Add new comment

John Zerzan had an opportunity to seriously discuss the many failings of the statist left as well as of anarchists. Instead he goes on a rant with little content to it. Just factually: "all the leftist parties" did not support their imperialist governments in WWI; aside from the Bolsheviks there were the Spanish, the Italian, and especially the U.S. Socialist Party (Debs going to jail for a speech opposing the war). Most anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists opposed the war (disagreeing with Kropotkin and Tucker).

Yes, when the Bolshevik revolution broke out, Goldman and almost all anarchists took a favorable view of the (apparently) first socialist revolution ever. This was all new and they did not want to attack the first revolution despite possible misgivings. Over time, the true nature of the regime came clear and anarchists turned against Soviet Russia, as did Goldman, an unpopular position on the left, of course.

His other sneers at popular movements are out of the same barrel. He denies the major anarchist influence on the Occupy movement (obvious to everyone else). While criticizing the Occupy activities, he does not discuss what an alternate strategy might have entailed. Apparently he slanders David Graeber as a "progressive" but not an "anarchist" (which I leave to David to respond to, if he wants).

There is much to criticize and reject in today's left, including anarchism, but this sort of "holier-than-thou" approach is useless.