Something Boring

[Anarchic Tribes]

Face it, your politics are boring as fuck.
You know it's true. Otherwise, why does everyone cringe when you say the word? Why has attendance at your anarcho-communist theory discussion group meetings fallen to an all—time low? Why has the oppressed proletariat not come to its senses and joined you in your fight for world liberation?

Perhaps, after years of struggling to educate them about their victimhood, you have come to blame them for their condition. They must want to be ground under the heel of capitalist imperialism; otherwise, why do they show no interest in your political causes? Why haven't they joined you yet in chaining yourself to mahogany furniture, chanting slogans at carefully planned and orchestrated protests, and frequenting anarchist bookshops? Why haven't they sat down and learned all the terminology necessary for a genuine understanding of the complexities of Marxist economic theory?

The truth is, your politics are boring to them because they really are irrelevant. They know that your antiquated styles of protest—your marches, hand held signs, and gatherings—are now powerless to effect real change because they have become such a predictable part of the status quo. They know that your post-Marxist jargon is off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute, not a weapon capable of undermining systems of control. They know that your infighting, your splinter groups and endless quarrels over ephemeral theories can never effect any real change in the world they experience from day to day. They know that no matter who is in office, what laws are on the books, what "ism"s the intellectuals march under, the content of their lives will remain the same. They—we—know that our boredom is proof that these "politics" are not the key to any real transformation of life. For our lives are boring enough already!

And you know it too. For how many of you is politics a responsibility? Something you engage in because you feel you should, when in your heart of hearts there are a million things you would rather be doing? Your volunteer work—is it your most favorite pastime, or do you do it out of a sense of obligation? Why do you think it is so hard to motivate others to volunteer as you do? Could it be that it is, above all, a feeling of guilt that drives you to fulfill your "duty" to be politically active? Perhaps you spice up your "work" by trying (consciously or not) to get in trouble with the authorities, to get arrested: not because it will practically serve your cause, but to make things more exciting, to recapture a little of the romance of turbulent times now long past. Have you ever felt that you were participating in a ritual, a long-established tradition of fringe protest, that really serves only to strengthen the position of the mainstream? Have you ever secretly longed to escape from the stagnation and boredom of your political "responsibilities"?

It's no wonder that no one has joined you in your political endeavors. Perhaps you tell yourself that it's tough, thankless work, but somebody's got to do it. The answer is, well, NO.

You actually do us all a real disservice with your tiresome, tedious politics. For in fact, there is nothing more important than politics. NOT the politics of American "democracy" and law, of who is elected state legislator to sign the same bills and perpetuate the same system. Not the politics of the "I got involved with the radical left because I enjoy quibbling over trivial details and writing rhetorically about an unreachable utopia" anarchist. Not the politics of any leader or ideology that demands that you make sacrifices for "the cause." But the politics of our everyday lives. When you separate politics from the immediate, everyday experiences of individual men and women, it becomes completely irrelevant. Indeed, it becomes the private domain of wealthy, comfortable intellectuals, who can trouble themselves with such dreary, theoretical things. When you involve yourself in politics out of a sense of obligation, and make political action into a dull responsibility rather than an exciting game that is worthwhile for its own sake, you scare away people whose lives are already far too dull for any more tedium. When you make politics into a lifeless thing, a joyless thing, a dreadful responsibility, it becomes just another weight upon people, rather than a means to lift weight from people. And thus you ruin the idea of politics for the people to whom it should be most important. For everyone has a stake in considering their lives, in asking themselves what they want out of life and how they can get it. But you make politics look to them like a miserable, self-referential, pointless middle class/bohemian game, a game with no relevance to the real lives they are living out.

What should be political? Whether we enjoy what we do to get food and shelter. Whether we feel like our daily interactions with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers are fulfilling. Whether we have the opportunity to live each day the way we desire to. And "politics" should consist not of merely discussing these questions, but of acting directly to improve our lives in the immediate present. Acting in a way that is itself entertaining, exciting, joyous—because political action that is tedious, tiresome, and oppressive can only perpetuate tedium, fatigue, and oppression in our lives. No more time should be wasted debating over issues that will be irrelevant when we must go to work again the next day. No more predictable ritual protests that the authorities know all too well how to deal with; no more boring ritual protests which will not sound like a thrilling way to spend a Saturday afternoon to potential volunteers—clearly, those won't get us anywhere. Never again shall we "sacrifice ourselves for the cause." For we ourselves, happiness in our own lives and the lives of our fellows, must be our cause!

