The End of Anarchy

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

For the immediate attention of The Project for the New Walter and Theodorian Century.

Please forgive this personal view I now put before your convention of councils, but my personal view is all I have - indeed, is it not all that we each have?

I note from your latest bulletin that your struggle is concentrating on the weight of issues burdening the nation of Walter & Theodor. I do not profess to have any answers to those issues, nor indeed do I have knowledge of their particulars.

However, if I may be permitted, I would like to offer this thought to your debates:

Perhaps Walter & Theodor is not a nation. Perhaps it is a loose affiliation of peoples, joined together by a mostly shared history, culture and geography. The concept of nationhood is only born when those affiliations of people allow themselves to be subjected to centralised rule.

Would your people, the people who chose you members of the council to be their delegates - not their representatives - allow control of their lives to be taken away from them?

I do not think so. If, as a council, you have chosen to abuse the opportunity they have given to you, and to speak on their behalf rather than with their voice, I recommend you immediately resign your position because you have it under a false pretext.

Allow your place on the council to be taken by someone who understands that they are a servant of the people, not a leader who has taken the responsibility of their lives from them. Return home and meditate upon the reason why you would become a worm in their admittedly imperfect paradise and why there is the blemish of dominion in your heart.

In kindness and solidarity,

Mandi nGoma, former S&V delegate to CACE

[Walter and Theodor]

Dear Mandi nGoma,

We appreciate your contribution to the discussion here in Port Bou. Your letter was read to the collected council members in the assembly and it was clear that many of us are sympathetic to your views and some were even visibly moved by your passion. However, we also fear that your appeal to idealistic and emotive concerns is exactly the problem we are facing down here in Walter and Theodor. Our concern at present is the total ineffectiveness of anarchism, the near farcical inability of anarchists to organize themselves out of a wet paper bag, and the desperate sadness of misguided individualism that has somehow managed to confuse anti-communal libertarianism with socialist principle. It is perhaps the long and difficult road traveled by this movement that means the contributions of the great socialist anarchists like Emma Goldman and all the Wobblies, not to mention the doomed heroes of Spain, now finds its modern expression in the disaffected armchair politics of lifestyle anarchists and liberal intellectuals who think that the transgressions of their own thought are politically relevant.

In Walter and Theodor we came to our politics in the cultural and historical aftermath of the new left. We rejected vanguardism because then it was clear to us that the oppressed could represent themselves. From anti-colonial war to the first world labor movement, from Feminism, to the Black Panthers and Stonewall, the oppressed could clearly organize themselves. We only desired to be a part of that. We fear now that those lessons are lost and while we do not understand the dialectic that is at work we know that we must somehow stop the rot before more people needlessly die, before more people needlessly come under the jackboot of neo-liberal capital. We fear that we are enjoying the fruits of our revolution but that the fluidity of our political organization means that we are powerless to stem the tide that corrupts our own movement as well as the whole world.

Our fear is that there was perhaps a moment in history where the anarchist was a valid proposal but that this moment is passing. Is it possible that the anarchist was right but that the changes in global capital mean that we have lost the ground of our righteousness? Do we not subscribe to the logic of modernism and isn’t modernism what has been chewed up and spit out as a perverted parody by late capitalism? How could anarchism be exempt from the corruptions of our contemporary political economy?

World events suggest that perhaps the oppressed are not as capable as they were, not as capable as we thought. Accordingly we are re-evaluating our starting point, the rejection of a needlessly oppressive vanguardism. The compromise of the contemporary political stage suggest that this oppression (and it is unquestionably oppressive, no one here denies that) might not be so needless.

We invite you Mandi to join and contribute to the meeting in Port Bou in any way that you desire. Our hearts our heavy and we do not take this lightly. We know we are dancing with a certain turn of the soul that is dangerous and ugly but we are too old for the patience of the young.

Yours
Post-Post-Modernist Modernist Faction
The Theocracy of Walter and Theodor

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

Dear Post Post-Modernist Modernist Faction,

I too share the sadness about which you write. I too am dismayed at how the lessons of history do not appear to have been learned and at how the opportunities for enlightenment appear to have been passed over in favour of self-satisfied isolation rather than collective action.

However, I cannot agree with your presumption that the missing dialectic must be a return to centralised Leftism. Dark as it may be, this is surely not our darkest hour. The anarchist movement survived the horrors of mid-20th century totalitarianism when, surely, optimism was more sorely tried than even now.

