Anarhistični portal

1. ataturk
29.9.2004

kritika anarhizma izpod peresa darija zadnikarja. ta kritika se mi zdi pomembna zato, ker je bil dr. zadnikar (oziroma je še?) dolgo časa zelo blizu anarhizmu, iz tega zapisa pa veje zelo močan vpliv avtonomističnega gibanja oziroma !ya baste!. zanimajo me komentarji anarhistov. opazil sem, da soočanje anarhizma z avtonomizmom ni ravno svetla točka slovenskih anarhistov. ali pa se motim?

**********************************************************************

http://www.dostje.org/Forum/dostje/viewtopic.php?t=84
Dr. Darij Zadnikar: Multitudes against the vanguardism /draft/

If we want to understand the actual and future condition of new social movements that emerged from the times of Seattle protests, then we have to grasp the structural changes and specifics of contemporary capitalism. The insurgency from southeast Mexico in January 1994 has pointed out the neoliberal globalisation as the core problem that threatens the existence of indigenous people at the local level. The neoliberal globalisation, as we can read in Hardt s and Negri s Empire, surpasses the division between local and metropolitan not only in the organisation of economic life, but also on the level of resistance. There is no more a privileged actor and script of emancipation as it was supposed in the era of industrial capitalism. Therefore we can witness all the heterogeneity and multiciplity of contemporary resistance. In general all these resistances are issuing from their specific conditions, but more or less with the clear consciousness of the neoliberalism as common enemy. It distinguishes them from sheer policy of identities and lifestyles from eighties, from sheer humanitarism or engagements of NGOs. The plurality of emancipatory narratives creates the multidimensional experiences and practices of resistance. The boundaries between political activism, artistic expression, the way of living, fighting, surviving, enjoying etc. are melting. Even the difference between political and intimacy is lost in this environment of militancy. The movement for global justice consists mostly from these heterogeneous elements, from multitudes, which are dynamic and fast moving, even chaotic and anarchic. Everything resemblance to the so-called Brown s chaotic movement of the microscopic particles in the heated liquid, which until the Einstein didn t have a proper explanation. As the social sciences are more self-delusive then natural science, they tend to interpret the new realities through old schemata or to minimize their importance or even to ignore them. This mirrors itself also in mainstream politics, culture, educational rituals, media and other ideological levels. Because of plurality, heterogeneity and chaotic nature of these movements, they have bigger difficulties in the processes of selfreflexion than the ruling ideologists have in producing their dogmatic falsifications (i. e. producing the phantasm of antiglobalism ). But even in this chaotic and accelerating environment of resistances, the new non-institutional forms of consensus-building are emerging. The multitudes do not strive to gain the hegemony in movements, they do not tend to impose their ideas and priorities, but more to express them in such creative way, which could impact and contaminate the other subjects. This lack of classic discursive aiming to consent is not in all cases the strong side of movements, but on the other hand the common way in the fast ongoing communications in the neuronic shaped networks. Such structure of resisting multitudes makes impossible to build a metanarrative of resistance, as it was known in the industrial era. The multitudes are generally expressing themselves, their conditions of fight and survival, denying the possibility of privileged metanaratives and its representatives.

Despite of new shape of global resistance, it was from the beginning accompanied with some old-fashioned types of organisations, as parties, trade unions etc. Most of them contributed a lot to the movement in material sense and as well in sense of experiences. After the protests in Genoa in summer 2001, the movement was widely recognised as political force, despite of corporate propaganda. In the next months some of the biggest trade unions joined the global movement. These parts of movement had an important role in providing material and infrastructural support for some bigger events (social forums etc.). Inside of multitudes these old-fashioned organisations were often made fun of. The classic socialist workers parties were described as Salvation Army or Jehovah's Witnesses. There are three main reasons for refuting and being cautious of such organisations. They are hierarchic and autocratic, they have a linear conception of history and they impose vanguardism into the movement.

Although the Marxist revolutionary movements understood the state in the context of broader social transition, the reality was a total fetishisation of the state power. They understood their historic task in taking the state power (by elections or revolution, social-democrats and communists equally) as an instrument for social change. So they had to build a militaristic and bureaucratic parties. The induction into the conquest of power inevitably becomes an induction into power itself. The initiates learn the language, logic and calculations of power; they learn to wield the categories of a social science, which has been entirely shaped by its obsession with power. / / Manipulation and manoeuvring for power become a way of life. /J. Holloway 2002, 15-16/ The result was a great impoverishment of emancipatory goals and methods and its subordination to the state-oriented ends. The disciplinatory society was built on the model of factory. The hierarchic organisation of political life has been conceived as proper rational basis of society itself, as if the society was just extended factory. Politics became engineering and bureaucratic administering. With such a mentality the members of old-fashioned trade unions and parties cannot adapt themselves to the dynamic and chaotic ways of contemporary social movements. They are missing the meetings with appointed delegates, agendas, minutes, speakers etc. They want order and clear instructions. All the plurality of resistant multitudes and theirs ways of expressing the rebellion is comprehended as childish charade. They are grave. They are acting as church clerics. They know. They are decent and it is visible on their ties and clothes. They do not have dreadlocks nor piercings and tatoos.

