The Anarchism of Blackness

  • Posted on: 1 December 2018
  • By: thecollective

From Anarkismo by Wayne Price

Review of Zoe Samudzi & William C. Anderson, “As Black as Resistance; Finding the Conditions for Liberation.”

There are almost no books on anarchism and African-American liberation, which makes this an exceptional work. It places racial oppression at the center of U.S. society, interacting and overlapping with all other forms of oppression and exploitation. The strengths and weaknesses of the work are reviewed.

There are almost no books on anarchism and African-American liberation, which makes this an exceptional work. In the last period of radicalization (the “sixties”), very few radicals, African-American or white, were anarchists or other types of libertarian socialist. Almost all radicals were attracted by the apparent anti-imperialism of Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Castro, and the leaders of liberation struggles in Africa. Therefore those who organized and theorized about revolutionary African-American liberation were overwhelmingly Marxist-Leninists and/or statist nationalists. If I had to think of someone who did not fit this category, I would have to go back to the Black revolutionary, C.L.R. James, who was a libertarian (autonomist) Marxist (James 1948). (Anarchists were involved in the U.S. Civil Rights movement, but mainly as anarchist-pacifists. They were perceived as nonrevolutionary pacifists.)

After the height of this period, there were a number of African-American militants who had been members of the Black Panthers and the Black Liberation Army. When in prison a small number reconsidered their politics and philosophies. Mostly unconnected to each other, they turned to revolutionary anarchism. (See Black Rose Federation 2016.) Meanwhile, there had been a general failure and conservatism of the “Communist” states, from the Soviet Union to China to Vietnam and Cuba. Among those who rejected the oppressive, racist, and exploitative status quo, there was now a rejection of Marxism-Leninism. There was a revived interest in the other revolutionary tradition, that of anarchism.

This short book is a product of the new period. It is an expansion of the authors’ essay, “The Anarchism of Blackness.” They quote repeatedly from one of the Black anarchists, Lorenzo Kom’boa Ervin (but, surprisingly, not from any of the others). Their main point is that African-Americans are not and cannot be fully merged into U.S. society, a white supremacist state established as a colonial-settler society. Black people remain essentially outside of and oppressed by this society. Despite the end of legal Jim Crow, the passage of anti-discrimination laws, and various forms of “affirmative action,” African-Americans remain primarily on the bottom of society, among the most oppressed and exploited parts of the population. Meanwhile there are on-going attacks on whatever gains have been won (such as the right to vote). Therefore the struggles of African-Americans, pushing upon established order from below, continue to fundamentally threaten the whole system of “law and order,” of established politics, and the normal electoral alternatives. They point in a different direction altogether.

We are Black because we are oppressed by the state; we are oppressed by the state because we are Black.” (Samudzi & Anderson 2018; 9) “Black people’s place in the fight against white supremacist capitalism is unique since so much of structural violence entails anti-blackness….Blackness is the anti-state just as the state is anti-Black….Black Americans [are] a group of people upon whose suffering the state is constructed…. Understanding the anarchistic condition of blackness and the impossibility of its assimilation into the U.S. social contract, however, could be empowering.” (112—113) This points to a goal of “a complete dismantling of the American state as it presently exists….” (3) and “creating an alternate system of governance that is not based on domination, hierarchy, and control.” (xvii)

This rejection of “assimilation” as a goal does not lead Samudzi and Anderson to adopt Black nationalism. Partly because they believe that “Black nationalism in the United States can sometimes entail these quasi-settler claims to the land….” (25) This raises “the question of the fate of the Native American communities in those states” (26) “We are not settlers. But championing the creation of a Black majoritarian nation-state, where the fate of Indigenous people is ambiguous at best, is an idea rooted in settler logic.” (28) They also doubt that a nationalist approach is adequate to deal with the dire threat of world-wide environmental catastrophe caused by the system. And they point out that the upholders of Black oppression are not only European-Americans. “There are many politicians and state operatives of color, Black and otherwise, working for white supremacy.” (13)

