academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressVeteran anarcho-communist writer Wayne Price has offered a critique of my summary of the 2017 conference of the National-Anarchist Movement in Madrid on the Anarkismo site. Read my original article here, and Price’s reply here. My response to price is below.
By Keith Preston
This is the response to Wayne Price’s critique of the N-AM conference that I posted on Anarkismo.
Given that I am both the author of the original article that Wayne Price critiques, and one of the presenters at the conference in Madrid, I should offer a response to Price’s criticisms.
The individual presenters at the conference are capable of speaking for themselves, which Sean has already done, so I won’t take it upon myself to offer a defense of anyone’s specific views. Instead, I will point out that there were a range of perspectives presented at the conference by people of divergent backgrounds, and the same was true of conference attendees as well. For example, there were people present who expressed both positive and negative views of anarcho-primitivism, and I met at least one self-identified anarcho-capitalist among the attendees and another with pro-Israel sympathies.
Wayne says, “The article is written by one Keith Preston, who has claimed to be trying to pull together left and right libertarianism, anarchist-communism and national-anarchism.” This is correct. Those who are interested in the contents of my own presentation can watch a video of the whole thing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Q94OT2JSA&feature=share
Wayne says, “The Nazis denounced capitalism and big business (especially their “left wing” which stupidly believed this rhetoric, until Hitler got into power and had “left Nazis” killed).” This would seem to be a selective criticism. Could not the same thing be said of the the followers of Lenin, Caballero, Mao, Kim, Castro, Ho, Pol Pot, and, indeed, virtually every leading Marxist revolutionary of the past century?
Wayne says, “So these pseudo-anarchists denounce the state, the international capitalist ruling class, imperialism, and the dangerous misuse of technology by capitalism. Preston summarizes, “much of what was said was highly relevant to the ideas of the libertarian-left and the libertarian-right alike, as well as those affiliated with anti-globalization, environmental, anti-imperialist, indigenous, anti-state, and anti-corporate movements generally.”How does this make anyone a “pseudo-anarchist”?
Wayne says, “The NA propose replacing the centralized state and mass society by more-or-less autonomous communities. The communities will form themselves on whatever basis they want, but (surprise!) the NA suggest forming them on the basis of “ethnicity.” The idea is that N-A communities can be based on any foundations their members wish, from animal liberation and veganism to Star Trek fandom, with the recognition that ethnicity (along with culture, geography, language, religion, family, socioeconomic status, and occupation) is among the predominant factors in human social organization, as any freshman-level social science student should be able to recognize.
Wayne says, “Another speaker “synthesized the ideas of Otto Strasser with those of Murray Bookchin.” Strasser was a Nazi.” And so were Heidegger and Schmitt, just like Aragon and Dubois were Stalinists, and Sartre and Foucault were Maoists. This negates the full body of their thought how?
Wayne says, “Another speaker pointed out that liberal capitalist democratic states are the most common and most accepted right now. Therefore National Anarchists should not focus on defending the democratic rights of the people,”What does this statement even mean? What are the “democratic rights of the people”? If Price is arguing for a kind of Noam Chomsky-like “anarcho-social democratic” reformism, then I would, yes indeed, argue that a much more radical position is needed. If Price is arguing that we should defend conventional civil liberties such as freedom of speech, press, association, assembly, etc. then I am in wholehearted agreement. Yet I would point out that not a few of Price’s anarcho-Marxist comrades have no interest in any these, and instead apparently prefer to engage in the physical assault of anyone they deem insufficiently ideologically correct.
Wayne says, “At no point do these NAs advocate democracy, even of the most radical, direct, participatory, kind.” Presumably, N-As would argue that N-A communities could be organized on the basis of ” democracy, even of the most radical, direct, participatory, kind,” if their members wished but that such is not mandatory, hence the lack of “universalism.”
