The PROBLEM of the LEFT

THE NATURE OF THE LEFTvolu

me #

2volu

me #

2volu

me #

2volu

me #

2volu

me #

2

The PROBLEMThe PROBLEMThe PROBLEMThe PROBLEMThe PROBLEMof the LEFTof the LEFTof the LEFTof the LEFTof the LEFT

BACKBACKBACKBACKBACKTOTOTOTOTOBASICS:BASICS:BASICS:BASICS:BASICS:

Marx considered industry the “open book of human essentialforces.” Nowhere on the Left is this formulation refuted. Its origins,logic, destination are taken for granted. We find here, in fact, acore assumption that unites leftists: that the means of production/technology should be progressively developed, its reach alwaysextended. This notion is very close to the heart of the modernconception of progress. All of life must yield to its imperative. Domination of nature and domestication are in no wayproblematic for the Left. Leftists fail to notice that this accounts,in a fundamental way, for the Left’s sorry record in practiceconcerning both the natural world and the individual. Like other defenders of civilization and modernity, leftistsuphold the “neutrality” of technology. They cling to this credoeven as the horrors of genetic engineering, human cloning, thecyborg future for the self, etc. unfold for all to see. Soon,apparently, a wholly mediated and artificial reality will arrive,with the virtual/digital erasure of direct experience itself.Modern industrial “medicine”, for example, is on course todispense with human contact altogether. But no matter, this development is “neutral”; it all depends onhow it is used or who is in power. As if these innovations weren’thugely estranging and destructive processes in themselves. Technology embodies the dominant values of the social orderwhere it resides. It is inseparable fromthose values and is their physicalexpression. Technology becomes asystem, as its society becomes asystem. At a fairly early stage of thedevelopment of division of labor(specialization), tools becometechnology. Where once there wereautonomous, equal individuals andtools accessible to all, the effectivepower of experts gradually takesover, promoting social hierarchy.

Division of labor is a fundamental motor of complex, stratified,alienated society, today as from the beginning. The Left doesn’t question this basic institution that drives allthe rest, and so must repeat the dominant lie about the neutralityof technology. In this way the Left works continually for thepreservation of the values and the society that produce ever morepowerful and oppressive technology. Globalization is not only the cutting edge of the world systemof domination; it also represents division of labor at the global level.The Left, of course, takes even this for granted, opposing only theexcesses of certain policies, not globalization itself. Thus “AgainstGlobophobia,” (The Nation, December 1, 2003) rails against thoseof us who do oppose it, e.g. “This might be a good time to junk localself-reliance as an ideal and embrace a deeply global perspective.”The current bible of the Left, Hardt and Negri’s Empire (2000), is atleast as committed to contemporary society’s mainstays ofproductionism, technology, and the basic world system. This systemis stamping out all difference, including indigenous lifeways, infavor of standardization and global homogeneity. In his Mirror of Production (1972), Jean Baudrillard showed thatmarxism (and all of the modern Left) is just the mirror image ofcapital’s techno-economic essentials. Even earlier, Walter Benjaminunderstood that “mass production is the production of masses.”

The Left is not radical and really neverwas. Its adherents challenge none of theunderlying givens of this rotten,massified anti-life world. On the contrary,the Left––including the anarchist Left––defends them all. What leftists dooppose is a qualitatively different vision,in the direction of decentralized, face-to-face, small-scale community whereindividual responsibility makes divisionof labor and domination obsolete, andhuman anarchy is part of nature.

THE NATURE OF THE LEFTvolu

me #

2volu

me #

2volu

me #

2volu

me #

2volu

me #

2

The Left is Dead

A

(please do not resuscitate)The PROBLEMThe PROBLEMThe PROBLEMThe PROBLEMThe PROBLEMof the LEFTof the LEFTof the LEFTof the LEFTof the LEFT

BACKBACKBACKBACKBACKTOTOTOTOTOBASICS:BASICS:BASICS:BASICS:BASICS:

BACK TO BASICS volume #2

“The most compelling exercise of freedom isthe destruction of idols, especially when theyclaim to speak in the name of freedom!”