Samudzi and Anderson especially object to “Black nationalism’s frequent exclusion of” Black and other women and LGBTQ people (70—71). “We must also explicitly name different gendered and sexual identities within blackness. Any truly liberatory politics must speak to the unique needs and vulnerabilities of Black women and girls, especially Black queer and transgender women and girls.” (68)

Others have rejected both total assimilation (“integration”) and Black nationalism, such as C.L.R. James and Malcolm X in his last year. Probably most African-Americans do not want to separate from the U.S.A. They mostly want to win the democratic rights promised by the U.S. tradition==but without giving up their Black identity and pride and their special organizations (such as the Black church and communities).

However, under the great pressures and upheavals which might lead to a revolution, it is possible that many African-Americans might come to want their own separate country (whether with its own state or as an anarchist community). If this should develop, surely anarchists should support their right to have this if that is what they want. We believe in freedom. This is not discussed in the book.

Samudzi and Anderson advocate “a truly intersectional framework and multifaceted approach to Black liberation.” (28) “Our work to end the deterioration of nature must be understood as a necessary and inseparable component of a global anticapitalist movement.” (35) They call for a more united U.S. Left. “There is not a unified Left in this country…If we do not build that functionally cohesive Left…the rights of all people oppressed by capitalist white supremacy will inevitably continue to erode.” (17) But the book is weak in terms of how to build that unified Left as part of a global anticapitalist movement--nor does it distinguish between the statist, authoritarian, Left and a libertarian, anti-statist, Left. They are undoubtedly right to raise a pro-Black, pro-feminist, pro-LGBTQ, and pro-ecology orientation. (They have a discussion of armed self-defense and gun control which I found rather confused.) But how can these be integrated into an “intersectional and multifaceted framework”?

African-American Liberation and Class

The weakest part of the book is its lack of analysis of why African-Americans are oppressed, and what functions this oppression performs for the system. This should lead to an analysis of the economic role of white supremacy in producing a surplus of wealth to maintain the ruling class, the corporations, the state, and all other capitalist institutions—a surplus of wealth which is squeezed out of the working population. They refer frequently to “capitalism” and sometimes to “classism,” but do not see that the capitalist class system is a system of exploitation, of draining wealth from working people.

Africans were not brought to the Americas in order for white people to have someone to look down on. They were kidnapped and enslaved to become a form of worker (chattel slaves). They were bought and sold on a market so they could be used to produce commodities (tobacco, cotton, etc.) to be sold on the world market.

With the end of slavery, African-Americans continued to be oppressed, serving two functions. First, they were kept as a vulnerable group which could be super-exploited. They were paid less than the rest of the working class and given the worst jobs, therefore producing a large amount of profit. Second, they were used to keep the working class as a whole divided and weak, so long as the white workers accepted the “psychological wages of whiteness,” namely feeling superior to someone. While the white workers got some small benefits (more job security, slightly better pay, etc.), they paid a high price in economic and political weakness. (Their inability, to this day, to win universal health care, unlike in every other Western imperialist country, is only one example.) The hopeful aspect of this situation is that it is in the immediate material interest of white workers to oppose racism—as well as being morally right. This gives anti-racists something to appeal to.

On the second function of racism: In the 1800s, the great Black abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, wrote about his experiences as a rented-out slave on the Baltimore shipyards, surrounded by racist white workers. While well aware of the difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery, “Douglass keenly grasped the plight of the white poor. In their ‘craftiness,’ wrote Douglass, urban slaveholders and shipyard owners forged an ‘enmity of the poor, laboring white man against the blacks,’ forcing an embittered scramble for diminished wages, and rendering the white worker ‘as much a slave as the black slave himself.’ Both were ‘plundered and by the same plunderer.’ The ‘white slave’ and the ‘black slave’ were both robbed, one by a single master, and the other by the entire slave system. The slaveholding class exploited the lethal tools of racism to convince the burgeoning immigrant poor, said Douglass, that ‘slavery is the only power that can prevent the laboring white man from falling to the level of the slave’s poverty and degradation’.” (Blight 2018; 77) To this day, the “crafty” capitalists continue this game of divide-and-conquer, between white workers and African-American workers, and also among Latino, Asian, and immigrant workers.

