Add new comment

i agree largely with what you're pointing out "Makhno." most of what i dislike about PG is that his broad analysis points in one direction (anarchy), while his activism (such as it is) points somewhere else (progressive social democracy). yet this problem is not just PG's, but that of ALL anarchist activists; they tend to get sucked into the miasma of social justice common sense, which can only erode a principled anarchist set of strategies. those strategies should probably be based on diversity of tactics, a refusal of representation and demands, and a championing of some form of modified consensus decision making, as befits a prefigurative and anti-hierarchical stance -- yet in a desperate search for allies and collaborators, some kind of leftist lowest common denominator usually ends up as the de facto framework. many of us who passed through an activist phase and became so disgusted by the behind-the-scenes manipulations, abuse/misuse of (modified or full) consensus, sucking up to -- or at least refusing to criticize -- tankies, other leninists and social democrats (and even Democrats -- see the embarrassing Hope Bloc of 2009), we gave up on anarchism (at least temporarily). this new crop of activisty so-called anarchists will most likely chew up yet another batch of youngsters who don't know enough history to recognize the non- and even anti-anarchist meaning of what's being offered here and throughout the It's Going Democratic/Crimestink world. it's really disheartening...