3 replies »

  1. Back in 2009, I did this piece debunking Thomas Frank’s claim that the working class is voting rightward en masse “against their class interests.” https://attackthesystem.com/2009/05/31/is-something-really-wrong-with-kansas/

    If anything, the working class is exhibiting a great deal more “class consciousness” today than they were back then. The popularity of the Sanders and Trump campaigns can be interpreted as class-based insurgencies by the left and right wings of the working class within the context of their respective cultural tribes. Sanders symbolizes a working class insurgency within the Blue Tribe (which prefers social democratic economic policies) while Trump symbolizes a working class insurgency within the Red Tribe (which prefers economic nationalist economic policies). One thing the writer of the original post gets right is her recognition that the working class is not a monolithic entity and that different sectors of the working class have different interests. The archaic Marxist concept of “workers of the world, unite!” is dead to history, whatever merits it had during earlier times.

    It’s interesting how these hard left people still try to fit the “cracks in the PC coalition” generated by the “oppression Olympics” into the outmoded Marxist paradigm (whether Old Left or New Left) rather than simply acknowledging that the paradigm is severely flawed.

    Meanwhile, our old friends at “Anti-Fascist News” are up to it again, attacking myself, Attack the System, National-Anarchism, and my publisher in one solitary post. https://antifascistnews.net/2016/04/27/why-a-fascist-publishing-house-releasing-books-by-goldman-berkman-and-kropotkin/ (I’ve crossed swords with these folks before: https://ntna.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/antifa-vs-anarchism/)

    “National-Anarchism, a term coined by nationalist activist Troy Southgate, sees a form of “anarchism” where autonomous communities are created on the basis of things like race, ideology, or sexual orientation.”

    Oh, the horrors.

    “Generally, they mix deep ecology and some post-left and anti-state politics with ultra-conservative social views, racial separatism, and a violent anti-Semitism.”

    That’s a rather limited and reductionist portrayal of N-A to say the least.

    “Much of the rhetorical center of National-Anarchism in the U.S. is around Attack the System, a website we have covered extensively in the past. The site, run by former anarchist Keith Preston, advocates what it calls Pan-Secession, an idea that different ideological groups should revolt against the “Empire” and sort of go their own way. Their conception of anarchism is “left, right, and center,” where they believe that everything that people call anarchism should be a part of the broad anarchist project. They often work with anarcho-capitalist and libertarian types, as well as many of the newer far-right variants like Tribal Anarchists, Anarcho-Monarchists, Agorists, and National Anarchists.”

    I have to give them credit for the above statement given that it’s a rather accurate and honest representation of my actual views and work.

    “Keith Preston knows his way around the anarchist movement, coming out of the Industrial Workers of the World and the Workers Solidarity Alliance in the past(all of which abhor his recent views and behavior).”

    I would point out that neither of those organizations has grown one iota in terms of size, membership or influence since I belonged to them 25 years ago.

    “He attempts to persist that he is, in fact, still an anarchist, yet he spends most of his time speaking at white nationalist conferences and supporting nationalist movements.”

    I speak at an average of maybe 2 conferences of that type per year, hardly “most of my time,” but I welcome those events as a opportunity to bring the ATS perspective into the ideological hinterlands.

    The bottom line is that tendencies such as ATS, N-AM, NATA, and multiple other similar tendencies that have emerged in recent times (many of which have no connection to either ATS or N-A), recognize that the historic Left is now a spent force that has either been incorporated into the system, faded into irrelevance or crumbled under the pressures represented by the cracks in the PC coalition and the oppression Olympics. The new paradigm that we are constructing as a means of anti-imperialist, anti-globalization, anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-statist, and anarchist struggle is one that favors decentralized pluralism on the macro-level and free associating particularism on the micro-level in a way that is largely informed by postmodern cultural relativism with the guiding principle being self-determination for all (think of the “Prime Directive” concept from the Star Trek franchise and you will understand us fairly well).

    • Whenever I got to an alt right event, and these antifa folks are protesting outside, it always reminds of going to heavy metal concerts in the early 80s with Bible-bangers protesting outside.

      I don’t really care if they call me a dirty fascist or not as long as they’re there on the day of the revolution. Although one thing I’ve always liked about anarchism is the diversity of the tradition as well as its classical as well as modern forms. I’ve never seen anarchism merely as a synonym for socialism or leftist (or capitalism or right-wing individualism). It’s always seemed to me that kind of outlook misses the point.

      For example, there are anarchists who say anarchism requires “workers control of the means of production” but what about workers who don’ t want control? What about workers who want to be wage laborers? Just as there are an-caps who say anarchism means absolute Lockean property rights, but what about people who want to live in a collectivist environment. After all, the Libertarian Party has existed for 45 years and has never come anywhere close to being a competitive party.