While not referring to this key aspect of capitalist racism, the authors do discuss the relationship between the oppression of African-American women and exploitative labor. There has been, and is, a “raced and gendered labor extraction [in]…the functioning of capitalism…Black women’s labor was central to the development of the capitalist state and the American slaveocracy….Gendered anti-blackness formed the cornerstone of Jim Crow modernity….” (71) African-American women faced a “triple labor (domestic, industrial, and sexual…).” (72)

This is entirely true and very insightful. It is odd that the authors do not further discuss the “raced labor extraction” from Black workers (of all genders and orientations) which plays a central role in the “labor extraction” from the entire, multiracial, multiethnic, multinational, and multigenderred, working class. Historically, Black workers, female and male, have played key roles in U.S. working class struggles, as well as in broader African-American struggles. An intersectional working class strategy should focus on this (which was the point of James 1948).

The Revolutionary Goal?

The book lacks a strategy for African-American liberation, beyond broad insights. “People may ask for answers as though there are distinct formulas….The solution to capitalism is anticapitalism. The solution to white supremacy is the active rejection of it and the dual affirmation of Indigenous sovereignty and Black humanity.” (114) This is not good enough.

It is not clear whether their rejection of the U.S. state and white supremacist capitalism implies a revolution to them. I do not mean a popular insurrection as an immediate goal, but as a strategic end-in-view, a guiding goal of eventually overturning the state and all forms of oppression. “It is possible that a people’s liberation is a perpetual project and must constantly be renewed and updated.” (114) Samudzi and Anderson write of “a long struggle [in which] meaningful steps toward liberation do not have to be dramatic.” (115) Fair enough, but they do not speak of how to get to an eventual destruction of the institutions of racist-sexist-antiecological-capitalism. A revolution may be a “long struggle” but not “a perpetual project.”

It is not clear whether they are anarchists. I do not mean that I doubt their sincerity, since I take them at their word. But they themselves waffle on whether to call themselves anarchists. They took “anarchism” out of the title of their book (from the original essay), and write, “We may choose not to limit or misrepresent the diversity of our struggle by explicitly naming ourselves as anarchists…”(66) Their values and perspectives seem to be consistent with anarchism. They were clearly influenced by Black anarchists. I do not raise this point to condemn them—they may call themselves whatever they like. But this wishy-washy attitude toward owning the “anarchist” label weakens their revolutionary perspective. Similarly, while they repeatedly refer to “anticapitalism,” they never write of “socialism” (let alone “communism”).

Conclusion

There are very few writings on anarchism and African-American liberation, which makes this an interesting work. It clearly places racial oppression at the center of U.S. society, interacting and overlapping with all other forms of oppression and exploitation. It insists that Black liberation will mean the destruction of the present U.S. state and sexist-racist capitalism. Its main weaknesses are a lack of a strategy and a failure to integrate a class analysis of capitalism into its program and perspective. They fail to see the special role of African-Americans in the working class and in the U.S. revolution.

References

Black Rose Federation (2016). Black Anarchism: A Reader.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/black-rose-anar...eader

Blight, David W. (2018). Frederick Douglass; Prophet of Freedom. NY: Simon & Schuster.

James, C.L.R. (1948). “The Revolutionary Answer to the Negro Problem in the U.S.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1948/0...r.htm

Samudzi, Zoe, & Anderson, William C. (2018). As Black as Resistance; Finding the Conditions for Liberation. Chico CA: AK Press.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

category: 

Comments

Blackness is a spook just like whiteness is. It’s a product of post ww2 leviathan identity construction that will simply not have a place in the coming shift from demographic identity structures to more individualistic psychographic structures.

Anarchists should drop 20th century logic like a bad case of fleas. Black pseudo radicalism is part of it all and will be out of place in the coming psychographic multicultural cybernetic reality.

not WW2. Whitey came up with it to differentiate punishment regarding indentured Whites and anyone with a darker skin tone. And remember, Black females had it the worst. White and POC could and need to form anarchy groups/spaces asap in my opinion?