In those times the monster was raw and unashamed. But now at least, as powerful and pervasive as the monster has become, it is forced to dress in the apparel of bourgeois democracy, it cannot allow us to ever glimpse its true nature. Yes, it has raised the stakes - but in doing so it has extended the gamble. If ever the lie is exposed, the house of cards collapses.

Your questioning appears to be whether the people have been fully transformed into the veal calves of capitalism, not merely unwilling, but unable to question the dominion over them and the dead end for humanity to which it leads.

But I pose two questions:

Firstly, how is it possible to force people to be free?

Secondly, is the current response being considered merely driven by exasperation and despondency or is it driven by new political thought?

Now that the people of W&T have experienced having control of their own lives I cannot believe they would surrender it - unless they were fed a new lie.

I thank you for your offer to join your deliberations but respectfully submit that I believe the whole nature of your enterprise to be immoral. I will continue to share with you any of the few seeds of optimism which may come my way, but I could never allow my personal dismay to lead to despondency and the betrayal of the people.

Perhaps optimism itself is the worm. Perhaps our efforts should not be towards the "good" of collective decision-making, perhaps our efforts should focus on the "bad" of elitism. The phrase "Trust no-one" was very successful in the marketing of the X-Files series, perhaps we should adopt it as our new battlecry. How post modern is that?

Mandi nGoma, citizen of Sacco & Vanzetti

[Fenria]

Walter said:

START COMMUNIQUE:

If George W. Bush wins the American elections next week, W&T will inevitably declare that anarchism is just too fucking optimistic, and that too many people are just too fucking stupid, and they belong in re-education camps where they should have to eat shitty food and read Marx until their eyes bleed.

If people can re-elect Howard, Bush or Blair after the last 3 years there is no hope for this naive load of shit we call humanism, much less the critical intellect required for building a new society in the shell of the old.

W&T will have no choice but to tool up and join the Stalinist zombies. The tACA can do its best to covince us otherwise as we promise we will stick around to convince you that we are right.

Just thought we'd share,
The Anti-Authoritarian Co-operative For State Socialism
The Theocracy of Walter and Theodor

Hon, the reason why Bush won, is because Bush stands for what is easy. Bush stands for buying the biggest car, eating as much food as you can stuff into your craw, shopping even when you can't afford to do so, yelling at people when you are clearly in the wrong. Bush stands for the basest of human instincts, that is why so many people voted for him.

The question then becomes, why is it so damned hard to be good? Why is living within your means and being environmentally sound so hard for some people?

Well, the conclusion I've come to is this: American predatory capitalism and the American media are in cahoots to convince the American people that life revolves around nothing more than the constant procurement of material possessions. It has gone on for so long, that the only thing that seems to matter to most Americans is god, guns, cheap crap from Wal Mart, and pretending that they actually have some sort of moral values. In short, Americans are chock full of hypocritical shit, but they would desperatly like you to think that they aren't.

Being on the side of good is hard because it means self sacrifice. It means driving the Honda hybrid like me, instead of driving the big V8 Ford truck. It means buying only what you need and being conscious of those who have less than you do. It means shunning meat for the greater good of animals, the environment, and your personal health.

Americans have been raised on "Beef, it's what's for dinner" commercials, constant streaming ads imploring you to join the elite by buying a Mercedes, telling you that you will only get laid if you buy the $20 shampoo. Most Americans take this crap to heart believe it or not! It takes a strong mind to look at this stuff, laugh, and push the mute button until your show comes on again.

This is why Bush got elected. Bush stands for doing anything to get laid. He stands for running roughshod over the environment just as long as you are having fun. He stands for punching the people who anger you on the road. He stands for bullying those you don't agree with. He stands for maxing out your credit card on plasma screen t.v.'s, and always saying "cry another day".

Many people are born with these inate desires, and spend their whole lives looking for someone who will facilitate this way of life. I know, my sister is a gold-digger lol. Bush is the easy choice for these people because he offers his unspoken acceptance of these behaviors, and it's no wonder, the more American people spend, the more, by proxy, he makes. Rest assured Bush wants you to buy the V8 car; he wants you to spend as much as you can on gas, he's in cahoots with the oil companies. Rest assured Bush wants you to max out your credit card on sweatshop produced cheap crap, he gets a monetary kickback from the companies who produce this crap in the form of a campaign contribution. Rest assured Bush wants you to help destroy the environment, what use is nature to a guy with an I.Q. of 98?

