Reading: Quiet Rumours (Dark Star Collective) / Anarcha-Feminism: Two Statements (Red Rosa and Black Maria), Feminism as Anarchism (Lynne Farrow), Anarchism: The Feminist Connection (Peggy Kornegger) To contextualise: How Nonviolence Protects the State related tags: #HNvPtS
Starting with “Anarcha-Feminism: Two Statements” (by Red Rosa and Black Maria, Black Rose Anarcha-Feminists)...
While we recognise important differences in the rival systems, our analysis of the evils of the State must extend to both its communist and capitalist versions.
Yep, yep! The number of people who some years later ignore the way the State functions under so-called communism are... astounding.
Anarchism is not synonymous with irresponsibility and chaos. Indeed, it offers meaningful alternatives to the outdated organisational and policy-making practices of the rest of the left. The basic anarchist form of organisation is a small group, volitionally organised and maintained, which must work toward defining the oppression of its members and what form their struggle for liberation must take.
I still don't see a problem with chaos if you try to co-opt the usage of it. What, exactly, is wrong with all chaos?
Feminism as Anarchism (Lynne Farrow)
Feminism practices what anarchism preaches. One might go as far as to claim feminists are the only existing protest groups that can honestly be called practicing Anarchists; first because women apply themselves to specific projects like abortion clinics and day-care centres; second, because as essentially apolitical women for the most part refuse to engage in the political combat terms of the right or the left, reformism or revolution, respectively.
... This is probably one of the whitest things I've read in anarcha-feminist literature, lmao. Which apolitical women are you even talking about?
And while feminists do these projects, they still teach non-anarchic principles of hierarchy (against children) in places like daycare centers.
What an opener.
The first impulse toward female liberation came in the 1840’s when liberals were in the midst of a stormy abolition campaign.
And here it is. You think this is the first impulse toward the liberation of women? You think women of the past were just passive about their situations, never wanting to escape them? Absolute horse shit.
Anyway, I'm now reading about the American (and sometimes British) Suffragette movement(s), and I'm not seeing how any of these people are anarchists at all... or doing anything anarchic, as they are clearly working towards involvement within the existing system.
If they had learned that they should destroy the system, that'd be one thing... They were working to become a part of it.
(As Germaine Greer has suggested, since women have no power to threaten, they cannot be castrated and therefore no one sees their powerlessness as anything but natural and no one’s going to lie down for women to kick.)
Reminding me that Greer needs a kick in the face.
Essay was... meh. It ignored its own points and then forgot it was even talking about anarchism, unsurprisingly.
Anarchism: The Feminist Connection (Peggy Kornegger)
Eleven years ago, when I was in a small-town Illinois high school, I had never heard of the word “anarchism”—at all. The closest I came to it was knowing that anarchy meant “chaos.” As for socialism and communism, my history classes somehow conveyed the message that there was no difference between them and fascism, a word that brought to mind Hitler, concentration camps, and all kinds of horrible things which never happened in a free country like ours. I was subtly being taught to swallow the bland pablum of traditional American politics: moderation, compromise, fence-straddling, Chuck Percy as wonder boy. I learned the lesson well: it took me years to recognise the bias and distortion which had shaped my entire “education.” The “his-story” of mankind (white) had meant just that; as a woman I was relegated to a vicarious existence. As an anarchist I had no existence at all. A whole chunk of the past (and thus possibilities for the future) had been kept from me. Only recently did I discover that many of my disconnected political impulses and inclinations shared a common framework—that is, the anarchist or libertarian tradition of thought. It was like suddenly seeing red after years of colourblind greys.
... Damn, aside from not knowing who Chuck Percy is, this was also my experience in the fucking 2000s. It's like school has a reason to exist, and that reason is indoctrination.
Although I call myself an anarchafeminist, this definition can easily include socialism, communism, cultural feminism, lesbian separatism, or any of a dozen other political labels.
No. But also, lesbian separatism has often included elements of political lesbianism as a core belief, and that is antithetical to a queer anarchism.
Anarchism has been maligned and misinterpreted for so long that maybe the most important thing to begin with is an explanation of what it is and isn’t. Probably the most prevalent stereotype of the anarchist is a malevolent-looking man hiding a lighted bomb beneath a black cape, ready to destroy or assassinate everything and everybody in his path. This image engenders fear and revulsion in most people, regardless of their politics; consequently, anarchism is dismissed as ugly, violent, and extreme. Another misconception is the anarchist as impractical idealist, dealing in useless, Utopian abstractions and out of touch with concrete reality. The result: anarchism is once again dismissed, this time as an “impossible dream.”
Again, we get the misconceptions... I find it interesting that Peter doesn't even engage with the constant framing of anarchism as being “not violent” in his own book (especially considering he used that awful Ashen Ruins essay).