After we make politics relevant and exciting, the rest will follow. But from a dreary, merely theoretical and/or ritualized politics, nothing valuable can follow. This is not to say that we should show no interest in the welfare of humans, animals, or ecosystems that do not contact us directly in our day to day existence. But the foundation of our politics must be concrete: it must be immediate, it must be obvious to everyone why it is worth the effort, it must be fun in itself. How can we do positive things for others if we ourselves do not enjoy our own lives?

To make this concrete for a moment: an afternoon of collecting food from businesses that would have thrown it away and serving it to hungry people and people who are tired of working to pay for food—that is good political action, but only if you enjoy it. If you do it with your friends, if you meet new friends while you're doing it, if you fall in love or trade funny stories or just feel proud to have helped a woman by easing her financial needs, that's good political action. On the other hand, if you spend the afternoon typing an angry letter to an obscure leftist tabloid objecting to a columnist's use of the term "anarcho-syndicalist," that's not going to accomplish shit, and you know it.

Perhaps it is time for a new word for "politics," since you have made such a swear word out of the old one. For no one should be put off when we talk about acting together to improve our lives. And so we present to you our demands, which are non-negotiable, and must be met as soon as possible—because we're not going to live forever, are we?

1. Make politics relevant to our everyday experience of life again. The farther away the object of our political concern, the less it will mean to us, the less real and pressing it will seem to us, and the more wearisome politics will be.

2. All political activity must be joyous and exciting in itself. You cannot escape from dreariness with more dreariness.

3. To accomplish those first two steps, entirely new political approaches and methods must be created. The old ones are outdated, outmoded. Perhaps they were NEVER any good, and that's why our world is the way it is now.

4. Enjoy yourselves! There is never any excuse for being bored... or boring!

Join us in making the "revolution" a game; a game played for the highest stakes of all, but a joyous, carefree game nonetheless!

Your Politics Are Boring As Fuck
by Nadia C.


www.crimethinc.com/library/english/yourpoli.html

[theyellowspot]

while i find this, and much else put out by crimethinc., to be really nice and stuff, alot of it, including this leaves a lot out of the equation. there's a lot of people in this world, this country (USA), this city that can't afford to just have fun with their politics. they really are fighting for their survival, not like me, and plenty of other white american kids who can afford to have fun. some people have their hands full trying to not get evicted, trying to not get killed by the pigs, trying to put food in their kids mouths. not to mention, that in alot of situations, theory can't be totally blown off like this. the world is fucking complex, alot of things don't just flow along naturally, they're run by people, people who know how to do things, and wouldn't know if it weren't for theory. ugh, sorry this is a tad incoherent, i need to go to bed.

[Anarchic Tribes]

they really are fighting for their survival, not like me, and plenty of other white american kids who can afford to have fun.

True, but that's not really who those articles are aimed at eh.

some people have their hands full trying to not get evicted, trying to not get killed by the pigs, trying to put food in their kids mouths.

True again, and a lot of people are stuck living in the middle of a war that is not of their own creation, but again I don't really think this article and sites like that are aimed at such people.
I mean seriously, this article was for american white kids that go out and have fun, playing politics and such like. How many people do you think that live in your city who are trying to not get evicted, trying to not get killed by the pigs, trying to put food in their kids mouths, are 'politically' active? How many people playing this game do you think are in that situation?

I don't know that I've come across that site before yesterday, I just happened to come across this article whilst searching for definitions of words used on the other thread, and thought it relevant. It even comments on the inhouse bickering that you mentioned on the other thread.

a miserable, self-referential, pointless middle class/bohemian game, a game with no relevance to the real lives they are living out.

What this game? True, but there is a point eh.
I agree with their point on boredom, fun and happiness and I don't really think that's very different for anybody. Poor doesn't mean miserable. Having a job doesn't equal boredom. Politics can be fun and fun can be political.
I think the main point of the article is that changes are necessary, and on that I think we can all agree.

