from It's Going Down

This commentary by a Chinese anarchist was prompted by Simoun Magsalin’s recent piece, The Western Left’s Erasure of Anarchists in the so-called Third World.

We welcome contributions at igdworldwide @ protonmail.com


i wanna start with a few observations:

  • the overwhelming majority of those denying the existence of anarchists of color, nonwestern anarchists or “anarchists in the third world” are, identify as, or otherwise act as anti-anarchists.  that is, distinct from those who don’t identify as “anarchists,” they are fundamentally at odds with anarchist ethics and seek to sabotage them when possible.
  • when leftist anti-anarchists do acknowledge the existence of anarchists of color, they almost always suggest that anarchists of color are a cia op, or the result thereof.  usually they heartily endorse state repression.  in one public instance, they threatened to report an anarchist of color to state security where the anarchist resides.
  • the occasions in which this discourse takes place are, or are imagined to be in the absence of anarchists of color.  usually, they happen between a white or western anarchist and their leftist anti-anarchist counterpart.  at the heart of their disagreement is not whether anarchists of color exist.  for both, citing the presence or absence of anarchists or color is meant to prove or disprove the validity of anarchism to the other party.

why do anarchists of color so eagerly seek the recognition of their enemy, in a conversation they aren’t even a part of?

perhaps i’m being disingenuous: i don’t particularly care about whether leftist anti-anarchists recognize our existence.  if we’re invisible to them, all the better.  in fact, i don’t particularly care about what they as anti-anarchists think at all — their opposition to anarchist ethics takes precedence.  this is not to say that i would rather turn a blind eye to them — any information is, to some degree, informative of how we can act in and on the world — but that i don’t think of them as potential models to emulate, let alone lose sleep over.  leftist or otherwise, there are too many opposed to the liberation of all to do that; you don’t see anyone get dismayed that the fascists have a “bad take” on the situation in ukraine.

i would suggest that the main reason for the constant recurrence of this dastardly discourse is anarchists’ obsession with left unity.  if only we can prove to them that nonwhite anarchists exist!  surely, then they will give up their antics.  leftist anti-anarchists are supposed to be unprincipled comrades; misguided as they may be, they are mere interventions away from “seeing the light.”  when they do or say fucked up shit, we call it “opportunism.”  when they espouse fascistic beliefs, we are compelled to look for signs of “red-brown collaboration,” even in cases where the “brown” is leftist homegrown.  a leftist can only be so wrong or bad, otherwise they cease to be a leftist (and become a “so-called ‘leftist'”).  the leftist is good because they are a leftist; the leftist is a leftist because they are good.

but there’s no proving our existence to them.  this discourse is beguiling in its absurdity — it’s hard to imagine a satisfactory close (“once and for all, anarchists have finally demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of anarchists of color!”), because ultimately it’s not about that.  you can’t wake up someone who feigns sleep.  as long as anti-anarchists are anti-anarchists, and as long as they cling to their fantasy projection of people of color and nonwestern people, it’s ideologically imperative that they insist on our nonexistence.

we can’t prove to them that anarchists of color exist, but we still could put an end to this miserable discourse.  to do that, we need only to dispel the illusion of the left.

our fascination with the left makes us blind to the deep and wide divide between anarchists and anti-anarchists.  if their non-acknowledgement of anarchists of color seems to be the backbreaking straw, the camel has long been dead.

Comments

El-Fauv (not verified) Mon, 01/31/2022 - 09:29

has been one of the key principles of anarchism, that didn't come from "White" Western thinkers.

Authoritarians are best described as rocks, that are both hammered on and used for hammering. Their whole morals and worldviews are the result of hammering shallow principles on their heads, and them doing the same to others, in the same-old master/slave (or master/dog) relationship. They believe and worship bullshit things, just because. Because of the perceived rightfulness and gravity that comes with brutal domination over others. The moment this power dynamic is broken, the meaninglessness of belief systems are exposed, and remains the nihilist nature of our existence.

Anarchists or antiauthoritarians are best at being water. Always spreading, changing, shifting, evading the areas of tightening of control, escaping between fingers, and making rock useless... even eroding rocks on the long term...

anon (not verified) Mon, 01/31/2022 - 10:29

In reply to by El-Fauv (not verified)

“be like water” was bruce lee’s articulation of the concept of wu wei. there was no connection to anarchism beyond daoism being a proto-anarchist philosophy

El-Fauv (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 09:03

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yea, the "be like water" example was a reference to daoism as a proto-anarcho philosophy. As everything pre-19th century officially has to be considered "proto-anarchist" anyways, and very little of these tendencies were purely consistent to any contemporary anarchist orthodoxy, or their pretense. What matters ain't as much the word as the sensibilities, attitudes, inclinations, tensions behind the word "anarchism", as this Western expression itself lies in a blur in these days, right?