This is such commonly-slung ahistorical BS. Do you think no one enslaved blacks and looked down upon them before whites? Wrong as can be - Arabs enslaved blacks, and had very similar racist stereotypes of them, centuries before Europeans. Of course, this simple, easily-verifiable historical fact would really interfere with the social justice agenda, so it is best ignored.

I'm however talking about demographic ideological identity structures which have historically specific post ww2 structure. This structure is really not conducive to anarchist/anarch affection or affinity. I've suggested that the cybernetic psychographic epoch that we are fast heading towards will bear more fruit for the ideas of anarchy. More and more people will have lower cultural contextual identities which,for all the issues their, will bring about more individualistic minded people on the whole which is better for anarchy then demographic identity dominated minds. There's also the fact that the post-1945 structure was defined by anarchist discourse collapsing out of the game starting with the post-ww1 decline. That isn't happening this time. There's no going back to Marxist or other big state radical positions. Decentering is the game to be played and anarchists and anarchs should ready with a strategy not informed by 20th century discourse.

More damn toxic facets of the idpol social neurosis, race, along with gender, which are the stubborn historical phenomenological tumors which should have been severed from the human dialogue after 1994, the Rwandan holocaust. Constantly politicized and manipulated to gain authoritarian power, the propaganda of the doctrine of oppression drags up endlessly the past malignancies of its own ruthless methodology.
The anarch is not concerned with " in history " or the negative sources of nostalgie which taint the newly emerging generations with poisonous ideas! Nay, we nihilists are journeying away from the remembrance of failures, we dare to raise our vision " out of history " into a new and original paradigm.

LeWay, you're my @news hero.

I don't believe in the identity construct "hero" or a society which creates the illusion. Either we all are heroes, or they do not exist!
Yours and my reply will be deleted shortly, read it now!

Egotist, Stirnerite, post-Left, anti-civilizationist, etc. strains of "anarchism"--as reflected in Ziggy and Le Way--deny that "Blackness" is real. In their view we really should not believe that there are "white peopl" who oppress "African-Americans." (Le Way apparently also rejects the reality of gender.)

There is no doubt that racial differences are socially constructed, without even the biological base of gender. Nevertheless, they are real, in the sense that masses of people act on them. Anarchists cannot ignore these genuine social distinctions. African-Americans face real oppression and super-exploitation; therefore they must organize themselves to defend themselves and to fight for a better society. And anarchists of all "races" must organize to defend and support them in doing this.

In all probability, after an anarchist society has been won, eventually "race" may dissolve as an experienced reality (I have no idea how gender might evolve). But that is speculation for the future.

Wayne, how dare you assume I to be an anarchist, when it should be glaringly obvious I am a nihilio-anarch! It's not that I am rejecting the biological reality of gender, but rather it's tagging by those preaching the ideology of oppression as yet another revolutionary fad for those infected by ressentiment.
My mention of Rwanda was to blame the actual pursuit of political power as its cause, and not race, which in that case had been created by the colonialists as a form of control. Their are many other examples of race being so manufactured as the cause, when in fact it was power.
Look deeper into the conventions of politics and the historically inherited events which sprout from them.