- Guy Debord

What is Leftism? For most it means some form of socialism,despite the fact that there are plenty of leftistswho are not opposed to capitalism (clearly fromthe actual history of socialism, not all socialistsare opposed to capitalism either). Plenty of otherarguments can be made about that, but let’s justkeep things simple and assume that the twoterms are synonymous. As is the case with mostvague terms, however, it’s easier to come upwith a list of characteristics than a definition.Leftism encompasses many divergent ideas,strategies, and tactics; are there any commonthreads that unite all leftists, despite someobvious differences? In order to begin anattempt at an answer, it is necessary to examinethe philosophical antecedents to what canbroadly be termed Socialism. Liberalism, Humanism, and Republicanismare political and philosophical schools ofthought deriving from the modern Europeantradition (roughly beginning during theRenaissance). Without going into details,adherents of the three (especially Liberalism)presume the existence of an ideal property-owning male individual who is a fully rational(or at least a potentially rational) agent. Thisidea l i zed ind iv idua l s t andsopposed to the arbitrary authorityof the economic and politicalsystems of monarchism andfeudalism, as well as the spiritualauthority of the Catholic Church.All three (LH&R) presume thecapacity of anyone (male), througheducation and hard work, to succeedin a free market (of commoditiesand ideas). Competition is theoverall ethos of all three. The promoters of LH&R insistthat these modernist philosophies—compared to monarchism, elitism,and feudalism—are advances onthe road to human freedom. Theybelieve it more beneficial for whatthey call The Greater Good to adhere to andpromote a philosophy that at least proposesthe ability of anyone to gain some kind ofcontrol over her/his own life, whether in therealm of education, economic prosperity, orpolitical interactions. The ultimate goals ofLH&R are to do away with economic scarcityand intellectual/spiritual poverty, whilepromoting the idea of more democraticgovernance. They promote this under therubric of Justice, and they see the State as itsultimate guarantor. Socialism as a modern movement has been

greatly influenced by these three philosophies.Like those who adhere to LH&R, leftists areconcerned with, and are opposed to, economicand social injustice. They all propose amelio-rating social ills through active intervention orcharity, whether under the auspices of theState, NGOs, or other formal organizations.Very few of the proposed solutions orstopgaps promote (or even acknowledge)self-organized solutions engaged in by thosedirectly suffering such ills. Welfare, affirmativeaction programs, psychiatric hospitals, drugrehabilitation facilities, etc. are all examplesof various attempts to deal with socialproblems. Given the premises of these over-lapping philosophies and their practicalframeworks, they have the appearance ofbeing the results of intelligence and knowl-edge mixed with empathy and the desire tohelp people. Cooperation for The CommonGood is seen as more beneficial to humanitythan individual competition. However,socialism also takes the existence of com-petition for granted. Liberals and socialistsalike believe that human beings do not naturallyget along, so we must be educated andencouraged to be cooperative. When all else

fails, this can always be enforced by the State.

Moderate, Radical,and Extreme LeftismTactics and strategiesRegardless of the fact that there is plenty ofoverlap and blending—precluding real, discreteboundaries—I hope that describing thesevarious manifestations of leftism will be a wayto identify certain particular characteristics. In terms of strategy and tactics, moderateleftists believe that things can be made betterby working within current structures and

Leftism 101by Lawrence Jarach

The ship of foolsThe ship of foolsThe ship of foolsThe ship of foolsThe ship of fools

veers leftwardveers leftwardveers leftwardveers leftwardveers leftward

The ship of foolsThe ship of foolsThe ship of foolsThe ship of foolsThe ship of fools

veers leftwardveers leftwardveers leftwardveers leftwardveers leftward

institutions. Clearly reformist, moderateleftists promote legal, peaceful, and politesuperficial alterations in the status quo, eventu-ally hoping to legislate socialism intoexistence. The democracy they champion isbourgeois: one person, one vote, majority rule. Radical leftists promotes a mixture of legaland illegal tactics, depending on whateverappears to have a better chance of succeedingat the moment, but they ultimately want thesanction of some properly constituted legalinstitutions (especially when they get to makemost of the rules to be enforced). They arepragmatic, hoping for peaceful change, butready to fight if they believe it to be necessary.The democracy they promote is more prole-tarian: they aren’t worried about the process of

any particular election, so long as gainsare made at the expense of the bosses andmainstream politicians. Extreme leftists are amoral pragma-tists, a strategic orientation that can alsobe termed opportunistic. They aredecidedly impolite, explicitly desiringthe destruction of current institutions(often including the State), with thedesire to remake them so that only theythemselves will be able to make andenforce new laws. They are much morewilling to use force in the service of theirgoals. The democracy they promote isusually based on a Party.