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 09:43

In reply to by El-Fauv (not verified)

hopefully this blur dissolves so no longer so many disparate people have to sit uncomfortably bickering around the same label that binds them. i hate all of you. i think there's room enough for all of us under the label of living things and even more under the label of dead things, but most anarchists are just annoying maladjusted wingnuts that are enamored with their quirky idiosyncratic delusions. wacky bums that would quickly be pitied, were they not so smug, self-important and judgemental. never has a label been such an apt aggregator for a lack of general competence, and pair that with pretensions of treating the world's most basic intrinsic traits as problems to be solved, and then claiming to have solutions or know the way forward, never questioning this basic assumption. i wish anarchism meant unmitigated relentless rebellion, but it only means unmitigated blabber and mouth drooling

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 09:57

In reply to by anon (not verified)

oh, it is. the thing is, it is everything anyone wants it to be and its opposite. and people so firmly affirming that it's this and not that. endless bickering to no end. it'd be better if people would just punch each other to settle their ego bouts, instead of spouting such nonsense that causes such painful cognitive dissonance. i wish anarchism's most prominent expression was not the site of bad wanna-be big-name theory-of-everything talking-head authors. rife the stereotype of "philosophy bro", even if gender inclusive. just a bunch of orphaned nerds

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 10:12

In reply to by anon (not verified)

people and anarchism are always better when they are how i want them to be. if the people and anarchism that was different from how i wanted them to be could just vanish that'd be great. i hate things outside of my control. stupid nerds fuck off!

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 10:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

yes and no. things are as they are, not as i want them to be. they cannot be better. i can complain. i'm complaining about people arguing about what anarchism is and isn't, when it is clearly a made-up thing that can be anything. it's okay if you view this as a game, but for the most part people are very serious and not self-aware about this. this game is not fun for me. it is out of my control, but i wish to do violence to them. if they were bickering at a park bench, i would throw rocks or pebbles at them until they leave. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 10:16

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"it is everything anyone wants it to be and its opposite. "

So...
Anarchism is anti-capitalism and also capitalism.
Anarchism is fascism and anti-fascism.
Instead of talking we should just punch each other.

This is amazing. Sign me up!

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 10:19

In reply to by anon (not verified)

there are anarcho-capitalists and national anarchists. "but but, those are not real anarchists! those terms are oxymorons!"

exactly my point. language games with no rules nor end. politics by different names

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 10:24

In reply to by anon (not verified)

i can't wait to meet up with our anarchist punching club and silently throw pebbles at seated talkers until they go away.

against language games and talking!
for punching and pebble throwing!
anarchy!

wei (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 09:48

In reply to by El-Fauv (not verified)

Don't you hate it when someone makes a factual error, it's pointed out to them, and then they walk it back and try to somehow save face by altering what they meant to say, only to muddy the entire conversation due to shame/ego and then be shielded from seeing their mistake and growing from it by a third-party?

"Be like water" was never a principle of anarchism. Not ever. Some anarchists have intermixed this very Chinese, very daoist principle of wu wei, contemporarily as articulated by Bruce Lee, into their idea of anarchism. Yes, also early anarchist thinkers were influenced by early Western philosophers (and philologists) who were in turn influenced by texts and teachers from the East. All of these ideas (many through straight up appropriation and re-imagining into Western contexts) were somewhat disseminated into early anarchist ideas, however a lack of Eastern context is significant in the interpretation of these ideas. And even though principles were grossly integrated into anarchism, this does not make them "key principles" of anarchism. They are, however, welcome additions, in my opinion.

This is not a case of "if we go back far enough we're all African." It doesn't need to be. Let it be what it is.

El-Fauv (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 12:32

In reply to by wei (not verified)

It wasn't a "factual error" by any stretch, and this has got nothing to do with my "internet image" being tainted. The concept of the Tao "being like water" wasn't coined by Bruce Lee, just made more famous with one sentence of his. The principle is in the former Tao Te Ching...

https://www.the-taoism-for-modern-world.com/tao-and-water/

https://www.libertariantaoist.com/?p=3106

https://freedominthought.com/writings/lao-tzu-be-like-water

And why do you think I care about my image in the view of people I'll most likely never meet (again) irl? This ain't like Reddit where you get useless internet coins for the best claptrap...

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 12:36

In reply to by El-Fauv (not verified)

Jesus fucking christ do you have zero reading comprehension? No shit. I realize reading is hard in Canada when it’s so cold but come the fuck on and at least try!

Chuang (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 13:26

In reply to by El-Fauv (not verified)

""be like water" has been one of the key principles of anarchism" -- El-Fauv (not verified) on Mon, 01/31/2022 - 09:29

This is, in fact, a factual error. By every stretch. It has, in fact, not "been one of the key principles of anarchism."

Simply admit defeat and this can all be over. Just state that you were wrong and you can continue your life's journey. Let go of your pride and accept the humble lesson before you. Be like water.

El-Fauv (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 15:02

In reply to by Chuang (not verified)

Okay, I concede that I could have used "proto-anarchism" instead of "anarchism". I also don't like the " one of the key" rhetorical device as it's a tasteless formula. Hence not a use I can defend.

I'd rather rewrite this in the form of:

""being like water" is one of the non-Western *anarchistic* principles, predating anarchism by thousands of years, despite being only a simpler reformulation coined by some taoist superstar in the '70s, of the original historical comparison of the Wei Wu Wei with water."

- El-Fauv, Jan 2021

...tho I'm afraid you're still nitpicking on rhetorical details to avoid the deeper meaning of what I first wrote.

*levitating back away*

Blockhead (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 10:37

In my opinion anarchism is post tao or post wu wei, anarchy is a late comer to this field, and poorer for having to be filtered through western so-called enlightenment thinking. To put it the other way 'round is furthering white western chauvinism. In my opinion.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/01/2022 - 10:40

In reply to by Blockhead (not verified)

onwards, poorer and more filtered, decay decay

where is rich, where is full, where is source, where is whole?

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
9
M
L
&
g
D
k
K
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.