anarchism, state, and praxis of contemp antisystemics

Anarchism, the State and the Praxis of Contemporary Antisystemic Social Movements (2010) by Morgan Rodgers Gibson via 65 pg kindle version from anarchist library [https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/morgan-rodgers-gibson-anarchism-the-state-and-the-praxis-of-contemporary-antisystemic-social-mo]

notes/quotes:

6

intro

9

After fleshing out what ‘anarchism’ is and what an ‘anarchistic praxis’ entails in Chapter Three, my final chapter will be devoted to empirically illustrating the theoretical argument made in this thesis; that an anarchistic praxis has become a primary point of reference for contemporary antisystemic social movements and that this can be seen, in many ways, as a response to the failure of ‘state-centric’ versions to bringing about transformative social change. This will be done on the basis of two case studies. Both the Zapatistas and AbM illustrate the way in which contemporary antisystemic movements are increasingly adopting a praxis, though not a doctrinaire ideological programme, in line with anarchism. Entailed in this is not only a rejection of the state as an agent of change, but a rejection of externally imposed hierarchy and the pursuit of an anti-hierarchical, participatory praxis independent from the state; essentially, the praxis explored in Chapter Three. Significantly, these movements thus illustrate the ever-increasing recognition, by antisystemic actors, of the way in which traditional antisystemic programmes – specifically those state-centric movements that advocate the capture of the state apparatus in bringing about liberating change – have failed to fundamentally transform society and achieve the liberty, equality and justice so long immanent to the great majority of humanity. Moreover, they represent a *new ‘politics of freedom’ (Gibson 2008: 707) in which the principles of direct democracy, liberty and equality are not abstract concepts, but the source of social life and political enlightenment that can serve as an outline in the realisation of a more just, equal and free world.

*if any form of democratic admin.. then not new/free.. still as phrased above ‘externally imposed hierarchy’.. for that to happen – new/free/no-hierarchy – has to be sans any form of measuring,  accounting, people telling other people what to do

10

CHAPTER ONE: THEORY AND METHODOLOGY

THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL AND THE PURSUIT OF EMANCIPATORY KNOWLEDGE INTERESTS

“Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” – Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (2004: 123)

graeber make it diff law.. via graeber model law et al

Before delving into the theoretical and empirical work that will form the majority of this thesis, it is necessary to defend my ontological and epistemological assumptions and explore how they have impacted on the formation of this dissertation. As a self-identified work of Frankfurt School critical theory, *this thesis will explicitly explore and pursue knowledge constitutive to ‘emancipatory’ interests (Habermas 1987 [1971]: 310–311). **For a critical theorist, the primary purpose of pursuing knowledge is for the construction of a world free from domination and coercion, to contribute to the latent potential for the emancipation of humanity. Due to the dominant influence of positivism, contemporary academia has become ostensibly preoccupied with notions of ‘objectivity’ and ‘value neutrality’. It is thus necessary to justify such a seemingly radical pursuit. Initially, ***this chapter will explore and justify my pursuit of ‘emancipatory’ knowledge interests. I will show how, in contrast to positivist assumptions, knowledge and human interests are intimately connected and that, whether conscious of it or not, knowledge is always used by someone for some purpose. Following this, I will explore how this influences my methodological approach and subsequent adoption of the two different qualitative methods to be used throughout this thesis. Initially, I will utilise narrative process-tracing to construct a theoretical argument outlining the failure of ‘state-centric’ antisystemic movements and how this influenced the rise of an anarchistic praxis within antisystemic movements (Chapter Two). ****The other method, qualitative case studies, will be employed to illustrate the theoretical argument developed throughout the thesis. In exploring the use of qualitative case studies, I will also legitimise the particular case studies chosen: the Zapatistas and Abahlali baseMjondolo (explored in Chapter Four). The final section of this chapter will briefly engage with how these choices influenced the source material to be used in this thesis; which, outside of scholarly pieces, will be direct participant contributions (such as media releases and interviews). This chapter will thus be dedicated to exploring and legitimising my thesis’ pursuit of emancipatory knowledge interests and outline the subsequent methodological implications resultant from this.

