Political Naïveté (or what are we to do about Maoism)

By Aragorn

Anarchist Library

One of the reasons that anarchism has become a popular political perspective is because in many contexts (for instance mass mobilizations or broad direct action campaigns) we seem open, friendly, and nonsectarian. This is in great contrast to visible (and visibly) Marxist or Leftist organizations, which either seem like newspaper-selling robots or ancient thorny creatures entirely out of touch with the ambivalence of the modern political atmosphere. Anarchists seem to get that ambivalence and contest it with hope and enthusiasm rather than finger-wagging.

The public face of anarchism tends towards approachability and youth: kids being pepper-sprayed, the general assemblies of the occupy movement, and drum circles. These are the images of the past five years that stand in contrast to the image of anarchists as athletic black clad window breakers. Both are true (or as true as an image can be) and both demonstrate why a criticism of anarchists continues to be that (even at our best) we are politically naïve.

Of course very few window breakers believe that breaking windows means much beyond the scope of an insurance form or a janitorial task, but that is beside the point. What matters is that the politics of no demands makes the impossible task of intelligent political discourse in America even more complicated (by assuming that discourse is a Pyhrric act). To put the issue differently, the dialectical binary of both engaging in the social, dialogic, compromising act of public politics while asserting that there is no request of those-in-power worth stating or compromising on isn’t possible. It is cake-and-eat-it thinking that is exactly why Anarchists must do what Anarchist must do[1].

This rejection of how the game is played while participating in it hasn’t shown itself to be a long term strategy– impossible never is. For lessons on playing the game we have to turn to the winners of politics and revolution: neoliberalists, sure, but also statist Marxists, reactionaries (from racist populists to nationalist Know Nothings or their descendants in the Tea Party), and what remnants exist of the old and new Left. Just to make the point crystal clear I’ll restate it. On the one hand you have the ridiculous non- or even anti-strategy of anarchist political theater that cannot achieve the impossible goal of everything for everybody forever. On the other hand you have realpolitik: the pragmatic application of power in the political sphere. This simplistic dualism is why most intelligent people abandon politics altogether and retreat to NIMBYism (at best) or the quiet solitude of screaming at a television screen as the only expression of engagement with the outside world.

In this light, a discussion about maoism might seem outrageous and it is! Maoism isn’t a relevant political tendency or movement in America. It isn’t leading guerrilla forces in the hills, it has no leaders-in-waiting just outside the border (unless you count Avakian which you should in no way do), but it isn’t further from the mainstream of American political thought than Anarchism is (anarchist big tent populists to the contrary) and is arguably much closer (in an often cited example, the mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, is a former Maoist). More pointedly, Maoism and Anarchism have been cross-pollinating for decades. Our task here is to shine a light on that history and challenge what benefits anarchists have garnered from this little-discussed pollination.


4 replies »

  1. Meanwhile, some Brazilian Left-Anarchists – and their equally Left-Anarchist friends from the USA – call for the alliance with the Maoists (the English text is just below the Porteguese one, just scroll a bit down):

    Hardy a good idea… to put it mildly. As a Russian, I has to deal with Stalinists (in Russia, there are plently of them) and I can say that there are hardly any more ANTI-Anarchist people than them, These are people whose dream (expressed quite plainly and clearly) is to install a totalitarian dictatorship where any sign of dissent will be wiped away by massive imprisonment and slaughter of dissenting individuals and groups – anarchists included.

    And I don’t think Maoists are better than Stalinists.

    P.S. During Russian Revolution and Civil War of the 1917 – 1923 Left-Anarchists did allied themselves with the totalitarian Communists. It ended quite badly for them – they were eagerly betrayed and destroyed.

    • Yes, it’s interesting how so many left-anarchists wax hysterical over “fascism” and yet adopt a “soft on Communism” approach. I tend to think of “pan-anarchism” as an umbrella for anti-authoritarian movements and philosophies generally, and with the idea of anarchism as a revolutionary centrism that is both 100% anti-establishment but also seems to marginalize the far right and far left.

  2. And now, Gods and Radicals published an article that is smart… well, more-or-less:

    At least, people on this site understand clearly that current establishment-promoted anti-Russian hysteria is exactly that – hysteria of the people are unable to perceive a slightest challenge to their status and position without emotional meltdown.

    It does not mean that I like Putin – I dislike him strongly. In fact, it is the absence of the ridiculous Putin-worship, so common among Western Anti-Imperialist Leftists – the people with whom I generally agree on the global politeconomic problems – that has drawn me towards “Attack the System”.

Leave a Reply