Wayne says, “Preston does not criticize either one of the anti-semitic presentations he reports.” My purpose in writing the article was to summarize the presentations made at the conference, and not to critique the ideas of individual presenters. As it stands, I have encountered people in the N-A milieu that I thought overemphasized the anti-Zionist/Jewish power line just as I have encountered plenty in the conventionally “left” anarchist milieus that I thought over emphasized the white privilege/supremacy/patriarchy/heteronormativity line. My own take on the former would probably be similar to that of James Petras, and my view of the latter would probably be similar to Wendy McElroy. That said, I don’t approach my own politics as a religion with an inflexible narrative and set of dogmas. I am fine with attending a conference with views like Peter’s or Sean’s being presented just as I am fine with engaging with the views of Glenn Ford or Anna Baltzer.
Wayne says, “From historical experience, we expect fascist “ideology” to be confused, contradictory, and irrational.” No disagreement there.
Wayne says, “No doubt many of these “National Anarchists” are sincere muddleheads. They may think that they are not fascists and have convinced themselves that they do not want to oppress people.” These are mere accusations and assertions lacking firm grounding in evidence. As the National-Anarchist Manifesto itself states,
Our vision, in a nutshell, is one of small village-communities in which people occupy their own space in which to live in accordance with their own principles. These principles depend on the nature of the people forming the community in the first place, because the last thing we wish to do is impose a rigid or dogmatic system of any kind. In theory, therefore, National-Anarchists can be Christian or pagan, farmers or artisans, heterosexual or homosexual. The important thing, however, is for National-Anarchist communities to be self-sufficient. They should also be mutualist, rather than coercive. In other words, people should be free to come and go at all times. If you are unhappy with the unifying principle of one National-Anarchist community, then simply relocate to another. On the other hand, communities must be respectful of their neighbours and be prepared to defend themselves from outsiders.
It takes a special kind of ideologue on the order of a Unification Church member to equate this with fascist totalitarianism.
Wayne says, “But this nonsense can only serve to support capitalist statism in its actual practice—as did National Socialism.”
If anything I would be inclined to argue that some in the N-A milieu overstate the opposition to capitalism to the point of rejecting not only the corporatist and plutocratic politico-economic structures of state-capitalism but industrial society and technology itself. A disagreement I might have with some N-As would involve a possible excess of Luddism, not capitalism.
Wayne says, “I am pretty broad in accepting self-described anarchists as anarchists: primitivists, gradualists, individualists, pro-market (but anti-capitalist) anarchists, etc. I argue that they are mistaken in their ideas and strategy, but not that they aren’t “anarchists.”“No disagreement.
Wayne says,”They mostly share the same goals as revolutionary class-struggle anarchist-socialists, which have been the historical mainstream of the movement. But I draw the line at “anarchist-capitalists” (right “libertarians” who oppose the state but support capitalism). They are not anarchists if they accept capitalism. Similarly people are not anarchists if they accept racism, anti-semitism, and nationalism, even if they pretend not to be fascists.” In other words, anarchists are fine as long as they are good Marxists at heart, or are at least willing to serve as periphery, dupes, and useful idiots for such. It is not surprising that a former Trotskyist and comrade of anarchist-cum-Maoist Christopher Gunderson would be taking such a line.
For the record, I have no problem with renditions of anarchism that are “class-struggle anarchist-socialists” per se. I consider this to certainly be a legitimate style of anarchism but not the only legitimate style. I define anarchism as a manifestation of a broad, historic, anti-authoritarian tradition that extends from Lao-Tzu to the Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade. Of course, most anarchists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were class-struggle oriented anarchists because the “labor question” was the big issue the time, just like the Vietnam War was the big issue in the late 1960s and early 1970, and the global capitalist empire is the big question today. Anarcho-syndicalist unions, communes, cooperatives, workers councils, etc. are just as legitimate expressions of anarchist theory and practice as anything else, as are black anarchism, native anarchism, indigenous anarchism, anti-racist anarchism, Islamic anarchism, Jewish anarchism, anarcha-feminism, queer anarchism, transanarchism, etc. Once again, I merely disagree that any of this needs to be compulsory, or that contending narratives and competing or parallel views cannot exist. I would add that I have certainly encountered plenty of folks in “left” anarchist circles whose commitment to a libertarian society (of any kind) seemed rather dubious…to say the least.