*only ‘knowledge’ for that would be to let go.. ie: graeber can’t know law et al

**to me.. knowledge ness is cancerous distraction (intellectness as cancerous distraction et al) to that ‘freedom’

***doesn’t mean it’s natural.. doesn’t mean that’s how it would be if we all were legit free ie: black science of people/whales law et al

****nothing to date legit free.. so no case studies to show freedom..

11

Central to this is a focus on study which aims to uncover the underlying structures of exploitation and inequality in order to overcome them ..t

rather.. need to uncover underlying structure/conditions for freedom.. and do/be that.. all else at this point is a cancerous distraction

The knowledge produced by positivism is, either consciously or unconsciously, constitutive to the perpetuation of the interests of the powerful as it reifies the status quo through the production of ‘nomological’ knowledge.

all the forms of intellectness as cancerous distraction

Thus, in contrast to the monistic view of knowledge and human interests perpetuated by positivism (that is, that the two are separate and distinct), critical theory reveals the intimate relationship between the two. Therefore, theories of the social world are not merely ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ accounts of an abstract, external reality; indeed, *knowledge will always have implications in impacting upon human interests. As Cox stated, *theories “are always for someone and for some purpose” (1981: 128) and consequently work in the interests of some against others. Consequently, critical theory has been successful in identifying that knowledge does not stand outside the sphere of political action, as ‘objectivist’ scholars’ claim, but rather that it has potentially profound consequences for the distribution of power, material resources and opportunities for sociopolitical change. **The purpose of a critical-theoretical approach is thus to open up space (George 1989: 273):

… so that ***voices otherwise marginalised can be heard; that questions otherwise suppressed can be asked, that points of analytical closure can be opened for ****debate, that issues and arguments effectively dismissed from the mainstream can be seriously reconsidered and re-evaluated.

*aka: people telling other people what to do

**if only.. rather.. intellectness as cancerous distraction.. ie: quote above.. oi.. graeber can’t know law et al

***seat at the table ness not deep enough.. need global detox leap

so.. need 1st/most: means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening as global detox so we can org around legit needs

****more/ongoing cancerous distractions

12

Therefore, critical theory seeks to break through the limits of our theoretical understanding of the present and transcend the boundaries of a positivistic knowledge form set upon the notion of a monistic, unified account of reality and its associated methodologies. *The opening up of such a space serves the critical-theoretical pursuit of exploring possibilities for the immanent emancipation of humanity, an avenue so often closed off by orthodox, positivist notions of focusing on the “art of the possible” (George 1989: 273). **The primary purpose of critical theory is, therefore, to develop emancipatory knowledge that is conscious of the role theory plays in impacting upon human interests in order to open up a “dimension in which acting subjects [can] arrive rationally at agreement about goals and purposes” (Habermas 1987 [1971]: 316). Necessarily entailed in this is a rejection of the ontological assumption that the social world exists independently of us and the assumption that the creation of another world is possible, that, to a certain extent, the social world is a subjective construction of particular interests. Hence, a work of critical theory should, amongst other things, ***“look at those who are creating viable alternatives [to the status quo], try to figure out what might be the larger implications of what they are (already) doing, and then offer those ideas back, not as prescriptions, but as contributions, possibilities – as gifts” (Graeber 2004b: 10). It is in this way that I justify the pursuit of ‘emancipatory’ knowledge that has implications for political praxis and that has potential implications for emancipatory interests and those that pursue an emancipatory politics.