Belief in both spontaneity and organisation. Anarchists have long been accused of advocating chaos. Most people in fact believe that anarchism is a synonym for disorder, confusion, violence. This is a total misrepresentation of what anarchism stands for. Anarchists don’t deny the necessity of organisation; they only claim that it must come from below, not above, from within rather than from without. Externally imposed structure or rigid rules which foster manipulation and passivity are the most dangerous forms a socialist “revolution” can take. No one can dictate the exact shape of the future. Spontaneous action within the context of a specific situation is necessary if we are going to create a society which responds to the changing needs of individuals and groups. Anarchists believe in fluid forms: small-scale participatory democracy in conjunction with large-scale collective cooperation and coordination (without loss of individual initiative).
And here, Peggy at least pushes back against the fear of being seen as chaotic. Perhaps I shall write that essay after all. Time to collect my bits and bobs.
Unfortunately, this did not occur. Authoritarian politics and bureaucratic methods die hard, and most of the major French workers’ unions were saddled with both. As in Spain, the Communist Party worked against the direct, spontaneous actions of the people in the streets: the Revolution must be dictated from above. Leaders of the CGT (the Communist workers’ union) tried to prevent contacts between the students and workers, and a united left soon became an impossibility.
At some point, we really need to learn that communists ruin everything. Communism is fine, but communists keep attaching themselves to the State and State power... and then they ruin everything for their own ability to take that power, which isn't very helpful for collectives and communalism.
There are two main reasons why revolution was aborted in France: (1) inadequate preparation in the theory and practice of anarchism and (2) the vast power of the State coupled with authoritarianism and bureaucracy in potentially sympathetic left-wing groups.
This is about the strikes and riots in 1968. But also, see point 2 and the above comment.
In Spain, the revolution was more widespread and tenacious because of the extensive preparation. Yet it was still eventually crushed by a fascist State and authoritarian leftists.
See above again!
It is important to consider these two factors in relation to the situation in the United States today. We are not only facing a powerful State whose armed forces, police, and nuclear weapons could instantly destroy the entire human race, but we also find ourselves confronting a pervasive reverence for authority and hierarchical forms whose continuance is ensured daily through the kind of home-grown passivity bred by family, school, church, and TV screen. In addition, the U.S. is a huge country, with only a small, sporadic history of anarchist activity. It would seem that not only are we unprepared, we are literally dwarfed by a State more powerful than those of France and Spain combined. To say we are up against tremendous odds is an understatement.
I'm just going to point dramatically at SCHOOL because a lot of anarchists keep ignoring it as a site of indoctrination.
I have not touched upon the matter of woman’s role in Spain and France, as it can be summed up in one word—unchanged. Anarchist men have been little better than males everywhere in their subjection of women.
Again, reading this essay would've helped Peter to actually understand what is meant by people critiquing certain kinds of violence and the propensity toward violence as masculinist or macho, but. Reading is so hard, so you have to write a book instead.
The current women’s movement and a radical feminist analysis of society have contributed much to libertarian thought. In fact, it is my contention that feminists have been unconscious anarchists in both theory and practice for years. We now need to become consciously aware of the connections between anarchism and feminism and use that framework for our thoughts and actions. We have to be able to see very clearly where we want to go and how to get there. In order to be more effective, in order to create the future we sense is possible, we must realise that what we want is not change but total transformation.
I think more people should be directly linking their movements to anarchism because only anarchism can support the liberation of all.
The radical feminist perspective is almost pure anarchism. The basic theory postulates the nuclear family as the basis for all authoritarian systems. The lesson the child learns, from father to teacher to boss to God, is to OBEY the great anonymous voice of Authority. To graduate from childhood to adulthood is to become a full-fledged automaton, incapable of questioning or even thinking clearly. We pass into middle-America, believing everything we are told and numbly accepting the destruction of life all around us.
Basically, yeah. And for some reason, a lot of people think that the questioning they're taught to do in school is helpful. It isn't. It's guided questioning, with assumptions built in.
In actual practice within the Women’s Movement, feminists have had both success and failure in abolishing hierarchy and domination. I believe that women frequently speak and act as “intuitive” anarchists, that is, we approach, or verge on, a complete denial of all patriarchal thought and organisation. That approach, however, is blocked by the powerful and insidious forms which patriarchy takes—in our minds and in our relationships with one another. Living within and being conditioned by an authoritarian society often prevents us from making that all-important connection between feminism and anarchism. When we say we are fighting the patriarchy, it isn’t always clear to all of us that that means fighting all hierarchy, all leadership, all government, and the very idea of authority itself. Our impulses toward collective work and small leaderless groups have been anarchistic, but in most cases we haven’t called them by that name. And that is important, because an understanding of feminism as anarchism could springboard women out of reformism and stop-gap measures into a revolutionary confrontation with the basic nature of authoritarian politics.
I actually agree with this, and it's why I think all liberation movements should see their inherent connection to anarchism.