Attack the System
Categories: Anarchism/Anti-State, Uncategorized
Since much of the argument here comes down to the standard “Who’s most oppressed?” pissing context (e.g. privileged white capitalists vs Zionist oligarchs), this analysis of the US class system by Will Schnack might help to shed some light on things. http://evolutionofconsent.com/?p=1678
“While it is true that race can lead to discrimination, upward mobility can and does occur, and the mobility between the status common to one’s race is today demonstrably more frequent than that between the classes. Absent the caste system, class is a much larger factor than race is. Race happens to mostly be a coincidental factor of class. It just so happens that most people’s class status is inherited in some form from one’s father (patriarchy), and most blacks and many latinos lack a history of family wealth. Many blacks, latinos, and some whites are forced into welfare programs or are given government jobs. Discrimination is not near as much of a problem for people of color as their class status, which puts them in a position to be discriminated against.
Ethnicity, like race, can lead to discrimination and alliances, and may correlate loosely with class. One common example is that of white supremacy, a little less common is of Jewish supremacy and Zionism. These individuals on both sides will often both be white caucasians, such as Anglo-Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews, and so of the same race, but will come from different religions (Christianity or neo-paganism and Judaism) and ethnic backgrounds (Indo-European and Semitic).”
This is an essay I wrote a while back that outlines what I consider to be the relationship between organized Zionism and the wider US power elite/ruling class/state.https://attackthesystem.com/2017/07/12/zionism-and-the-power-elite/
When it comes to these hard left critics that are always waving accusations of “fascism,” we need to remember that we’re not dealing with reasonable people here, and many of them are simply dishonest as well. These people are hysterics on the level of 1950s anti-Communist lunatics who thought President Eisenhower was a Kremlin agent, or cultic fanatics akin to Jehovah’s Witnesses passing out tracts door to door on Saturday afternoon.
Wayne Price was a leader of a former Trotskyist sect that came out of Students for a Democratic Society called Revolutionary Socialist League that converted to anarcho-communism en masse in the 1980s, and then founded an an-com group called Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation with a guy named Chris Gunderson who at the time was pushing a version of an-com fused with neo-Maoist influenced ideas like white skin privilege. Gunderson and Price later split with Gunderson becoming a full on Maoist/Third World Marxist and abandoning anarchism (as I predicted he would when I first began observing him in the late 1980s).
Price went on to form another successor an-com group called Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists which was big on pushing the PC an-com line. It was also these groups that started bringing tendencies like Anti-Racist Action into the anarchist milieu, and which evolved into the US antifa. Virtually everything that’s crap about the US anarchist milieu at present is traceable to the influence of these groups.
When RSL and Gunderson formed the LRRAF in 1989, I was at their founding conference, and I then circulated a letter in the anarchist milieu at the time warning other anarchists to stay away from these people, and that they were trying to bring authoritarian leftism into anarchism. Some agreed, some didn’t. But LRRAF became the standard in North American anarchism in the 1990s.
It’s rather comical that these people are now crying about the supposed “fascist entyrism” into anarchism given they’re the ones that originally brought all of this Marxist/Trotyskyist/Maoist/Weatherman nonsense into the milieu in the first place.
The antifa still use the flag of the KPD front Antifascist Action (“anarcho-Stalinists,” lol). They’ve also adopted the old Stalinist habit of calling everything “fascist” whether it even comes close to being an appropriate label or not. The Stalinists would say social democrats were “social fascists,” anarchists were “anarcho-fascists,” and Trotskyists were “Trotskyist fascists.” Nowadays, the antifa use the term “fascist” to describe ordinary conservatives, right-libertarians, Republicans, Trumpians, centrists, moderate liberals, rival leftists, virtually everyone.
