and what we propose is not in point of fact better than what we already have, then we do not deserve to make progress. If we can bring about something good, an improvement on present conditions, this will also be to the good for the people stuck within the system as well as those outside it / being crushed by it. Facts, and actions; what we are as people, how we behave towards others are persuasive. Or not. If what we advocate is not in point of fact better than what already exists, people will reject it, and rightly so.
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMUNITIES
Much of this present dispensation arises because local communities have not taken responsibility for the people living within them. Mostly, this arises because there has been a systematic and concerted centralistic attack upon the local from outside. Some of it also, has been the result of apathy, defeatism and laziness within the local communities. We all know the difficulties and diffidence we meet with when trying to organise something practical and positive in our local area.
MOVING FROM THE BAD TO THE BETTER
The point you make about the post 1945 Welfare State settlement, and the judgement that 'welfare is bad but the alternatives are much worse' is in my view a fair criticism. But the judgement needs to be examined. We live in the world as it is, and anarchists have a utopian vision as to how it might be. But we are also faced with the reality of the present. I think the choice we face is whether or not to try to do something small to change things for the better in the here and now (and to keep on doing this), or to sit still and wait till the utopia arrives of its own volition. My experience is that the first person will make a real practical difference. The second person will not.
CONFIDENCE
Tim - you criticise what I wrote as 'naivity about the ability of the people to self organise....' If anything of the anarchist political ideal is to become real, we have to somehow bring about a climate whereby communities do become more confident of their abilities and capacities, more willing to assert them. If we don't believe that it is ever possible for communities to move in that direction then we stand little chance of ever realising that ideal.
Sometimes what we need to do is blindingly simple and on that level can appear naive. But underneath that surface, the detail of the changes we need to make are complex and many-faceted. An analogy - to suggest people stop using cars and only use bicycles, public transport, or walk might also appear naive. But such proposals have a clear ecological purpose. They would also strengthen local shops, local businesses, our connections to other people. In the long run, it would have a profound effect. As radicals we have to try out new ideas, new ways of looking at things. Not all of the ideas we come up with will be useful or challenge the status quo. That is part of our job, our function as radicals.
I hope this is a useful contribution to the debate.
With very best wishes
Steve Booth
17th December 2004
|
|