Relationship to capitalistsAll leftists privilege the category of

worker as worker/producer, an entity thatexists only within the sphere of the economy.Moderate leftists campaign for workers’ rights(to strike, to have job security and safety, tohave decent and fair contracts), trying tomitigate the more obvious abuses of thebosses through the passage and enforcementof progressive legislation. They wantcapitalism to be organized with “PeopleBefore Profits” (as the overused slogan hasit), ignoring the internal logic and history ofcapitalism. Moderate leftists promote sociallyresponsible investing and want a more just

“The most compelling exercise of freedom isthe destruction of idols, especially when theyclaim to speak in the name of freedom!”

- Guy Debord

The PROBLEM of the LEFT

distribution of wealth; social wealth in theform of the much-touted “safety net,” andpersonal wealth in the form of higher wagesand increased taxes on corporations and therich. They want to balance the rights ofproperty and labor. Radical leftists favor workers at the expenseof the bosses. Workers are always right to theradical leftist. They wish to change the legalstructure in such a way to reflect this favoritism,which is supposed to compensate for theprevious history of exploitation. Theredistribution of wealth envisioned by radicalleftists builds on the higher wages andincreased taxation of the corporations andthe rich to include selective expropriation/nationalization (with or withoutcompensation) of various resources(banks, natural resources for example). Extreme leftists promote the totalexpropriation—without compen-sation—of the capitalist class, notonly to right the wrongs of economicexploitation, but to remove thecapitalist class from political power aswell. At some point, the workers are tobe at least nominally in charge of economicand political decision making (although that is

usually meditated through a Party leadership).

The role of the StateLeftists view the State on a continuum ofambivalence. Most are clear that the role ofthe State is to further the goals of whateverclass happens to rule at any given period;further they all recognize that the ruling classalways reserves for itself a monopoly on thelegitimate use of force and violence toenforce their rule. In the political imagi-nations of all moderate and some radicalleftists, the State (even with a completelycapitalist ruling class) can be used to remedymany social problems, from the excesses oftransnational corporations to the abuses ofthose who have been traditionally disenfran-chised (immigrants, women, minorities, thehomeless, etc.). For extreme leftists, only theirown State can solve such problems, becauseit is in the interest of the current ruling classto maintain divisions among those who arenot of the ruling class. Despite the ambiva-lence, an attachment to the functions ofgovernment as executed by the State remains.This is the pivotal area of conflict between allleftists and all anarchists, despite the historicalpositioning of anarchism within the spectrum of

leftism—about which more below.

The role of the individualMissing from all these different strains ofleftism is a discussion of the individual. WhileLH&R refer briefly to the individual, thesephilosophies do not take into account non-property-owning males, females, or juveniles—who are indeed considered the property of thenormative individual: the adult property-owning man. This led to the complete lack

on interest in (and the accompanyingexploitation of) peasants and workers, adisregard that is supposed to be corrected bysocialism. Unfortunately, virtually allsocialists only posit the category Worker andPeasant as collective classes—a mass to bemolded and directed—never considering thedesires or interests of the individual (male orfemale) worker or peasant to control their ownlives. According to the ideological imperativesof leftist thought, the self-activity of thesemasses is seen suspiciously through the ideo-logical blinkers of the competitive ethos ofcapitalism (since the masses aren’t yetintelligent enough to be socialists); the workerswill perhaps be able to organize themselves

into defensive trade unions in order to safe-guard their wages, while the peasants willonly want to own and work their own pieceof land. Again, education and enforcement ofcooperation is necessary for these masses to

become conscious political radicals.

A Generic Leftism?So all leftists share the goals of making upfor injustice by decree, whether the decreecomes out of better/more responsive rep-resentatives and leaders, a more democraticpolitical process, or the elimi-nation of a non-worker powerbase. They all desire to organize,mobilize, and direct masses ofpeople, with the eventual goalof attaining a more or lesscoherent majority, in orderto propel progressive anddemocratic change of socialinstitutions. Recruitment,education, and inculcatingleftist values are some of themore mundane strategiesleftists use to increase theirinfluence in the wider politicallandscape. All leftists have a commondistrust of regular (non-political/non-politicized) people being able to decidefor themselves how to solve the problems thatface them. All leftists share an abiding faithin leadership. Not just a trust of particularleaders who portray themselves as havingcertain moral or ethical virtues over and abovecommon people, but of the very principle ofleadership. This confidence in leadershipnever brings representational politics intoquestion. The existence of elected or appointed