I also think these people use racism as means of manipulation and engaging in racial demagoguery . One of the characteristics of cults is that their leaders are always claiming some imminent crisis is just around the corner that the cult members have to work diligently to prevent. Then if the doomsday scenario never happens, it just means they were successful in preventing it. For as long as I’ve been around hard left groups, they’ve always claimed some kind of racist/fascist/Nazi/right-wing Christian coup was just around the corner. I used to hear them say that during the Reagan years. State repression in the US has become more intense in recent decades but it’s been a bipartisan effort coming from the center, not from the hard right.
The KPD actually did much to enable the coming to power of the NSDAP in Weimar. It was the constant street violence by the KPD’s Red Front and the SA that alienated the middle classes from the Republic which was viewed as unable to uphold law and order (the same stuff the antifa is into today only on a much bigger scale). The KPD wanted to have a Stalinist revolution in Germany, and consequently refused to form a united front with the pro-republican parties against the NSDAP. The final issue of their paper was headlined “After Hitler…Us!” And then Hitler banned their party upon ascension to the Chancellorship,
The Communists in Spain did the same thing by attempting to subvert and coopt and consequently undermine the resistance to the Francistas thereby guaranteeing the pro-republican side would lose the civil war.
My response to Keith Preson’s “Reply to Wayne Price” may be found in the Comments section after my article, at https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30386&comment_limit=0&condense_comments=false#comment16640
This Comments section also has a response by Sean Jobst and my reply to him. In this, I explain the difference between anti-semitism and anti-imperialist anti-Zionism.
This the full text of Price’s response published on Arkismo:
This is my response to Price:
Price says,”I had pointed out that “Preston does not criticize…[the] anti-semitic presentations he reports.” He does not deny this, but says he was only reporting and not criticizing. For himself, “I have encountered people in the N-A milieu that I thought overemphasized the anti-Zionist/Jewish power line….” ”
Notice that Price omits part of my original statement. This is what I actually said:
Notice that Price apparently does not object to claims of the exercise of oppressive power relations by some groups, or perceptions of out-group enmity against some groups, but only against one group, i.e. the one that he personally identifies with.
Price says, “These are pathetic excuses. Consider that anti-semitism led to the Holocaust, that the anti-semitism of the Nazis is being used as an excuse for modern-day Zionism, and that some of the speakers identified with Nazis. Therefore, to just “report” on anti-semitic perspectives and say that there are NAs who have “overemphasized” anti-“Jewish power” material—is a colossal moral failure.”
One could just as easily argue that anti-capitalism has led to the killing of tens of millions under totalitarian socialist regimes, and that anti-racism has led to the establishment of an authoritarian black racist/Marxist regime in Zimbabwe, and a wave of interracial crime in South Africa, or that anti-colonialism led to Idi Aminism or Pol Potism. It could be argued that traditional left-wing anticlericalism led to atrocities against Christians in the French or Spanish Revolutions, or carried out by Stalinist states. This assertion by Price is nothing more than special pleading masquerading as moral indignation.
Price says, “It is not that Preston is necessarily a fascist anti-semite. But he does not care if others are fascist anti-semites. It does not bother him if co-thinkers “overemphasize” anti-semitism. This is beneath contempt.”
Contra Price, there were no fascists among the speakers at the conference. I “care” if others are “fascist anti-semites” to the same degree that I “care” if others are Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists, LaRouchies, religious fundamentalists, or adherents of other authoritarian or state-centric ideologies, or if they “overemphasize” anti-capitalism, anti-socialism, anti-Islamism, anti-feminism, anti-masculinism, anti-white privilege, anti-anti-racism, etc. Such ideas can be dangerous when taken to extremes, and to the degree that they are connected to the state and institutions of power, which “fascist anti-semites” clearly are not anywhere in the developed world.