[Anarchic Tribes]

He's a bright spark eh

[vequalsv0plusat]

Although theory is irrelevant (to the everyday life of the majority) without action, action is utterly meaningless without theory to back it up. How can revolution be achieved if the people don't realize, through theory and logical thought, that it is necessary? In general, when people are oppressed, they tend to criticize the laws and leaders that immediately oppress them rather than the oppressive system itself.

Furthermore, I fail to see how theoretical politics *isn't* joyous and exciting in itself.

Cool article, though.

[theyellowspot]

Michelaccio said:

That was his conlusion. Well blow me down, Professor. You mean to tell me that if we all work hard together every day, we might be able to create the basis for a "functioning democratic culture" that will allow the public some role in determining policies? Maybe even economic policies?

Somebody know a way to bottle this lightning?

well, he's basically right. and i think this is another case of "intended audience" syndrome. Noam often writes or does interviews for very mainstream papers/audiences, towards boring-ass liberals who don't realize that something beyond voting needs to be done.

[workerscommunes]

Excellent article AT.

I agree that that the 'A' word has a huge image problem these days and that's one of the main things which is preventing it from getting anywhere.

Most of the anarchist literature I have read (and I'll be the first to admit that this is far from comprehensive, having only been calling myself an anarchist-communist for about two years) tends to fall into one of two catagories: 1) Occassionally fascinating but heavy-going philosophical works which are unlikely to stir up any revolutionary feeling but provide good fuel for boring pub arguments among armchair revolutionaries, and 2) Sensationalist, patronizing pamphlets and newspapers full of cliched stock-phrases and images straight out of the 1930s. Really embarrassing, unsophisticated stuff little different to the Sun or Socialist Worker. Neither strike me as particularly 'fun' and I can't imagine them convincing anyone to sign up.

The movement needs newer ways of presenting itself if it is to be rejuvenated, including imagery, language and methods. If they can't be found then anarchism will remain the property of the latent-intelligensia and nostalgic revolutionaries.

Not that I've any clue as to how this can be accomplished mind...

[claptonpond]

Michelaccio said:

And those of us who agree with this sentiment, I suppose, are "lifestyle anarchists."

Not quite. The passage you quoted could easily be interpreted as saying we should be organising in our communities and workplaces, on issues that affect us directly. Which, far from being lifestylist, is a cornerstone of anarcho-communist praxis, and precisely the sort of thing that Bookchin advocates.

The whole bit about having fun doing it, on the other hand, is completely beside the point. We should focus on what's effective. If it happens to be fun, so much the better, but if you want to actually get stuff done (particularly in the community) you're sometimes gonna have to do some boring and frustrating legwork. The example of collecting food and serving it to hungry people - it's good political action whether you enjoy it or not. Or do hungry people not deserve food unless some comfortable middle-class kid gets to have fun serving it?

Of course, being crimethinc, the article's aimed at white middle-class yanqui teenagers who aren't gonna bother doing anything that's not fun anyway, so the whole point's kinda moot...

[claptonpond]

Michelaccio said:

It is said by Bookchin and others that "anarchism is a political movement, not a lifestyle." Maybe that's true of anarch-ism, but of anarchy it most certainly isn't.

Actually, anarchy isn't a lifestyle either - it's a particular state of society, the absence of government (which anarchism, as a political movement, tries to bring about).

You can't live in a state of anarchy as an individual in a capitalist society. Or even as a group of individuals. It has to be the whole of society, not just a bunch of hippies.

[claptonpond]

Michelaccio said:

I hear what you're saying, but don't you think that people are generally far more effective in their pursuits in life, whatever they may be, if they enjoy what they are doing? Of course there will be some aspects of any project that are not enjoyable, but if the overall aims and goals are not connected to something which makes the people doing the given project happy, you're probably not going to get very far. You'll only attract militant true believers.

Of course the overall aims and goals should be connected to something which makes the people doing the project happy! Why else would they be doing it? You're just stating the obvious. And yes, people do things better if they enjoy them, but sometimes you need to do some pretty dull groundwork before you get to the enjoyable part.

The author of the crimethinc article, on the other hand, seems to think that every aspect of the project should be pleasurable. Which strikes me as self-indulgent individualistic bollocks.

[claptonpond]

Michelaccio said:

Or a bunch of wobblies?

Indeed. In my experience, though, wobblies are less likely to mistake anarchy (or anarchism) for a lifestyle than hippies.