leaders who speak and act on behalf, or inthe place, of individuals and groups is a given;mediation in the realm of politics is taken asa necessity, removing most decision makingfrom individuals and groups. Leftists share thiscommitment to leadership and representation—they believe themselves able to justlyrepresent those who have traditionally beenexcluded from politics: the disenfranchised, thevoiceless, the weak. The leftist activist, as a representative ofthose who suffer, is a person who believesher/himself to be indispensable to improvingthe lives of others. This derives from a dual-pronged notion common to all leftists:

1. Non-political people, left to their owndevices, will never be able to altertheir situations in a radical or revolu-tionary manner (Lenin’s dismissal ofworkers as never being able to movebeyond a “trade union mentality”without some professional outsidehelp comes to mind here); and

2. Those with more intelligence or abetter analysis are both wise and ethical

enough to lead (whether through example or bydecree) and organize others for their own good,and perhaps more importantly, the greater good.

The unspoken but implicit theme that runsthrough this brief assessment of leftism is areliance on authoritarian relations, whetherassumed or enforced, brutally compelling orgently rational. The existence of an economy(exchange of commodities in a market)presumes the existence of one or moreinstitutions to mediate disputes between thosewho produce, those who own, and those whoconsume; the existence of a representational

political process presumes theexistence of one or more in-stitutions to mediate disputesbetween diverse parties basedon common interest (oftenwith conflicting goals); theexistence of leadership pre-sumes that there are substantivedifferences in the emotional andintellectual capacities ofthose who direct and thosewho follow. There are plentyof rationalizations contributingto the maintenance of suchinstitutions of social control(schools, prisons, the military,the workplace), from efficiencyto expediency, but they all

ultimately rely on the legitimate (sanctioned bythe State) use of coercive authority to enforcedecisions. Leftists share a faith in the mediatinginfluence of wise and ethical leaders who canwork within politically neutral, sociallyprogressive, and humane institutional frame-works. Their thoroughly hierarchical andauthoritarian natures, however, should beclear even after a cursory glance.

(continued on next page)

All unfit forhuman consumption

BACK TO BASICS volume #2

All anarchists share a desire to abolish government; that is the

definition of anarchism. Starting with Bakunin, anarchism has been

explicitly anti-statist, anti-capitalist, and anti-authoritarian; no serious

anarchist seeks to alter that. Leftists have consistently supported and

promoted the functions of the State, have an ambiguous relationship

to capitalist development, and are all interested in maintaining

hierarchical relationships. In addition, historically they have either

tacitly ignored or actively suppressed the desires of individuals and

groups for autonomy and self-organization, further eroding any credible

solidarity between themselves and anarchists. On a purely definitional

level, then, there should be an automatic distinction between leftists

and anarchists, regardless of how things have appeared in history.

Despite these differences, many anarchists have thought of themselves

as extreme leftists—and continue to do so—because they share many

of the same analyses and interests (a distaste for capitalism, the

necessity of revolution, for example) as leftists; many revolutionary

leftists have also considered anarchists to be their (naïve) comrades—

except in moments when the leftists gain some power; then the

anarchists are either co-opted, jailed, or executed. The possibility

for an extreme leftist to be anti-statist may be high, but is certainly

not guaranteed, as any analysis history will show.

Left anarchists retain some kind of allegiance to 19th century LH&R

and socialist philosophers, preferring the broad, generalized (and

therefore extremely vague) category of socialism/anti-capitalism and

the strategy of mass political struggles based on coalitions with other

leftists, all the while showing little (if any) interest in promoting

individual and group autonomy. From these premises, they can quite

easily fall prey to the centralizing tendencies and leadership

functions that dominate the tactics of leftists. They are quick to quote

Bakunin (maybe Kropotkin too) and advocate organizational forms

that might have been appropriate in the era of the First International,

apparently oblivious to the sweeping changes that have occurred in

the world in the past hundred-plus years—and they then have the

gall to ridicule Marxists for remaining wedded to Marx’s outdated

theories, as if by not naming their own tendencies after other dead

guys they are thereby immune from similar mistakes.