*won’t happen until we try/see: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

**oh my..

***but none to date have tried the unconditional part of left to own devices ness.. none to date are sans any form of m\a\p

13

It is in this way that I justify my thesis’ concern with contemporary antisystemic praxis; I am here attempting to ‘figure out the larger implications of what political actors are already doing’ so as to develop theoretical and practical knowledge that has implications for people’s political experiences. Flyvbjerg argues that for this to happen, political science must (2006: 85):

*aka: perpetuate same song

1\ Drop all emulation of the natural sciences as the production of cumulative or predictive theory in social and political science does not work

2\ Address problems that matter to and are identified by groups in the local, national and global communities in which we live and in ways that matter by focusing on context, values and power;

but currently.. no one knows/groks legit needs.. need global detox leap 1st/most

3\ Effectively communicate the results of our research to our fellow citizens and engage in a dialogue with them, taking on board their feedback.

oooof.. heavy on both: people telling other people what to do and seat at the table ness

14

Yet, the choice of particular case studies over others means that the chosen cases must be ‘substantively important’ (Mahoney and Goertz 2006: 242). Hence, one must justify why particular case studies were chosen over others.

just wrecked graeber model law.. oi

16

CHAPTER TWO: THE STATE AND THE PROMISE OF LIBERATION

THE FAILURE OF THE STATE IN THE PURSUIT OF TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL CHANGE

 I then move on to discuss what Wallerstein (2002) refers to as the ‘two step’ strategy that these movements proposed for changing the world, the differing ways they proposed to fulfil the *first ‘step’ of this strategy (gaining power over the state apparatus)..t and the incredible, widespread success these movements had in achieving this first step. The final section of this chapter will explore how state-centric antisystemic movements have ‘failed’; particularly, their collective failure in achieving the **second step of this strategy, transforming the world..t

if *step 1 ing.. won’t get to **step 2.. oi

28

CHAPTER THREE: ANARCHISM AND AN ‘ANARCHISTIC PRAXIS’

THE REJECTION OF EXTERNALLY IMPOSED HIERARCHY IN THE PURSUIT OF LIBERTY AND AUTONOMY

Because of this diversity and contestation, this chapter is necessarily dedicated to clarifying the misunderstandings and misconceptions surrounding anarchism.

Indeed, the emphasis on praxis is what shapes anarchism and accounts for much of its fluidity, leading David Graeber to assert that anarchists have often expunged ‘High Theory’ in favour of debates on method and praxis (Graeber 2009: 106).

to me.. these are both same song

29

Due to their theoretical orientation, anarchists pursue decentralisation, direct democracy and the construction of anti-hierarchical social structures within the realm of civil society, premised on mutualism and reciprocity, rather than coercion and constraint. It is only in pursuing this praxis that anarchists believe a liberated society – ‘another world’ free from oppression – can be created.

oi.. any form of democratic admin ness.. civil ness.. mutual/reciprocity ness are all cancerous distractions (aka: coercion and constraint)

and Immanuel Kant’s insistence that “freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be granted when such maturity is achieved”..t (cited in Chomsky 1970: xi). 

huge huge.. the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

kant precondition law

30

Whilst under conditions of liberty human beings may be elevated to artists who, through their own free labour, “cultivate their intellect, ennoble their character and exalt and refine their pleasures”, when merely reacting to the demands of an external authority, society may admire what is produced, but despise what one must become to produce it (Humboldt 1969 [1792]: 27). 

let’s do this first: free art\ists

art (by day/light) and sleep (by night/dark) as global re\set.. to fittingness (undisturbed ecosystem)

 It is the rejection of externally imposed hierarchy that most clearly delineates anarchism from other political ideologies. 

we need a way sans any form of m\a\p

As Proudhon polemically declared (2004 [1851]: 294):

To be governed is to be… spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures, who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so… To be governed is to be… repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed… That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

proudhon ruled law

As such, the notion of autonomy from the state is central to anarchism and its practical applications.

Closely related to this, anarchism holds that *individuals should not be represented by another; such action would be inherently coercive as people are not making their own decisions. **If people are unable to directly participate in decision-making, then do we not again have the imposition of hierarchy, of leaders and the led?

*yeah to no representation ing.. but deeper.. dm itself as compromise.. ie: decision making is unmooring us law et al

**again.. rather.. the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us.. how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. 

33

The goal of anarchism is liberation from exploitation. In contrast to state socialists, anarchists claim that this goal can never be reached by a new class imposing itself and replacing the existing order, but can only be realised by people liberating themselves from all forms of externally imposed hierarchy.