This organisational closeness to clergy shows a deeper connection with judeo-christian conceptions of society and history. For them the history is an explainable drama with a catharsic denouement. The history is seen as a linear progression towards this denouement. It is measured with the criteria of industrial advance. It is more protestant than catholic version of Christianity. It is always possible to recognise the ethics of work in the criteria of historic progress. Work, which produces a surplus value, of course. There s no much space outside this criteria. I want to stress here that a linear notion of history reduces itself to unique criteria of progress. Such a history consists of reduced narration. It is impoverishment, which is constructed with exclusions of plural narratives or at least with their hierarchisation. The end of history, its denouement or the Judgement Day is of course the Revolution, which installs the heavenly kingdom on the earth, the communism or ANARCHY. The question is: how to identify this file rouge of history and not to miss the historic point of revolutionary denouement. The revolutionary clergy, the party-intellectuals and bureaucracy, have to decipher this historical point. According to its Christian predecessors, there are some of revolutionaries who patiently wait for this historic point and others which are brewing a plot in theirs kitchens of history. As the narratives of contemporary global movement, the multitudes, are plural, dispersed, non-centric, chaotic, anarchic, non-hierarchic etc., the history loses its one-dimensional characteristic. It loses its emphatic explainability, it becomes more the stage for various scripts, than just one Truth. It does not mean we have to subject ourselves to some kind of fancy postmodern scepticism, it means we have broader task than the revolutionary bureaucrats would like to admit. From the standpoint of grass-root multitudes and multiplicity of their resistances, the revolution is actual, it is happening right now. So the multitudes are working out their plural and divergent tasks without waiting for the proper historic timing or realizing an emphatic program. The notion of revolution and of the revolutionary working class from the industrial era, followed the example of French revolution, where the revolutionary bourgeoisie overthrowed the aristocracy, so that the capitalism took the place of feudalism on the historic line . The party-revolutionaries overlooked that world of bourgeois life had already overwhelmed the feudalism. The alternative has already existed at the level of everyday experiences. In the case of the industrial party-revolution, the working class has been idealised though it didn t have any positive alternative. And exactly this is the point of Marxist comprehension of revolutionary proletariat: it is its total social negativity, which is realised through the comodification of labour. The proletariat is the excess of alienation, the point from which you have to step out from the realm of work. The proletariat is the point of self-destruction of capitalism, it is not an idealised actor of History. It is the end of humanity. It is the standpoint from which the freedom is seen only beyond the work. Nomadic and contingent characteristic of multitudes regarding the systemic imperatives of neoliberalism is producing the cracks in the history, the pockets of resistance, exodus from Empire. It is productive and inventive through negativity. The plurality of possible different worlds is actual but not in the sense of gigantic historical swap. The multitudes are inconsistent and contradictory therefore the system wants to normalize them. We have to understand them in the Georges Bataille s term of heterogeneity. They have to build the practices of transgression. The actual notion of revolution, which goes through-and-beyond the Empire is comparable with composting in bio-gardening. The multitudes have to de-composite the system with plurality of rebellious life-practices in something, which is suitable and worth for living.