This and many more reasons are why Bush won....damn, I really need to write a book....or start a thread...lol...one of these days....

[theyellowspot]

agreed for the most part, though i would add that there is a huge portion of the population that really finds things like "moral values" to be the most important issue. they really believe that it should be illegal to marry homosexuals, that it should be ok for wal mart to fuck the most of us, and that church and state should not be separated. my mother thinks wal mart is great becuase they provide what the people want. convenience. i try to explain to her that wal mart wouldn't be necessary for people if they didn't exist, but she doesn't get it. as well, we should keep in mind that only about 30% of the eligible voting population actually voted for Bush, hardly a mandate.

[Anarchic Tribes]

In short, Americans are chock full of hypocritical shit, but they would desperatly like you to think that they aren't.

Absolutely!

we should keep in mind that only about 30% of the eligible voting population actually voted for Bush, hardly a mandate.

30% A mandate for what? Bombing the fck out of them?

[Refused PP]

What's all this about Bush havin a man date?
I thought he was married and now he's having dates with men?

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

To: Modernist Thingy Council, Walter/Theodor etc
From: Family Monsteroso, Malatestas, S&V etc

Neighbour,

I reckon what the cousin comrade nGoma is saying is relating to not what your reckonings mightn't be about but as to how you might do them up once you've reckoned them. If you see my meaning.

What I mean to say is how, if you reckon on taking away people's rights in Walter etc, how you mightn't get them to give it up, except may be pointing a gun.

Well Monsteroso is a lot nearer than the island from where the cousin comrade nGoma was speaking and we reckon there's prolly some of our cousins got mixed up with the cousins over there. Like as not, even if not family related then kind of cousin-like in thinking, if you follow my meaning.

So's anyhow, me and The Cousins here was reckoning that if you were reckoning on taking anything away from the kind-of-cousins we have in W&T etc then we ought to know about it and pronto like.

We may need to come and see what's what and reckon whether there mightn't need to be a reckoning. Or some such.

Neighbourly greetings,

Jason Monsteroso
Family Monsteroso
Monsteroso
The Malatesta Islands
Commonwealth Sacco & Vanzetti etc

[Walter and Theodor]

Dear Mandi nGoma, and Jason Monsteroso

CC:
Fenria
The Yellow Spot
Anarchic Tribes


It is not possible to force people to be free. Your questions and contentions point to our own lack of clarity regarding the issues before us or our failure to keep everyone properly informed about the progress of these debates.

The ideal of the dictatorship of the proletariat was to forcefully create the conditions in which communism could thrive. As anarchists we rejected the implicit totalitarianism of that stage of the historical materialist process. However, our hopes depended upon a viable movement and the ability of the masses. Now, there is scant evidence of such things but every evidence of the veal calves Ms. nGoma speaks of. So then, is there call for a parliamentary movement that could foster the conditions for communism while it still rejects dictatorship?

At present Walter and Theodor covertly funds a number of squats and community centres in The United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. For whatever reason, and despite all practical experience, we were convinced that these were seed grounds for a new society. We are no longer able to sustain this idea in the face of the evidence. As far as we can tell, aside from some cheap entertainment by a few really shitty punk bands, the contribution these anarchist institutions provide to North American and British Culture is pretty worthless. Similarly, we covertly fund and provide propaganda for collectively published anarchist papers and journals in both of those nations. It seems to us this had little to no positive effect on the general political situation. One year’s new subscriber is another years cancelled subscription much like one new attendee at “PuNx In Chaos Together” gigs are next year’s inevitable new haircut and new entry level bank employee.

We are wondering if Walter and Theodor would be better off abandoning these increasingly comical projects that generally rely on the skills, talent and dedication of one or two operatives who are eventually bled dry and turned cynical, even nihilistic, by the bitching, and carping uselessness of so many ketamine flattened hangers on? We are wondering if the funds, time and energy we have directed there are better focused on those parliamentary projects, and perhaps some of the more radical NGO’s that we understand to be steering towards both libertarian or socialist goals regardless of their own ideological claims? We are wondering if we must turn back to patrician and representative models to rejuvenate the possibilities for self representation? While there may not currently be a party for these concerns the change of organizing agenda would make us old school democrats, would it not?