The drawbacks and problems with Marxism, however—for

example that it promotes the idea of a linear progression of history

of order developing out of chaos, freedom developing out of

oppression, material abundance developing out of scarcity,

socialism developing out of capitalism, plus an absolute faith in

Science as the ideologically neutral pursuit of pure Knowledge, and

a similar faith in the liberatory function of all technology—are the

same drawbacks and problems with the anarchism of Bakunin and

Kropotkin. All of this seems lost on left anarchists. They blithely

continue to promote a century-old version of anarchism, clearly

unaware of, or unconcerned by, the fact that the philosophical and

practical failures of leftism—in terms of the individual, the natural

world, and appropriate modes of resistance to the continued

domination of a flexible, adaptable, and expanding capitalism—are

shared by this archaic form of anarchism as well.

Those of us who are interested in promoting radical social change

in general, and anarchy in particular, need to emulate and improve

upon successful (however temporary) revolutionary projects for

liberation, rather than congratulating ourselves for being the heirs of

Bakunin (et al.). We can do this best if we free ourselves from the

historical baggage and the ideological and strategic constraints of all

varieties of leftism.

Dreams and desires have been locked within the cages ofpsychotherapeutic interpretations;Revolt has been bound with the fetters of moribund leftistideologies;Creativity has been enslaved to the sadistic masters, art andliterature;The marvelous has been handcuffed to the cops of mysticismand mythology;Reality has lost the ability to laugh at itself and its foibles andso suppresses a truly playful spirit;Thought has become a rigidly armored fortress protecting itsideological foundations from every criticism;Revolution has had its passion organized out of existenceleaving only structural rigor mortis where once insurgencebreathed and danced.This world has ceased to bring forth amazing monsters;It is no longer a conduit for the marvelous;It has lost touch with the convulsive beauty of love and lust;It can no longer give birth to babies with wings;It has ceased growing and begun to rot;It has suppressed surreality wherever this marvelous flowerhas bloomed.Therefore, from now on, surreality will manifest in:Dreams and desires freed from all interpretation and sublimation,being the living energies of free-spirited individuals;Total revolt against every aspect of social reality including theideologies that strive to squeeze this revolt into the limitedmold of leftist activism;The free-spirited creation of our lives for ourselves, lived tothe limits against every role and rule;The discovery of the marvelous in each unique being, freefrom any mystical or religious guidelines;The humor and playfulness of free-spirited individuals whorealize their strength and creativity in their own joyful foolishness;Open, expansive, generous thinking which grows from theinner strength of free-spirited rebels;An insurgent dance, a feral insurrection that refuses alllimitations, exists beyond all structures and is the realm ofindomitable free spirits.Today, social reality is a lifeless, passionless corpse. Let’sbury it. Now the amazing monsters of surreality must comeforth in the world playful and terrifying in their wild energy,freed of the cages and chains that have bound them; ourdreams, our desires, our humor, our revolt can populate theworld with the most marvelous creatures.Social reality is dead; long live surreality!

—Wolfi Landstreicher

Are All Forms ofAnarchism Leftist?

We Were Born Into a World Where:We Were Born Into a World Where:

The PROBLEM of the LEFT

I desire liberation, not organization. Whilemost leftists would claim that the two gohand-in-hand, or at least that the second isnecessary to achieve the first (and for somethe second might even “wither away” some-time after “The Revolution”), to me, the twoseem contradictory. I am not fighting for aworld which is run better (more efficientlyand more fairly), I am fighting for a worldwhich doesn’t need running (one which isradically decentralized). Here lies the contra-diction between the Left, and those fightingfor autonomy and anarchy. If the politics of the left (including leftist-anarchists) could be distilled into one phrase,it might be “Social Justice” – a vague longingfor a social system which ensures equality(socially and economically, although notnecessarily politically) for everyone,and the political apparatus necessary toensure/enforce their particular notion ofwhat that would mean. But only bypeople controlling their own lives, andall decisions which pertain to them,will people ever be free. This shouldbe a basic concept, at least foranarchists, but unfortunately forthose still tied to a leftist mode ofoperation and thinking, it is not. In fact,this simple notion is attacked for beingtoo “individualist” or “unrealistic”.I guess some people just think theyknow what is best, especially for the“lumpen” and “the masses.” Theywish to plug everyone into an infra-structure which adheres to the “correct”ideology (a notion anarchists shouldreject at face value): as Michael Albert(Z Magazine) has said, the “good morality”.These notions of “the way” are an insult toindependent thinking and openness, and standin direct opposition to anarchy, and deserveonly disdain. Only WE can fully understand what WE arefighting for, and our own interests and skills.We waste too much time trying to form affinityand artificial unity with those with whomthere is very little meaningful agreement.Decentralized autonomous groups, making allof their own decisions, are the key to effective-ness and to staying motivated. Only whenresistance comes from our hearts can we haveany chance of fulfillment. I am not just “twoarms for the revolution,” as some guilt-ridden,uncritical, and uninspired leftists and leftist-anarchists have proclaimed. I am not a footsoldier for a vanguard or an “oppressed people.”