*To emancipate oneself, one must begin by engaging in a process of ‘desanctification’, existentially ridding oneself of not only “bourgeois morality”, but the internalised values imposed from birth by institutions like the family and the church and the wider social order (Stirner 1995 [1844]: 331).. Thus, for the individualist, true emancipation is only found in the emancipation from the ‘tyranny’ of society. As **the ‘public passion for morality’ enslaves people more effectively than any government, society itself is a tyranny to be overcome.

*but doing it one by one.. on an individual basis.. leads to ie: warning ness and costello screen\service law.. once free.. crave other people.. this is why we need a global detox leap.. for (blank)’s sake

**maté trump law et al

34

However, this individualism leads one to the conclusion that social and communal life is impossible. Antisocial aphorisms such as “we do not aspire to communal life but to a life apart”; “the people’s bad fortune is my good fortune!” and “if it is right for me it is right. It is possible that it is wrong for others: let them take care of themselves!” (Stirner cited in Guerin 2003 [1970]: 28) leads one to a political praxis reduced to the pursuit of egoistic, individualistic solutions to inherently social problems. Consequently, one can only achieve freedom through the repudiation of social ties. It is from this that the notion of the ‘Temporary Autonomous Zone’ (TAZ) has grown. This is an idea which posits that people, through fleeting acts of rebellion and the perpetration of chaos, are able to emancipate themselves from the hierarchies society ‘inevitably’ imposes, but are only able to do so temporarily and to a necessarily limited extent (Bey 2003). Problematically, this sort of individualism both ignores the necessity of synthesis between the voluntary collective and the free individual and the possibility of substantive emancipation through the reconstitution of society. Though a similar abhorrence of collective coercion is shared by social anarchists who, like Stirner, reject the coercion, violence and obligation associated with state socialism and communism, social anarchists also reject the ‘individualistic utopianism’ that agglomerates unrelated individualities with no intrinsic connection and no latent collective power.

until now.. now have means to facil both individual and collective ness.. via a global detox leap.. to.. the dance

35

This, what essentially equates to an external imposition of authority in order to achieve a libertarian society, simply enters the individual into new forms of social obligation and hierarchy (thus constituting what is essentially a form of slavery). It is only a socialism free from coercion and obligation, in which association is freely formed, that freedom can be substantively achieved (Guerin 2003 [1970]: 30).

huge.. if we won’t only stick with that.. if we would only try/see that.. but we keep adding *something back in.. big/recurring **ie in this essay: any form of democratic admin

Therefore, the individual is at the core of anarchism. In the pursuit of liberty, the individual is encouraged to enter into free and voluntary association in order to maximise liberty whilst also maximising the potential of his or her capacities and providing mutual support and reciprocity to others within society. However, if the abstract, collective entity of society fails in this endeavour or degenerates into coercion, then the individual ought to reject it and rebel against it as it no longer fulfils its only legitimate teleological purposes: the betterment of the individual, the improvement of their social circumstance and the cultivation of more just, libertarian social relations. As Bookchin argued (2004: 10):

It is plain that the goal of revolution today must be the liberation of daily life..t Any revolution that fails to achieve this goal is counterrevolution. Above all, it is we who have to be liberated, our daily lives, with all their moments, hours and days, and not universals like ‘History’ and ‘Society’. The self must always be identifiable in the revolution, not overwhelmed by it. The self must be perceivable in the revolutionary process, not submerged by it. There is no word that is more sinister in the ‘revolutionary’ vocabulary than ‘masses’. Revolutionary liberation must be a self-liberation that reaches social dimensions, not ‘mass liberation’ or ‘class liberation’ behind which lurks the rule of an elite, a hierarchy and a state. If a revolution fails to produce a new society by the self-activity and self-mobilisation of revolutionaries, if it does not involve the forging of a self in the revolutionary process, the revolution will once again circumvent those whose lives are to be lived every day and leave daily life unaffected. Out of the revolution must emerge a self that takes full possession of daily life, not a daily life that takes full possession of the self (emphasis author’s own).