psst, hey Wayne, your sub-Stalinist slurs are showing...
seriously, to think that Ziggy and LePitre are in any way representative of anything worthwhile discussing is absurd on its face. their meandering incoherence is easily ignored, so why don't you just ignore them? i do, especially since i have at various points in my anarchic career been influenced by the egoist, Stirnerian, post-left, and anti-civ tendencies of anglophone anarchism. the only thing guaranteed by their continued insistence on inflicting themselves on the rest of us is that they're sure to provoke silly responses from legions of anonymice -- and you!
so here's what i object to in your latest non-response. first, your use of slurs. nobody here, including Ziggy and LePitre refer to themselves as an "egotist"; the proper term of self-identification is "egoist." second, there's no such thing as a "Stirnerite"; the proper term (if anyone would want to use it) would be "Stirnerian" or "Stirnerist."
second, your use of "strain" to describe tendencies or schools of anarchist thought is a deliberate move to pathologize them.
third, your use of ironic quotation marks around anarchism is merely a less clever dig than the usual "self-described" or "self-proclaimed" slur of bourgeois anti-anarchists.
the reason i call all these things sub-Stalinist is because Stalinists have always used specific linguistic tweaks to dismiss, denigrate, and otherwise discredit their ideological rivals and enemies. one way to do that is to use a disparaging term to describe them. since nobody calls themselves an "egotist" here, it is clearly meant as an insult. same with "Stirnerite." Stalinists called their enemies on the left "Trotskyites" (despite the followers of Trotsky calling themselves Trotskyists and the fact that not all of Stalin's enemies on the left were followers of the Butcher of Kronstadt) and on the right "Hitlerites" (despite the followers of Hitler calling themselves National Socialists). in the Stalinist lexicon, adding the "-ite" suffix is always meant as an insult, implying that those enemies are just mindless automatons who are unquestioningly obedient to their leaders (how's that for irony?). using the language of medical pathology as part of the vocabulary of insult also has a long history in Stalinist discourse (learned from Lenin) as well as practice -- the implication being that only a physically or mentally diseased person could dissent from the words and policies of the Great Leader. and the use of ironic quotation marks is an old authoritarian know-it-all tool.
three strikes, Wayne...

Thankyou boles for referring to me after a fine French Champagne, but alas, I am a teetotaller, le herb being my occasional desire ;)

Apparently Ziggy is insulted by my reference to him as an "anarchist"--to me a highly honorable term! Well, if he doesn't want to be regarded as an anarchist, that's his decision. As to Z's argument, I have difficulty following it. Of course the genocide in Rwanda was based on power relations, but this is hardly counterposed to recognizing the reality of relations between ethnic groupings as a main tool in these actions.

Boles accuses me of a "non-response," when he or she completely ignores the content of my essay or even that of my response to Ziggy. Instead B denounces my "sub-Stalinist slurs," thus demonstrating B's own use of slurs. This is supposedly based on such matters as my spelling of "egoist." As Boles says I should toward Ziggy, I will ignore the rest of the comments.

Yeah, ziggy hangs out here to preach to all the anarchists about how misguided we are with our "elective positions". He's far too smart for us.

Wayne, not paying attention to language is part of what makes your writing suffer. terminology is important, as is the case with syntax. your refusal to engage with my very specific objections to your shit dismissals is far more insulting than your use of ironic quotation marks, but as you well know, this isn't the first time you've refused to engage. it's too bad, but i guess you must be getting some sort of gratification by picking on Ziggy. it's just a shame that you voluntarily choose to lower yourself to his level.

I don't know boles ... Ziggles isn't being "picked on" if he's constantly antagonizing everybody and Wayne probably isn't intentionally using Stalinist language witchcraft either. You come across as a bit paranoid IMO.

Wayne loves to single out Zig because he's used to "punching down." Wayne prefers to pick out the more incoherent aspects of Zig's meanderings and then condemn them with the usual leftist common sense Anti-Racist (tm) and Anti-Imperialist (tm) tropes. my annoyance is that, despite all evidence that this repetition has any effect, Wayne insists on doing it after every essay or rant he writes gets posted here. the pattern goes something like this:
Wayne writes something tiresome and typical for an anarcho-leftist; it gets posted to @news; Zig (and perhaps LeTwit) comment with their usual incoherent leftophobia; Wayne uses Zig (and perhaps LePitre) as a convenient foil to tarnish the anti-civ/post-left/"egotist" "strain" of what he considers to be fake anarchism using leftist common sense -- or in this last case, language witchcraft (nice phrase by the way); i post specific objections to his common sense and bad faith dismissals; he pretends that my comments are even worse that Zig's and therefore he can comfortably ignore them.
the challenging thing for me is that all i see is Wayne briefly engage here with those who are clearly his intellectual inferiors (hence "punching down"). my question is then, "why bother, Wayne?" the only reasonable response i can discern is that it is a source of emotional/psychological gratification for Wayne to point out publicly what is already obvious. it's a waste of his capabilities.
and while i thank you for your concern, i don't think Wayne is out to get me, and the anti-civ/post-left/egoist/Stirnerian discourse is not under any mortal threat from Wayne or other anarcho-leftists, so i don't think your medicalization of my opinions is warranted.