Perhaps we are wrong to think such a direction would make us less anarchist? Perhaps these compromises with the realities of the world are as a legitimate part of our politics as any other? However, whatever the truth is, it seems the contemporary discourse of anarchism is bankrupt and part of that bankruptcy is that the mentality of “PuNx in Chaos Together” seems to form something of a center to our contemporary politics. This means that if Walter and Theodor head in this direction there will be little point in calling ourselves “anarchists”, as we will be rejected by our own compadres and such a designation should only cause laughter in the statist circles we would begin to operate within. In part this reality was only confirmed recently when a prominent Australian born, British cultural commentator stated that she was an anarchist and those of us in Walter and Theodor could not keep ourselves from laughing at the absurdity of it. Are we the victims of our own narrow definitions?

As for the future of W & T itself, there are obvious implications which may require the vigilance of outside observers but radical reform of the political process here has been shelved. In effect we are talking about a significant shift in philosophy where the long term effects cannot be so easily calculated. Things have not yet come apart here but there is a rumour about a group of citizens in the North West allowing a representative from WalMart to speak at a council meeting.

We hope this clarifies our position,
The Post Post-Modernist Modernist Faction
The Theocracy of Walter and Theodor

[Anarchic Tribes]

We are wondering if we must turn back to patrician and representative models to rejuvenate the possibilities for self representation?

What do you mean by this?

[Walter and Theodor]

Anarchic Tribes,

The issue before us is one of ability. If people are going to vote against their own interests can anarchists continue to pretend in the ability of those people to determine their own futures? As we stated earlier we came to anarchism with the faith that the masses could represent themselves. If the contrary is true, and much evidence suggests it, then do the masses need to be represented?

It seems to us that libertarian socialist representation would be focused not on state centralization or the rule of a vanguard as such, but those who have the intellectual and organizational ability to get things done, creating an infrastructure through which people could rule themselves and manage their own communities.

If we return to the example of co-housing, a libertarian socialist engagement with the State could advocate for State legal support or even funding of co-housing initiatives. In the UK currently their are a number of groups yet few with the necessary capital to get going. The statist would be fearful of this becuase it would remove decision making power from the state and put it into the hands of citizens and it would introduce people to radical democratic practices rather than top-down rule. However, it also seems to us that anarchists would resist this as it basically requires taking the state seriously as a potential force of positive reform rather than straight up oppression.

The patrician aspect is a bunch of educated libertarian socialists spearheading the policy drive and instituting yet another housing experiment that people might resist becuase their dreams revolve around middle class capitalist ideals of what life should be like. Ideals that are increasingly less sustainable. Ideas that need to be altered quickly and which anarchist editorializing and community centers have had no effect upon.

The question we are concerned with is that freedom may be increasingly untenable if freedom also means the freedom to fuck up the planet so people can aspire to a false ideal of what life should be like.

Does that make sense? The State becomes the source of an initiative and incentive for the States own destruction. Different from the Soviet model that hangs over us so plainly but not necessarily contrary to Marx.

We are kind of surprised to find that we are the only ones struck by a certain urgency of the current global political context. The world today is not the world of 100 years ago, or even 40 years ago when our political philosophy was at its most relevant. If anarchism cannot evolve it is perhaps right that it should not be taken seriously as a viable political philosophy.

The PPMM
The Theocracy of Walter and Theodor

[claptonpond]

One glaringly obvious flaw in your plan, W&T:

If the people are so unenlightened as to vote for Bush, and therefore, by your reasoning, not capable of governing themselves, what makes you think they'd vote for a libertarian socialist party?

In any case, I think the problem is more to do with the nature of representative democracy itself, rather than the ignorance of the voters. Sure, a lot of people voted for Bush, but what were the alternatives? Kerry's hardly a progressive, and no-one else had the slightest chance of winning.

I certainly share your concerns about the (in)effectiveness of anarchism today, but I don't quite see how your alternative could be implemented. At least not without becoming hopelessly compromised due to the corruption of the existing system that it'd have to engage with.

[Anarchic Tribes]

what's worse than 56 million people voting for Bush?
56 million voting for Bush + 53 million voting for Kerry.
That's 109 million, yes MILLION really stupid people.

[Anarchic Tribes]

Thanks for the explanation W&T. Perhaps I understand what you mean but there is likely a better place to sell it than here. We hope you come back to the forum, debate is good.

Love and respect

AT