ie: attachment can’t happen unless people are legit themselves (brown belonging law et al).. and authenticity won’t happen unless people are legit free/detoxed.. so they can hear/be the itch-in-the-soul..

the thing we’ve not yet tried for that to happen:  the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition

36

Thus, whilst generally enamoured with collectivism, anarchism should also be seen simultaneously as an attempt to substantively promote and preserve the autonomy of the individual. In an anarchical society “the eternal aspiration for individual differentiation will find expression in a thousand ways and will not be submerged by any levelling process… Individualism, personal taste, and originality will have adequate scope to express themselves” (de Santillan 1937: 48).

adequate scope: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

As has been hinted at, the debates between collectivists and individualists go to the very heart of the practice of anarchism. As previously explored, ‘individualistic utopianism’ ignores the necessity of synthesis between the voluntary collective and the free individual. Instead, it agglomerates disparate individualities and assumes they have no inherent relationship and no potential collective power. Such a conception of the human condition renders the species unable to resolve problems of common interests. This individualism connotes that any collective activity – even those that pursue direct democracy and the subversion of hierarchy – merely constitute a form of collective tyranny; making collective social activity (and thus the reconstitution of the social order) impossible. Conversely, ‘pure’ collectivism ignores the role of voluntarism in the construction of libertarian social structures. Instead, the individual is subsumed by the collective as they are coerced – be it through insidious social mechanisms or overt violence – into collective social arrangements. Between these two extremes, the synthesis of individualism and collectivism allows for the pursuit of a more programmatic anarchism in which both the means and ends of political activity are the creation of non-hierarchical, *directly democratic social structures (and the reformulation of existing hierarchical ones) independent of the state in the realm of civil society. This sort of praxis recognises the need for collective solutions to the problems of society, but also recognises that it is illegitimate to coerce people into social formation. Instead, social transformation can only occur through the collective, concerted action of people, but only action that is instigated at the behest of people themselves.

*but directly demo social structures are already hierarchical ones.. off

As such, anarchism, outside of more extreme variants of individualism, has never been about ‘non-organisation’. Anarchists recognise that human beings are essentially social animals that must necessarily coexist. Because of this, *it is more accurate to say that debates within anarchism have, more often, revolved around questions of what are the most legitimate forms of organisation. In the pursuit of anarchism, individuals and communities are to simultaneously decide upon and live social arrangements,..t **rather than them being imposed from without or after a particular ‘Revolutionary’ moment. This coalesces with the point various anarchists, including Chomsky, Graeber and Rocker, have made: that it would be arrogant to assume we know enough about human nature or how some sort of future anarchical society would function to definitively declare how it would be organised, what it would be like, or on what basis it would develop. Instead, it is more important to practice more participatory, democratic forms of decision-making; strive for the development of non-hierarchical social structures and debate over legitimate forms of social, political and economic organisation (Chomsky 2005: 191–194, Graeber 2004b: 7–8). Indeed, it is through this conflation of practice and theory that one engages in revolutionary praxis.

*decision making is unmooring us law.. we need a legit nother way to org.. ie: org around legit needs

**if ‘dm ing ness’ then already imposed/assumed from w/o ness

37

AN ANARCHISTIC PRAXIS

Anarchism, more than any other ideological position, puts debates on method and practice on an equal footing with philosophical questions, or ‘High Theory’. This, as Graeber explains, is the expected outcome when such an emphasis is put on subverting and avoiding hierarchy (Graeber 2009: 106):

[Debates within anarchism] always emerge from some kind of organisational principle or form of practice: Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Communists, Insurrectionists and Platformists, Cooperativists, Individualists, and so on. Anarchists are distinguished by what they do, and how they organise themselves to go about doing it. And indeed this has always been what anarchists have spent most of their time thinking and arguing about… [Rather than arguing about broad] philosophical questions that preoccupy Marxists, such as, “Are the peasants a potentially revolutionary class?” (anarchists tend to think this is something for the peasants to decide)… *anarchists tend to argue about what is the truly democratic way to go about a meeting, at what point organisation stops being about empowering people and starts squelching individual freedom. Is “leadership” necessarily a bad thing? Or, alternately, about the ethics of opposing power: what is direct action? Should one condemn someone who assassinates a head of state? Is it ever okay to break a window?… **Anarchism has tended to be an ethical discourse about revolutionary practice [emphasis added].