If we want to “bring down the patriarchy,” we need to talk about anarchism, to know exactly what it means, and to use that framework to transform ourselves and the structure of our daily lives. Feminism doesn’t mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no corporate power and no Presidents. The Equal Rights Amendment will not transform society; it only gives women the “right” to plug into a hierarchical economy. Challenging sexism means challenging all hierarchy—economic, political, and personal. And that means an anarcha-feminist revolution.
Still agree.
To think of sexism as an evil which can be eradicated by female participation in the way things are is to ensure the continuation of domination and oppression. “Feminist” capitalism is a contradiction in terms. When we establish women’s credit unions, restaurants, bookstores, etc., we must be clear that we are doing so for our own survival, for the purpose of creating a counter-system whose processes contradict and challenge competition, profit-making, and all forms of economic oppression. We must be committed to “living on the boundaries,” to anti-capitalist, non-consumption values. What we want is neither integration nor a coup d’etat which would “transfer power from one set of boys to another set of boys.” What we ask is nothing less than total revolution, revolution whose forms invent a future untainted by inequity, domination, or disrespect for individual variation—in short, feminist-anarchist revolution.
I also agree with this, and it is something that has bogged down a lot of our anarchist infrastructure. Our few publishing houses have a tendency to refuse to help build more, to help create a wider infrastructure that could help support more people in their survival. They maintain a lot of hierarchical thinking and structures to our detriment.
So, what I’m talking about is a long-term process, a series of actions in which we unlearn passivity and learn to take control over our own lives. I am talking about a “hollowing out” of the present system through the formation of mental and physical (concrete) alternatives to the way things are. The romantic image of a small band of armed guerrillas overthrowing the U.S. government is obsolete (as is all male politics) and basically irrelevant to this conception of revolution. We would be squashed if we tried it. Besides, as the poster says, “What we want is not the overthrow of the government, but a situation in which it gets lost in the shuffle.” This is what happened (temporarily) in Spain, and almost happened in France. Whether armed resistance will be necessary at some point is open to debate. The anarchist principle of “means create ends” seems to imply pacifism, but the power of the State is so great that it is difficult to be absolute about non-violence. (Armed resistance was crucial in the Spanish Revolution, and seemed important in France 1968 as well.) The question of pacifism, however, would entail another discussion, and what I’m concerned with here is emphasizing the preparation needed to transform society, a preparation which includes an anarcha-feminist framework, long-range revolutionary patience, and continual active confrontation with entrenched patriarchal attitudes.
Wow, it's like Peter could've read this and actually gotten what most critiques of violence being masculinist are about. Jesus fucking Christ, he had the book with the essays... Why not actually engage with all of the essays? They were right there.
The boycott can also be a powerful strike or union strategy (e.g., the boycott of non-union grapes, lettuce, and wines, and of Farah pants). In addition, it can be used to force economic and social changes. Refusal to vote, to pay war taxes, or to participate in capitalist competition and over-consumption are all important actions when coupled with support of alternative, non-profit structures (food co-ops, health and law collectives, recycled clothing and book stores, free schools, etc.). Consumerism is one of the main strongholds of capitalism. To boycott buying itself (especially products geared to obsolescence and those offensively advertised) is a tactic that has the power to change the “quality of everyday life.” Refusal to vote is often practised out of despair or passivity rather than as a conscious political statement against a pseudo-democracy where power and money elect a political elite. Non-voting can mean something other than silent consent if we are simultaneously participating in the creation of genuine democratic forms in an alternative network of anarchist affinity groups.
This is less related to Peter and more to all the fucking anarchists who get a bee in their bonnet and pretend voting for one war criminal over another is “harm reduction” (for whom?). Not voting can be a form of boycott, especially if you work on other things like the aforementioned law collectives and also collectives that support immigrants or whatever else keeps being stolen from us by politicians on all sides.
I do believe that what we all need, what we absolutely require, in order to continue struggling (in spite of oppression of our daily lives) is HOPE, that is, a vision of the future so beautiful and so powerful that it pulls us steadily forward in a bottom-up creation of an inner and outer world both habitable and self-fulfilling for all.
While I want the bottom-up creation of a self-fulling world, I don't have hope. Like at all. Hope doesn't help me, but seeing people working on shit and not blocking it does. Hope gets nothing done for me; it makes everything feel delusional. Being able to work with people? That makes things feel tangible. Feeling a possibility is not the same as feeling hope.
As a side note for Peggy Kornegger's essay, I hate how binary it is. I don't think “female politics” or “male politics” are really a thing, and it often comes off with “women are better” even though many women support the same garbage we're fighting against. Patriarchal politics are 100% a thing, but I'm not here for the binary thinking of female-things-good and male-things-bad. It feels exclusionary of multiple trans politics.
I also find it disappointing how often she cited Murray Bookchin, lol. When did he stop self-describing as an anarchist? Was it after the '70s?