Price says, “He goes on to make personal attacks on me. He claims that I believe that “anarchists are fine as long as they are good Marxists at heart.… It is not surprising that a former Trotskyist and comrade of anarchist-cum-Maoist Christopher Gunderson would be taking such a line.” This is followed by a reprint of an essay by Preston which grossly distorts my political history. For my actual views, see “What is an Anarchist? Am I an Anarchist?” ”
This is a link to Price’s article explaining his current views. https://www.anarchistnews.org/content/what-anarchist-am-i-anarchist Notice that in the article Price does not refute any of the claims that I made concerning his own political history, such as his involvement with RSL, LRRAF, and NEFAC, but only states his present positions. I am happy to correct claims that I have made if such claims are demonstrably mistaken, but no evidence of any such mistakes has been provided.
Price says, “But, again, this is irrelevant. Whatever my possible errors or those of other anarchists, this does not justify so-called anarchists who are fascists and anti-semites, nor Preston’s toleration of them.”
The essence of this statement by Price amounts to, once again, special pleading masked as moral indignation. What Price is apparently saying is that the actions of Jewish political organizations, ideological movements, individuals of influence, or institutions in which Jews have prominent positions of influence should be off-limits from criticism because, well, that might be getting a little too close to classical anti-semitism and, well, we know where that leads…
Consider this. Price identifies with a movement, the so-called “social anarchists,” whose members habitually engage in rhetoric and assertions involving claims of the exercise of oppressive power relations by capitalists, business people generally, white people, Europeans, men, Christians, heterosexuals, ageists, looksists, transphobes, ablists, and a long list of supposed oppressors and out-groups. But apparently Jews are incapable of ever engaging in malevolent actions unless, perhaps, they do so by assuming the identity of privileged white racists (some on hard left have assumed a “Zionism as white privilege” line), or as puppets of Western imperialism (the position of Chomsky and, apparently, Price).
This is an appallingly flagrant double standard of the kind that is not uncommon among leftists. Criticizing the abusive exercise of power by “straight white males,” “conservative Christians,” or “capitalists” is considered to be nothing more than a noble struggle for social justice against villainous oppressors. But criticizing the abusive exercise of power by Jews is apparently off limits because then Uncle Alfie might somehow resurrect from the grave.
This is not to say that all claims of oppressive power being exercised by Jews are true. For example, I hold to neither the view that Israel is simply a tool of US/Western imperialism nor that view that Israel is the tail wagging the American dog. Instead, I regard America and Israel as having a symbiotic relationship with each other. This is in part because of the geopolitical alignment between American and Israeli foreign policy interests, in the same manner as the alignment between the US and Saudi Arabia, as Chomsky has pointed out. But it is also in part because of the prominence of Jewish partisans of Israel among the ranks of the US power elite, which has been well-documented by scholars from across the political spectrum. There are other reasons for the US-Israel symbiosis as well. There are also other ethnic or national groups, such as the Saudis and Cuban exiles, that exercise disproportional influence over US foreign policy.
But none of this fits into the narrative which claims that only “straight while male Christian capitalists” can be the bad guys, and so to make claims to the contrary can apparently be dismissed as “fascist anti-Semitism.”
Indeed, the accusations that are being made by Price could be considered an abusive use of such labels as “fascist” or “anti-Semitism.” A standard dictionary definition of fascism would be something along the lines of the following: “a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. “ As Mussolini himself said, fascism insists upon “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” This is the polar opposite perspective from that of the National-Anarchist Movement, which favors decentralized village communities in opposition to the state itself and the nation-state system generally. To label N-AM as “fascist” is simply stretch the definition of “fascism” beyond any intelligible meaning. As Troy Southgate has said, “National-Anarchists do not support Trump, Putin, Assad or Le Pen; National-Anarchists do not endorse racist behaviour or misogyny; National-Anarchists are opposed to fascism and neo-Nazism; National-Anarchists do not defend imperialism and colonialism; and National-Anarchists are not anti-communist to the extent that they forget about the capitalist ruling class or ignore the fact that the historical roots of our struggle can be found among those who have always fought against injustice and oppression.” http://www.national-anarchist.net/2017/05/as-many-of-us-already-know-from.html
Price would apparently insist that all criticisms of Jewish power, or even acknowledging that Jewish power exists, are akin to endorsing the tirades coming from The Daily Stormer. Once again, it could just as easily be claimed that all criticisms of capitalist power, or even acknowledging that capitalist power exists, are akin to an endorsement of Stalinism. But, once again, the existence of Jewish power has been acknowledged and documents by journalists, academics, and scholars from across the political and ethnic spectrum, including both leftists and rightists, Jews and Gentiles. For example, J.J. Goldberg’s work in this area is quite compelling. To dismiss this voluminous body of evidence is to simply engage in obfuscation and obscurantism.