*this is same song.. if any form of democratic admin.. already hierarchy ness..

**we need a way/’anarchism’ that isn’t about discourse.. but just about being

But what sort of ethical discourse is used by those who are collectively attempting to bring about a world in which people are free to govern themselves – as anarchism promises? *First and foremost, the rejection of externally imposed hierarchy presupposes that ‘another world is possible’. Entailed in a rejection of externally imposed hierarchy is an implicit assumption that institutions of domination like the state and social structures like capitalism, patriarchy and racism are not inevitable and certainly not natural. It is a rejection of positivist assumptions that the social, political and economic world exists a priori (Graeber 2004b: 10).

*yes to all this.. but again.. assuming any form of democratic admin already has externally imposed/assumed hierarchy

This argument, however, belies a fundamental misconception: that the pursuit of a better world is, in and of itself, the problem. Stalinists, Maoists and Leninists did not murder and commit unmitigated horror because they imagined limitless possibilities and hoped for a liberated future, but rather because they were adamant that their hopes were scientific certainties. Leading again back to the problems a positivist epistemology propagates, this promoted within such revolutionaries the idea that they had a legitimate right to impose their revolutionary visions on others, through viciously violent means if necessary. In contrast to this, anarchists propose nothing of the sort. *To an anarchist, there is nothing inevitable about history, no pending revolutionary moment, no scientifically determined social structure (Graeber 2004b: 10); ‘another world’ is something to be forged through dialogue and consent, through participatory decision-making..t One cannot further the pursuit of liberty and equality by developing and imposing new forms of coercion through the ‘barrel of a gun’ (Mao 1972: 61). This would be merely to construct and impose new forms of hierarchy, violating individual liberty and autonomy.

*oooof.. dm, consent, language as control/enclosure.. forms of perpetuating history.. via same song social structure.. not a legit a nother way/world

38

Hence, anarchism entails a rejection of ‘representative’ mechanisms in which one imposes decisions on another. In this, there is particular opposition to the centralised state (Graeber 2003: 332). *In the practical exercise of collective decision making, anarchists instead advocate decentralisation to prevent the rise of arbitrary authority and externally imposed hierarchy (Bakunin 1953: 271)..t

*and again.. assuming any form of democratic admin already has externally imposed/assumed hierarchy

Sharing similarities with Kantian deontology, liberty is not something to be ‘delivered’ to the masses as the telos of the ‘revolution’. Non-hierarchical social structures cannot be forced or legislated into existence in a post-revolutionary epoch. Instead, these structures must be derived within the process of revolution; their construction must be both the means and ends of revolution, necessarily alongside the dissolution of power, hierarchy, private property and exploitation. This, known variously as ‘dual power’ or ‘counterpower’, is about building “the structure of the new society in the shell of the old” (Industrial Workers of the World 2010) until the point at which the old shell can be discarded. *Though one cannot know precisely what such structures would look or function like, in practice, their realisation entails the creation of local citizen assemblies in which the majority of decisions are to be made, confederalism for decisions requiring large-scale input (Ward 1992) and the propagation of workplace self-management, rather than capitalist or state bosses dictating economic management (Bookchin 1999: 151–152).

*oh my.. ie’s of same song (citizen assemblies, dm ing, et al).. won’t get to legit freedom

Furthermore, because *the liberty of the individual is seen as paramount, anarchists also oppose externally imposed hierarchy because it is unjust to coerce individuals into social formation. To be forced into ‘revolution’ would necessarily violate the consent of the individual and thus amount to an external imposition of hierarchy.