      It was dealing with these kinds of issues among anarchists that motivated me to study anti-universalist political theory in a wider sense (like the ENR from the Right and postmodern cultural relativism from the Left). It seems to me that many if not most anarchists are still just Enlightenment liberals at heart.

      Another problem is that many who use the an-com label are really just Marxists or even Leninists under another name. Many of them even use the hammer and sickle logo.It’s the same way some “Libertarians” are really just Republicans.

      I have experienced all that many, many. many times from antifa and anarcho-bolsheviks. But, again, it all comes down to individuals. I know many an-coms who don’t act like that even many who adamantly disagree with some of my views.

      My view is that all of this comes down to the views of individuals and specific groups, rather than broad categories of people claiming a particular label.

      There’s also a middle of the road point of view among some an-coms which says an-caps or voluntary hierarchicalism has the right to exist, but it can’t be “true” anarchy because hierarchy or the workers don’t control the means of production or something like that. There’s a range of views among an-coms on these questions.

      The antifa are a different breed from the an-coms generally, although even they vary among themselves. I’ve even brought some antifa into our camp in the past. Believe it or not, I actually know antifa who are also national-anarchists.

      That’s one reason why I’ve never given up on the left-anarchists. I’ve had other people ask me, “Why do you even bother with them?” But many of them are quite passionate and militant about their activism and all movements need that. It’s just that some of their thinking needs to be straightened out and, of course, there are sociopaths in all movements.

      Again, it all depends on the individual. I’ve encountered an-coms who tell me they are annoyed by the disruptive tactics of the SJW types, and others who think the antifa are “fascists of the left.” But I’ve had many tell me they don’t want to be public with these criticisms, and in some cases because they think it would be physically dangerous. I know others who are indifferent to all these shenanigans and don’t get involved in it.

      I’ve seen some rifts between an-coms and antifas, in part because many antifas are Maoist or other Leninists.

      My own approach to anarchist theory might be said to have a macro-level approach and a micro-level approach. On the macro-level, I argue for decentralized, open-ended pluralism, which on the micro-level could mean that in Anarchia there can be different kinds of communities for different kinds of tendencies, including anarcho-syndicalist worker federations, collectivist communities, kibbutzim-like communes, an-cap proprietarian communities, primitivist communities, futurist high tech communities, agrarian back to the land communities, religious communities (pagan, Christian, Buddhist, etc), indigenous peoples’ communities, matriarchal anarcha-feminist communities, queer-centric LGBT communities, etc. Where all the controversy seems to come in, at least in my particular case, is when I apply the same standard to groups that are perceived of a conservative, reactionary, privileged or hegemonic like Catholic traditionalists, cultural conservatives, religious fundamentalists, ethno-identitarians, Euro-centric pagans, “family values” types, “white nationalists,” social conservatives, etc. But it seems for such a system to be consistent and principled it would have to be applied equally to everyone. It would be pretty ridiculous to say “We believe in free association and self-determination for everyone except those who don’t meet our standards of being enlightened enough…”

      Also, the hostility that many leftists seem to have for traditional liberal values like free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free association, right to bear arms, individual property rights, due process for the accused, etc is very troubling. Combine this illiberal outlook with the way they label broad categories of people as “privileged” or “oppressors” on the basis of skin color, religion, gender, nationality, cultural status, social class, etc and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. After all that’s what totalitarianism is: an illiberal state that targets scapegoated groups for persecution.

      Like the Bolsheviks, they define “freedom” merely in terms of class power. Out-groups are enemies merely by collective definition. It’s also important to consider that formerly oppressed groups often become as abusive as whatever they replace when they become powerful. The ink was barely dry on the US Constitution before the Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted. Likewise, the ink is barely dry on civil rights, gay rights, etc. and new forms of repressing opposition are emerging.

      Some of history’s worst massacres have been carried out against populations that were labeled unduly privileged, i.e. Soviet kulaks, priests and aristocrats in the French Revolution, German Jews in WW2, ethnic Chinese in Communist states in Southeast Asia, Rwanda’s Tutsis, Asians in Idi Amin’s Uganda, etc

  2. You Anarchists and Libertarians amuse me you really do. Your live and let live, separate but equal, and of course that pacifistic Non Aggression Principle. Defenders are always at a disadvantage in War. Its true that in Martial Arts the attacker is at a disadvantage, but I doubt any of you have the Self-Defense skills to take advantage of an opponent.
    The Left cannot let you leave. Their pity party needs you. Somebody has to pay, and those fucken losers don’t have the cash to pony up for the damages. Parasites and Vampires cannot live off each other. You are the victims they need to pretend to oppress them by paying their bills and supporting their worthless ass.
    White Nationalism or nothing. A White society can have any system or government and prosper. You could give niggers the USS Enterprise scott free and it’ll be a burned out shell in six months.

Leave a Reply