And, the last thing we need is more standard-ization, mechanization, and militaristicapproaches...the logic which projects thiswhole system forward. I am fighting for my own liberation, andfrom this stems my support for my family,my community, others’ struggles, and the restof life. Does this mean we cannot learn fromothers, share ideas, or join together in projectsof resistance? Certainly not, but thesejunctures MUST be without coercion,manipulation, and domination. They shouldbe seen as temporary and organic, andtheir continued connection cannot be at theexpense of our autonomy. We need to prioritizethe deep and meaningful relationships over

the superficial and political ones.

We must avoid the “lowest common denomi-nator” approach to liberation, one whichsums up our collective desires and strugglesin vague catchwords like “freedom”,“equality”, and “justice”, or the “One BigUnion” approach, which superficiallyembraces diversity, yet in reality, works todiminish all individuality and autonomy. Some anarchists, and all leftists, proposelarge monolithic federations, parties, andstructures to “get shit done” and “hold peopleaccountable.” We must reject this fetishizationof organization and control. Our liberationshould not be dependent on a political or eco-nomic structure – it should come from our owndesires and willingness to fight for anotherworld. A leftist-anarchist friend of mine wantsto know how we hold people accountable

when they continually “flake.” To which Irespond, learn the patterns of those you workand live with, and know what you candepend on, and what you cannot. If they arecontinually unreliable, then don’t rely onthem. It’s simple. It all comes down tobringing about a deeper understanding of oneanother, not some adjudication process toenforce agreements…that is how the stateworks. Even in regard to abusers, some wouldlike established policies and rigid methods fordealing with people, but each scenario isdifferent, and each victim and communitydemands a different outcome. It is taking theeasy way out, when we attempt to program-matically apply a solution to a problem.Taking responsibility for a situation and

working towards the most effectiveoutcome takes time, energy, andcommitment to one another, andwhile it may seem difficult at thetime, in the end it is usually themost meaningful. Smaller groups are more able tomake decisions which are relevant tothe individuals involved, while large

organizations require tremendousamounts of resources and bureaucracyjust to perpetuate themselves. Constantdecisions need to be made just to keep

them “running,” and this will inevitablylead to representation and hierarchy.The further we are from any decision-making process, the more alienated weare from the decisions it makes. Thisis not a healthy model for takingcontrol of our own lives, it is a modelfor being controlled. As anarchists, we

need to take responsibility for ourown decisions and their outcomes.

This is not to say that we should only beconcerned with decision-making on anindividual level (although there are certainlydecisions which only apply here), but also assmall, decentralized communities. Here,decisions are made face-to-face, with eachmember of our family, band, or collectivedeeply entwined with one another and ourenvironment – a bio-regional perspectivewhich reflects how natural ecosystems function.We only need organizations and largestructures if we want to keep most of theracket known as civilization going (includingtechnology, production, the military, masssociety, globalized reality, etc), but if wereject all of this, we can bring our lives backto a human scale, lives worth living.

If I Have to Pay Dues or Carry a Membership Card,If I Have to Pay Dues or Carry a Membership Card,If I Have to Pay Dues or Carry a Membership Card,If I Have to Pay Dues or Carry a Membership Card,If I Have to Pay Dues or Carry a Membership Card,I DonI DonI DonI DonI Don’t Want to Be In Your Revolution.t Want to Be In Your Revolution.t Want to Be In Your Revolution.t Want to Be In Your Revolution.t Want to Be In Your Revolution.