*yeah.. can’t get to this (ie: already forced/hierarchy et al) if any form of democratic admin, if any form of m\a\p (see note from last para)

39

CONCLUSION

the key philosophical debate within anarchism; that between ‘individualists’ and ‘collectivists’. This ontological dichotomy has long dominated debate within anarchism and thus the type of praxis anarchists pursue. Instead, by exploring the complementarities between the two positions, I illustrated that anarchism should be seen as an attempted dialectic between individualism and collectivism; necessarily impacting on the praxis pursued. The chapter was then brought together with a reflection on the broad type of praxis that develops from this complex theoretical outlook. Due to their theoretical orientation, anarchists pursue decentralisation, direct democracy and – as a consequence of these things – the construction of anti-hierarchical social structures within the realm of civil society *premised on mutualism and reciprocity, rather than coercion and constraint. **It is only in practicing politics in such a manner that anarchists contend it is possible to escape, or at least minimise, hierarchy and so maximise the equal liberty of all.

*reciprocity ness et al.. is coercion/constraint

**yeah.. may be min/max ness.. but not legit free ness.. if **

41

CHAPTER FOUR: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! TOWARDS AN ANARCHISTIC PRAXIS

THE ZAPATISTAS AND ABAHLALI BASEMJONDOLO

these movements have adopted elements of an anarchistic praxis that rejects externally imposed hierarchy, recognises the relationship between means and ends and consistently pursues the construction of directly democratic, decentralised, anti-hierarchical social structures independent from the state.

again.. already externally imposed hierarchy et al.. if assuming any form of democratic admin et al

42

This praxis is defined primarily in its pursuit of a ‘living politics’ that rejects externally imposed authority and instead pursues direct democracy and tactics of direct action in response to continued brutalisation at the hands of the state.

again.. this is why we keep ‘failing’.. not legit free if any form of democratic admin et al

44

Yet the Zapatistas are more than a national liberation struggle and represent more than an indigenous rebellion against (neo) colonial injustice. Zapatismo stands for the dignity that neoliberalism and the state destroy. The Zapatistas seek to unite with the marginalised and forgotten throughout the world and play their part in a necessarily worldwide struggle of the forgotten, marginalised and oppressed. As the Zapatistas declared, their most visible spokesman, Marcos, represents (Marcos 1995b: 310–311):

zapatista

… a gay in San Francisco, a black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Isidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, an indigenous person in the streets of San Cristobal, a gang member in Neza, a rocker on campus, a Jew in Germany, an ombudsman in the Department of Defence, a feminist in a political party, a communist in the post-Cold War period, a prisoner in Cintalapa, a pacifist in Bosnia, a Mapuche in the Andes, a teacher in the National Confederation of Educational Workers, an artist without a gallery or portfolio a housewife in any neighbourhood, in any city in any part of Mexico on a Saturday night, a guerrilla in Mexico at the end of the twentieth century, a striker in the CTM, a sexist in the feminist movement, a woman alone in a Metro station at 10 p.m., a retired person standing around in the Zocalo, a peasant without land, an underground editor, an unemployed worker, a doctor with no office, a non-conformist student, a dissident against neoliberalism, a writer without books or readers, and a Zapatista in the Mexican southeast. In other words, Marcos is a human being in this world. Marcos is every untolerated, oppressed, exploited minority that is resisting and saying ‘Enough!’ (emphasis added).

Therefore, the Zapatistas propose the formation of transnational opposition to the structures of exploitation engendered by neoliberal neocolonialism. This is encapsulated vividly in the declaration ‘Against Neoliberalism and for Humanity’, issued from La Realidad in 1996. In it the Zapatistas note how “[d]uring the last years, the power of money has presented a new mask over its criminal face”. It disregards borders and grants “no importance… to races or colours”. Regardless, “the power of money humiliates dignities, insults honesties and assassinates hopes. The historic crime in the concentration of privileges, wealth and impunities is renamed ‘neo-liberalism’. It democratises misery and hopelessness” (Marcos 1996). In response to this, they stand with those who, “beyond borders, races and colours, share the song of life, the struggle against death, the flower of hope and the breath of dignity” (Marcos 1996). The Zapatistas are thus a movement that transcends the parochial nationalisms regularly associated with national liberation movements, whilst also dismissing the efficacy of the state to bring about transformative social change (Marcos 2004: 3–5).