I can understand the standpoints of some British comrades (i.e. Callinicos) from the viewpoint of rich tradition of British labour movement. But what are they offering us is the nationalisation of industry, which could only bring the strengthening of state and integrating of workers in capitalist mode of production. Still more: such a nationalized economy can function only within nationalistic and protectivistic frameworks. It is not coincidental that this so often idealized working class is the social basis for right extremism. The idealisation of working class, so strange for the Marxian concept of proletariat as social negativity, is consequent to the contemplative view of history as linear progress. This view has intellectually and from above to identify the social actors of history, the subjects of history. The history no more emerges from the rebellious negativity of social groups, but they have to fulfil the task of history as their heroes. The problem is that they do not see this historic task or just don t care for its distant goals: the Revolution is being missing its revolutionary subject. As we know it has been compensated with revolutionary parties, its bureaucracies and militants and leaders. They have to bring the subject to the sense. By fair means or foul. The clergic vision of history is the birthplace of vanguardism. The vanguardism is blind for all social movements, which cannot be manipulated and which are expressing their rebellious visions by themselves. The vanguardism is absolute realisation of the representative politics. As we mentioned, it is manipulative and totalitarian. The dictatorship of proletariat is in fact the dictatorship of party-vanguard, which seized the state power to accomplish the task of history. As they step out from heterogeneity of negative life (creativity) they cannot see the emancipated society outside the visions of factory management. The ruling working class becomes what only could be inside the factory boundaries: executor of orders. The more is this class exploited and repressed, the more is idealized its social image. They become the superheroes of work (living in poorly conditions). It is similar to the idealisation of women (mother-virgin) in patriarchal societies. The multitudes are useless for vanguardists. They do not accept the supreme historic task. They do not accept the representatives. They are difficult to scan. They are not serious. THEY ARE NETWORKING AND SWARMING INSTEAD OF ORGANIZING THEMSELVES. THEY ARE USELESS AND THEREFORE INVISIBLE. THIS VANGUARDISM IS BLOCKING A LOT OF PARTIES, GROUPS AND TRADE UNIONISTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR SOCIALIST, ANARCHIST OR OTHER ORIGINS. THE OBJECTIVES OF THEIR STRUGGLE ARE DEFINED FROM 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY BOOKS, SO THEY ARE OFTEN MISSING THE POINT OF CONTEMPORARY FIGHT. THE ANARCHISTIC STANDPOINT TOWARD THE STATE IS AS A RULE DEFINED BY THE OLD-FASHIONED IMAGES OF STATE POWER, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH THE REALITY OF SOCIETY OF CONTROL EMERGING IN POSTINDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES. The socialists are dreaming the state with full employment. The communists are discussing the differences between Leninism, Maoism, Trockysm and other Isms .
It seems that on the field of contemporary struggles counts only the project. In fact it is a projection of individual, collective and natural life. At the boundaries and cross-sections of multitudes the new world could be born. Of course, it does not mean it will, because the multitudes do not have the History on their side. In this narrow sense of history , they are a-historic. In some way, they accelerated to the point of absence of the time. It is more or less the result of new communicative technologies, which changed not only the flow of information but also the cognitive styles and perceptive sensitivity. The outcomes of fights are therefore unpredictable. Let s take two examples: Genoa 2001 and Madrid 2004. The battle of Genoa strengthened the movement despite the hostile media coverage and violent warfare of Italian forces. The mobilisations after Genoa were even numerous, irrespective of decoy of so called Black Block, which started in Genoa and ended in Thessaloniki 2003. The global peace movement from February 2003 didn t hinder the aggression on Iraq. But the Spaniards didn t react on the terrorist bombing in March 2004 with primitive patriotism and anti-islamism. The activists, which organized themselves a former year against the war were capable to mobilize the masses in few hours: Your war, our deaths! On the elections the socialists didn t win, as they were forced by the multitudes to change their policy and immediately pull out Spanish army from Iraq, followed by some other contingents. When the corporate media sarcastically asked, what is the efficiency of peace protests in winter 2003, nobody could predict the reaction and impact of Spanish multitudes. They managed to instrumentalise the political parties, which usually instrumentalized so called public opinion. In this sense the impact of multitudes is equal to decomposition of public opinion, which consists of passive voyerism of corporate media and political parties.

The people we are learning from to recuperate the dignity are the indigenous peoples, from oppressed women we learn how to gain the courage, from the Slovak Gipsies to fight the state, from Argentinian piqueteros to rebuild urban society, Slovenian erased or people Sans-papiers in Europe how to survive, the migrants how to transform the new countries and not just assimilate, from punks how to squat the places for living and amusement, Brazilian peasants to occupy large estates etc. There are numerous questions: What to eat? What to breathe? How to buy? There s no unique doctrine, which could provide us with answers. There s no unique method to gain the fight. There s no guarantee for success. The localisation of struggles could be successful, when it takes into consideration how the globalized neoliberal system is functioning on their local level. At this moment the process of extension of the society of control, which comes after the disciplinatory society, could be overcame by tactics of acceleration and speed, divergency and rhizomatic connectibility, by surpassing and autonomy, by hiding in web and emerging from shadow, by interruptions of flows, deceptions and piracy, nomadism and techno-fanaticism, to shirk the work and GO FOR PROTESTS, BE PLAYFUL AND CREATIVE. AND SHIT ON ALL VANGUARDS!