"medicalization" ..? You're mostly white knighting for ziggy, picked quite the hill to die on there! And my suggestion of paranoia was more about your far fetched theory that Wayne is using stalinist trickery, rather than not finding your posts interesting. You don't need to assume it's a marxist plot when somebody doesn't engage with you, that's some very MURIKA shit right there.

Generally, I find your posts to be insightful, which is why I threw a peanut at you in this case.

The reason, Boles, that I respond to Ziggy and LeWay is, as I wrote in my first response, because they represent a current of thought (if you dislike "strain" of thought) within anarchism, not that they are personally important (anymore than I am important or you).

Anyway, what DO you think about my article's discussion of the relationship of race to class? Do you regard it as mere "common sense"? Or do you disagree, and if so, why? A serious response would give me a chance to "punch up," I guess, although I doubt I will get one.

He maybe using unconscious Stalinist derived language but really it's just honest banter between an organizational leftist and a non-organizational post-leftist. I actually find Wayne pleasant and honest minded though find his views for anarchy mostly non-applicable.

Wayne, no matter how many times each of them says so, you seem to disregard their self-identification as not being anarchists. they do not represent anything other than their own individual (or "egotistical" if you prefer) incoherence. Zig insists he's some kind of post-left person ("anarch"), but i only recognize his line of thought as being part of that tendency accidentally or (co)incidentally. i don't know of any post-left anarchist, for example, who insists that racism cannot exist because race is a cultural construct, or that sexism isn't a problem because gender is similarly a construct. the fact that he can support the blackness of Rachel Dolezal is just about all anyone needs to know about his absurd worldview. and LeWee has never been able to contribute anything to any discussion that is worth responding to. i just can't understand why you insist that they are worth having discussions with; neither of them seems very interested in -- let alone capable of -- dialog.

if you want to engage with an anti-civ anarchist, you might talk to Ria. if you want to engage with a post-left anarchist, you might talk to Jason McQuinn. if you want to engage with a Stirnerian anarchist, you might want to engage with Wolfi or Jason. your critical and analytical talents are wasted on pipsqueaks like Zig and LeWee.

You obviously have a pretty dimwitted reading of my view on racism which I do not say does not exist. I have said it's been over defined by leftists who presume things like institutional racism where there is really more multi-factorial complicating after effects, I've also said that white privilege is nonsense(preference might be a more apt term) and supremacy is, again, over defined by contemporary idpols. That's not saying that racism doesn't exist.

As for the Dolezal affair, I'd be interested in hearing how YOU and others can take away her blackness without relying on some type of essentialism. For those who have open ended views on social construction and role performative expression there is no issue with Rachel Dolezal being black. It's not the same thing as IDing with a black hawk helicopter for instance. You do have grey areas of a 42 year old IDing as a 7 year old, but I don't think the Dolezal affair is that problematic in the least.

As to post-leftism, I'm not doctrinaire to what came out of anarchy mag in the late 90s and early 00s but it has in formed my views as to how to go about with a more distilled Stirnerian discourse and I am grateful to those thinkers who represent the best of what anarchism has to offer imo. I happen to think that a dialectical update of Stirner does not equal the anarchist approach but something a little different and more interesting in regards to apoliticizing and philosophizing with a hammer. I am about Stirner and anarchy without anarchism which for me is less about active negation and destruction and more about desire, difference and divergence away from totalizing power structures. It's not about naked or anti-politics but pure apolitical philosophy with an edge.

What else have you gotten wrong about me?