45

 It entails the pursuit of a democratic practice (the revolution) that then makes the Revolution itself – the transformation of society – possible, as participants are directly engaging in Revolution, which is itself the achievement of ‘democracy,[23] dignity and liberty’.

endnote 23: Not democracy in a representative sense, but a directly democratic, participatory democracy within both the political sphere and anywhere else collective decision-making is made.

oi.. then no pg 44 ness

46

 Instead, they effectively created parallel structures of governance by adopting traditional indigenous measures in line with direct, participatory procedures in open community assemblies amenable to Bookchin’s libertarian municipalism.

so.. again.. not legit free.. oi

It is only through changing “the forms of organisation and the tasks of politics” that social transformation is possible.

yeah that.. but we have yet to legit change form of org.. everything to date has been same song

47

This preoccupation with participatory decision-making is an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of externally imposed hierarchy and hence, administrative political power (Jeffries 2001: 132)..t

oi.. rather.. preoccupation w any form of decision making is unmooring us.. because hierarchy already embedded in its finite set of choices

In order to meet the *needs of subsistence, communities under the influence of the Zapatistas have sought the adoption of mutualistic organisational practices. This includes the organisation of textile-weaving and boot-making cooperatives, **locally controlled schools, health promotion networks and collective garden patches conducted through self-sufficient production and exchange methods, based around participatory approaches that reject the hierarchical capitalistic relationship of proprietorship and wage slavery (Rothschild 2003: 223–228). Instead, such practices more closely fit with the classic anarchist visions of self-management and the idea that the social revolution (creating non-hierarchical, mutualistic social structures independent from the state and transforming existing hierarchical ones) is of more significance than the political revolution (taking and transforming state power), which, through its inherent preoccupation with taking and utilising power, ***will necessarily come to reproduce externally imposed hierarchy and ‘new hegemonies’.

we have no idea what *these are (black science of people/whales law et al).. because we’ve not yet let go of **these.. and so we can’t be about stopping at enough ness.. and so will keep perpetuating ***this

oi

49

But rather than regressing into the failed nationalisms of the past, AbM has, like the Zapatistas, located these problems within the broader framework of neoliberal globalisation and the modern statist system, questioning “why it is that money and rich people can move freely around the world while everywhere the poor must confront razor wire, corrupt and violent police, queues and relocation or deportation” (Abahlali baseMjondolo 2008a). In response to this they have articulated a form of cosmopolitanism and sought to propagate international solidarity and resistance, declaring that “a person cannot be illegal. A person is a person wherever they find themselves” (Abahlali baseMjondolo 2010a).

nationality: human.. et al.. siddiqi border law.. et al

50

What AbM has sought to construct is a radically democratic political culture that has been carefully theorised and contemplated (Neocosmos 2007: 48). First and foremost, the shack dwellers are committed to a participatory and decentralised praxis. All new issues are discussed at open-forum meetings conducted on a formal, weekly basis. This is viewed by participants as a liturgical act central to the continued functioning and legitimacy of the movement. When issues are raised and voted on, participants seek consensus building through lengthy measures at which point, if consensus is unable to be reached (generally after several meetings and delegate send outs), the issue is put to a vote.

ooooof.. too much ness.. any form of democratic admin

51

Freedom is a way of living, not a list of demands to be met”. Though delivering houses will “do away with the lack of houses”, this act in itself *will not realise freedom for the impoverished. Rather, “freedom is a way of living, where everyone is important and where everyone’s experience and intelligence **counts” (Abahlali baseMjondolo 2008b).

*need a means to get to root of problem.. to me.. won’t happen if we’re still **counting

54

conclusion

57

This way of politics could become the basis for political and social life; a reconstruction of the polis in which people, through genuinely equal and free acts of communication and deliberation, are able to construct another world from below, free from the hierarchies that have so long betrayed the possibility of a more just, equal and free world.

legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do

______

_____

_____

____

____

____

____

_____