So when the wobblies take over production of SUVs and all GM crops are produced on kibbutzim, can I relax knowing that the dream of anarchy has finally been achieved?

Quite possibly. (Obviously a few other conditions would have to be met as well.)

Anarchy won't automatically get rid of SUVs and GM crops. The motives for their production are likely to disappear pretty quickly though.

[claptonpond]

It seems really odd that I'm the one defending anarcho-communism here when I'm not even in tACA.

Michelaccio said:

I'm glad that it's obvious to you, too. But it seems to me that the movement often gets stuck in the phase of educating people about how miserable they are in order to justify the "sacrifice" needed to create the possibilities for happiness down the road in the worker's paradise. And strangely enough, they don't seem to be getting many people to buy into it. Why not? I think that it's a fair question.

Okay, maybe it's different in the US than it is here. None of the anarcho-communists I know are into educating people about how miserable they are - people are well aware of their own misery (after all, misery's subjective). And we're certainly not into 'sacrifice' - we generally seem to think self-sacrifice is counter-revolutionary. If anything, it's the primitivists and other lifestylers who are telling people they need to make sacrifices.

What is the relationship between happiness and anarchy/anarchism? For me, I think that it is to be found in a self-organizing movement that tries abolish all forms of social alienation. The anarcho-communist approach strikes me often as being little more than a left-wing "political movement" that is seeking to reorganize production along more egalitarian lines. I think that people need and want more than that.

Again, in my experience anarcho-communism is a lot broader than that. On the other hand, anarcho-communists do view all forms of social alienation as being rooted in class, which is itself based (broadly) on relationship to the means of production. So production is the main focus because it underlies all the rest, but we do try to address other issues as well.

Your other post is (deliberately, I hope) just silly.

[claptonpond]

I agree with you about the preachy martyr-complex types. But in my experience (and as I said above, this may well be different in the US) they're more common in post-left 'activist' circles than among anarcho-communists. In fact, I think the preachy martyrdom thing often comes from seeing anarchism as a lifestyle, and yourself as a full-time (or 'professional') activist (and I speak from experience - I've been guilty of it myself in the past).

Those who view anarchism as a political movement (recognising that we need to change society in order to make an anarchist lifestyle possible) tend to be more realistic about what they can personally achieve, so they tend to be less prone to the martyr-complex. In particular, they're less preachy about how others should live, whereas lifestylers often try to convince others that they should be living some kind of 'anarchist lifestyle' that will somehow bring about anarchy.

Again, I suspect there are cultural differences - yanqui anarcho-communists do seem to glorify the wobblies of the 1900s a lot.

Fair point about production being largely overseas, although a lot of that production is of worthless crap that we don't need anyway - the essentials are still mostly produced domestically. In any case, I'm pretty sure that if the glorious day ever comes, it'll be from the South. What we in the North can do to precipitate it is a difficult question.

[Walter and Theodor]

In both these current threads there is an assumption that all aspects of life should be something other than boring. Where does this idea come from? I know the Situationists were against boredom but they saw boredom as a subset of alienation. So where does this anarchist obsession with boredom come from?

I am curious because Nadia's rant points to the post-Marxists as boring but seems to miss their point that excitement as currently conceived is only the latest mode of packaging in consumer capitalism. The advertising discourses of contemporary capitalism similarly decry boredom in a fundamental sense only to sell us the 'new', 'exciting' and 'revolutionary' products that they have on offer.

Is it possible that Nadia is a product of the last thirty years of this strategy. Is it possible that her anger at her lecturers and political leaders is due to their failure to provide her with the new, exciting, and revolutionary existence that late capitalism so fervently promised her?

I am thinking of Thomas Frank's book The Conquest of Cool for example...isn't she reproducing exactly what he was talking about? I am not innocent of this perspective but I increasingly think, wow, politics is really dull, its really hard work, its currently mostly about disappointment - and none of this means one should stop doing it. And what's wrong with pursuing justice for the sake of justice...why should I get personal satisfaction from it? This seems suspiciously alienated as well. Doesn't her argument imply that there is no 'real' pleasure in doing things for other people? That that pleasure is some how wrong or false? She sounds kind of sad to me - in a spoiled brat kind of way.

[Anarchic Tribes]

W&T,
good to see you, despite the fact
your politics are boring as fuck