Liberation, Not Organizationby A. Morefus

BACK TO BASICS volume #2

The Left-

“The pleasure police don’t always wearuniforms. They wear ideologies — rigid,theoretical constructions in their heads. Andtheir heads in turn rule over their bodies andoppress them.” —Smirk #4 (Post-Leftist Pleasure Politics)

In spite of its abysmal, largely totalitarianhistory, the various political tendencies thatcomprise what we call the “Left” are attemptingto make a resurgence in North America —basically by trying to exploit situations like thewar in Iraq and capitalist globalization as newopportunities to promote their hopelesslyoutdated and downright ridiculously statistprograms for “change.” It would be easy enoughto just ignore these socialist champions of dutyand sacrifice — these would-be world-bettererswho tilt at the windmills of established powerand ultimately accomplish nothing — were itnot for the fact that they’ve infested the anarchistmovement with their authoritarian, guilt-riddenpolitics and are essentially waging war on thefree exchange of ideas between radicals anddissidents. Cloaking themselves in “concerns”about racism, sexism and homophobia, theseanarcho-leftists seem primarily interested inimpeding the development of revolutionarytheory and revolutionary action, by setting rulesabout what can and cannot be said (or eventhought) by those who are interested in examiningthe totality of the System we live under. When they’re not trying to lure anarchistsdown the dead-end path of “identity politics,”these self-styled “experts in oppression” are

working overtime to impose new “politically-correct” moralisms and constraining codes ofbehavior on other people, adding new layers ofrepression to an already unbearably repressiveand artificial situation, i.e., modern civilized“life.” In a world where virtually every aspect ofour lives is governed and controlled, where themajority of our “choices” and “options” are false,manufactured ones, and where our everyinstinct and biological impulse is stifled by anauthoritarian order, the Left proposes more (orat least, new) rules and regulations as thesolution! Like the genocidal Catholic missionariesof the Columbian invasion or the grim-faced,anally-retentive Puritans of New England, theseinternally tormented Leftists want to universalizetheir own inhibitions and psychological hang-ups,by creating a new governing structure thatmirrors their own fears and personal misery. The personal is very political when it comesto the Left, as your typical leftist is neuroticallyobsessed with how others live, what they eatand consume, and most alarmingly, with thewords and thoughts that stray from the Left’sapproved range of opinions. The main differencebetween the Left and the “Right” is that theLeft’s intrusiveness into other peoples’ livesis justified on political grounds, while the“Right” generally justifies it on Biblical or religiousgrounds. In either case, we’re dealing withmorality, with external codes of conduct andbehavior that some self-dictated “superior”believes is the prescription for a more tidy,orderly and efficient society. At this point, it’s worth asking: What derangedemotional disorder leads to the formation of suchauthoritarian tendencies in the human personality,and what aberration of the psyche convinces theLeft that it has the knowledge and the right torefashion and reprogram other people into its newmorality? We believe that the research of WilhelmReich provides invaluable insight into the “masspsychosis of Leftism” and the remainder of thisessay will explore Reich’s theories of “characterarmoring” and how it applies to the Left as aninherently authoritarian political current.

Sexual Repression: The Rootof All Social Control?

“The person afflicted with the emotionalplague limps characterologically. The emotionalplague is a chronic biopathy of the organism.It made an inroad into human society withthe first mass suppression of genital sexuality;it became an endemic disease, which hasbeen tormenting people the world over forthousands of years. According to our knowledge,it is implanted in the child from the first daysof life. It is an endemic illness, like schizo-phrenia or cancer, with one notable difference,i.e., it is essentially manifested in social life.”

—Wilhelm Reich

Wilhelm Reich was a radical psychotherapist(and former student of Freud) who, in the 1920s,