Anarchism should be about applying critiques of power and authority wherever power and authority actually arise. This could certainly include capitalist power, as well as power exercised by the hated “straight white males,” in addition to power exercised directly by the state. But it would also include power exercised by other ethnic groups, including Jews, as well as socialists, feminists, labor unions, Muslims, the gay lobby, and any other group, organization, or ideological tendency that becomes institutionalized or which has access to state or other institutional power. This does not mean that any and all criticisms made against specific groups are accurate or valid, but it does mean that no group is beyond or above criticism, including anarchists.
The entirety of the presentations made by Peter, Sean, and myself are available on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDiRAB7MjXM&t=198s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruyGakKe7oI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Q94OT2JSA&t=12s
I am fine with hearing any criticisms of any of these presentations that are based on facts, evidence, logic, and reason. But I have no interest in special pleading, ad hominem, selective indignation, double standards, canards, or moralistic grandstanding.
This is a lecture by Price that is quite interesting. I actually agree with most of this, but it’s interesting how in the first three minutes he correctly mentions how state-socialist regimes were regimes of mass murder, but then around 2:50 he describes “state socialists” as revolutionary comrades in the struggle against capitalism, and then around 4:55 he mentions that there might be regions in a post capitalist society where central planning (i.e. state socialism) is practiced, and then a few seconds later he criticizes market socialism as something he is against, although he recognizes it might also exist as part of a post-capitalist society. Implicit in this comment is that he finds centrally planning less objectionable that market socialism. Is this not a mirror image of the kinds of accusations Price has made against me?
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqiT-OSIvQE&w=560&h=315%5D
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M82VWC0l1f0&w=560&h=315%5D
Needless to say, accusations similar to those raised by Price have been levied against me before. Some of which I responded to in this debate an antifa faction: https://ntna.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/antifa-vs-anarchism/
I have also responded to some of the more virulent critics here: https://attackthesystem.com/2017/06/07/the-lumpenproletariat-as-class-vanguard/
I have seen what I would consider trends towards excess in all anarchist factions. I might find some in the N-A milieu to be overly focused on critiques of Zionism or Jewish power (as opposed to imperialism and capitalism generally), and I might find some in the left-anarchist to be overly focused on critiques of white privilege, patriarchy, and heteronormativity (as opposed to authoritarianism generally). I might find some anarcho-communists to be overly focused on anti-capitalism (as opposed to statism generally), and I might find some anarcho-capitalists to be overly focused on anti-socialism (as opposed to power elites generally). I might find some Green anarchists or anarcho-primitivists to be overly focuses on pollution or technology (as opposed to institutions generally), and I might find some anarcho-transhumanists to be overly optimistic in their view of technological capabilities. I would say similar things about most other anarchist factions.
Authoritarian dangers can potentially creep in from any direction, which is why the central focus of anarchism should be the critique of power in the broad sense, and merely focusing selectively on particular forms of authoritarianism. For instance, I would like to see anarchists pay more attention to the insights of elite theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory as well as the scope of ways in which manifestations of power can emerged that was defined by Bertrand Russell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power:_A_New_Social_Analysis
According to this piece from Telos, even Wayne Price and Noam Chomsky would count as anti-Semites.
http://www.telospress.com/conspiracy-anti-zionism-the-current-face-of-judeophobia-ideological-aspects-of-the-greek-case/