On anarchism

My buddies from the Fifth Estate continue to refer to their project as “anarchist.”

I’m unsupportive.

During the 1980s and 1990s it looked as if they (and others) were in the process of re-defining that concept and rejuvenating it. They had a good critique of Marxism, which was of great interest to me. It influenced me mucho.

I wasn’t exactly sure of where they were headed, ideologically, but I was all ears. Fredy Perlman’s work was so mind-blowing. But he refrained from calling himself an anarchist. John Clark’s new directions were exciting. But he referred to them mostly as “eco-communitarian.”

I can see a whole worldview and praxis in eco-communitarianism.

Anarchism . . . not so much. Speaking personally, it doesn’t take me anywhere.

There’s: “We want no rulers.” Of course.

I do see how that can righteously critique Leninism and Stalinism. But, you know, it’s a negative formulation. It mentions what we don’t want.

When it comes to saying what we do want, I hear: “Mutual aid.” Of course. But that says so . . . little.

“Freedom.” Everybody says they want freedom.

Murray Bookchin brought it into the movement during the 1970s and it was potent in countering the New Left’s turn back to Marxism. When he started to say “eco-anarchism,” well, that was an advance. But when he tried to flesh that out as the ideology behind “social ecology,” it didn’t wind up as inspirational as he was hoping and expecting. The Fifth Estaters and the Green Anarchists refined and enhanced and corrected and burnished, but they still can’t tell us What Is To Be Done.

So it seems to me that the concept says little but, meanwhile, has a reputation that turns off 98% of potential movement-joiners.

Counterproductive. Maybe even a little . . juvenile.