Yeah, no, boles isn't "getting you wrong" ... Your shit just doesn't hold up very well when people say it back to you with slightly different phrasing.

You mean like WRONG phrasing 11:19. Please demonstrate where I have said racism doesn’t exist. I’m also still interested in why boles thinks Dolezal can’t be black without falling back on some type of essentialist fallacy.

You love to split hairs while answering your own questions ziggles. Dolezal maneuvered herself in to a position of authority in exactly the kind of "elective position" liberal activist organization you're always railing against.

Watching what she did rather than listening to her stupid ideas was pretty telling, much like your habit of arguing whatever is most convenient.

She did what every other leader in that silly IDPol org did. The ISSUE with here is actually quite profound in regards to having a consistent social constructionist theory and it's amazing to see radicals who should no better who take the popular position against her which is steeped in essentialism. When you look at her warm blooded life it's quite obvious that she has a DEEP affinity with the black phenotypal ethnic structure. The issue of whether transformative role performance applies to something like race( spooky as it is) is a legitimate issue. I linked to two notable pomo thinkers in Thaddeus Russel and Shayne Lee and they argue that there should be no issue with Dolezal wanting to be black. I have no issue with it either.

You also can't back up the stupid statement that I don't entertain racism either which of course I do but not via the IDPol lens.

I'm not the one who said it, I'm already familiar with how you spin your warped anti-leftist logic. I'm just more inclined to agree with boles and I know you'll just drone on and on with your boring crap if we give you more hairs to split.

Boles advises me: "if you want to engage with an anti-civ anarchist, you might talk to Ria. if you want to engage with a post-left anarchist, you might talk to Jason McQuinn. if you want to engage with a Stirnerian anarchist, you might want to engage with Wolfi or Jason."

But, gee, Boles, Ria, Jason McQuinn,or Wolfi L, did not respond to my article. For that matter, neither did you. Only Sir Einzige did! So I responded to him. Whether the psychological motives also apply to me, who knows? Who cares?

Wayne, you have it backwards. Ria, Jason, and Wolfi aren't required to respond to anything you wrote in order for you to engage with them. My suggestion was based on the fact that each of them has thought and written and published about the ideas and trajectories you seem interested in discussing, and that they've done it well. Relying solely on the meandering pokes that Zig tosses out with little or no provocation is just laziness on your part. YOU are the one who believes that those tendencies are fake anarchism, so as the self-appointed guardian of The Broad Anarchist Tradition (a la your heroes Schmidt and van der Walt) it should be YOU who seeks to discover why those heretics insist on insinuating their "strains" into your otherwise healthy (?) tradition. using the excuse that Zig is the only one who responded on this website is weak sauce, bro.

the reason i haven't responded you your review is because your take on the intersections of class and race, and your disappointments with the authors of the book, just aren't interesting enough for me to dig into. my issue (this time) is your bad faith creation of Zig as a representative of any kind of anarchism.

In short, Boles, you are disappointed that I wrote on the topic I chose to write on (African-American liberation and anarchism), which apparently "just aren't interesting enough" for you. Instead I should have written on a different topic (post-leftism, post-anarchism, Stirnerian egotism, whatever) which you do find interesting. I am sorry to bore you with my choice of topics. But this is what interests me.

(But did you read my essay on post-anarchism and the state? Not interesting enough for your sophisticated tastes? )

Wayne, i am not -- nor, indeed, could i be -- "disappointed" about what you choose to write/review. as a writer, you will choose to write about whatever amuses you; being neither your muse nor your editor, i have nothing to do with it. i didn't suggest what you "should" write about, or that it should be of particular interest to me. my problem all along (this time) is that if you really wanted to engage with the ideas of post-left anarchy, anti-civ anarchism, and Stirnerian anarchism (as you hinted at), then you and i and anyone else who frequents or stumbles on this website could all be better served with these topics if you didn't fall for the irrelevant and distracting baiting of Zig and LeWee. i can't help it if you continue to avoid the issue of them not being representative of any particular tendency.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
Human?
y
1
P
Z
i
d
D
Enter the code without spaces.