began to make observations about humansexual repression that we believe have a lot tocontribute to the anti-civilization critique. Thelinchpin of civilization, the defining process thatholds it all together, is domestication — thesuppression and restructuring of what was oncewild and free. In the human animal this translatesinto the repression and bludgeoning of ournatural instincts by outside social forces. Reichbelieved that human beings formed what he termed“character armor” as a chronic result of the clashbetween instinctual demands and an outer world,which frustrates those demands. This “characterarmor” is formed when the ego undergoes astructural change in order to carry out theinhibition of instincts demanded by the modern,civilized world and to be able to cope with theenergy stasis which results from this inhibition. Reich described this change in the humanpsyche as a hardening, a cementing of civilizedrepressions that take on a chronically operating,automatic character, as if the affected (repressed)personality has developed a hard shell arounditself to deflect and weaken the blows of the outerworld as well as the clamoring of unfulfilledinner needs. As a protective psychologicalformation that has become chronic, Reich feltthat this character hardening merited thedesignation of the psychic mobility of the person-ality as a whole. The maintenance of this characterarmor always proceeds according to the pleasure-unpleasure principle and consists of multiple,interrelated layers that serve to ward off the mostdeeply repressed impulses. And the most deeply repressed impulse in thecivilized world, according to Reich, is the naturalhuman need to give and receive love and toexperience orgiastic, libidinal gratification andpleasure. But human sexuality had been repressedand disfigured, claimed Reich, by the compulsorysex morality of the dominant culture. Reich linked sexual repression to the formationof authoritarian personalities and believed thatthere are libidinal energies, which are employedin the anchoring of the authoritarian social order,as he explained in his 1933 book The MassPsychology of Fascism. Reich believed that it was in this anchoring ofthe social order in the character structure that wefind an explanation for the toleration on the part ofthe suppressed layers of the population towardthe rulership of an upper social class that has themeans of power at its disposal, a toleration thatoften goes so far as to affirm authoritariansuppression at the expense of its own classinterests. Reich’s analysis of sexual imagery withinNazi propaganda and Hitler’s hypnotic oratoryperformances led him to believe that Germansachieved some sort of orgiastic satisfactionfrom their dedication to the führer and hisweltanschaung of sexual repression. Myron Sharaf,Reich’s biographer, commented that, “This intenselibidinal excitation, combined with a sense ofmoral righteousness, was strikingly similar tothe atmosphere at religious revival meetings.”

The Left-Handed Path of Repression

By C

rocu

s Be

hemot

h

The PROBLEM of the LEFT

Reich went on to apply his same critique of theThird Reich to Soviet Russia and the CommunistParty, and came to the following conclusions:

• Humankind is biologically sick. • Politics is the irrational social expressionof this sickness. • The character structure of the masses isformed by socioeconomic processes and itanchors and perpetuates these processes.Humanity’s biopathic character structure is thefossilization of the authoritarian process ofhistory. It is the biophysical reproduction ofmass suppression. • The fear of freedom — and the incapacityfor freedom — of masses of people is expressedin the biophysical rigidity of the character andthe inflexibility of the organism. • Interest in money and power is a substitutefor unfulfilled happiness in love, supported bythe biologic rigidity of masses of people.

We want to make it clear at this point thatwe don’t uncritically embrace all of Reich’sideas. Like most visionaries, Reich’s life wasriddled with contradictions, and even asanarchists, we regard some of his later writingsas marginally crackpot. And despite his advocacyof “free love” and non-monogamy, Reichseemed to be pretty sexually repressedhimself and maintained throughouthis life that homosexuality was a“disorder.” Nonetheless, we feel thatReich stumbled upon a “piece of thepuzzle,” and if we accept that even afraction of what he postulates isfeasible, then it revolutionizes ourunderstanding of how both socialdomestication and authoritarianpolitical rackets work. Humanbeings as a species have been deeplyscarred and traumatized by 10,000years of colonization, domesticationand sexual repression, and no socialorder that emerges from this collectivedysfunctionality/psychosis can offer usanything but more repression. As Reichdescribed it, “The human masses havebecome apathetic, incapable of discrimination,biopathic and slavish as a result of thesuppression of their vital life over thousandsof years.” This is an amazingly basic insight, and yet soprofound in its implications! If left-wing statesand political movements originate in the sameauthoritarian gene pool as so-called “right wing”regimes, then we can be assured ahead of timethat they won’t reproduce anything but continuedslavery and control. The political Left is nothingmore than a particular form of authoritarianismand is in essence and character identical to anyother version of statism. The “progressives” who yearn to install a left-wing state want to use the power of that stateto control other people’s habits, living patterns,moral conduct and worldview. This has beendemonstrated time after time since the 1917Russian Revolution, yet shockingly, manyyounger radicals (especially here in Eugene)continue to subscribe to the myth that the Left

is the good guy in an overly-simplistic,cartoonish struggle against the “reactionary”capitalist class. But as anarchists, it’s obviousthat there can be no cure for the disease ofcapitalism if the supposed “antidote” (the Left)is itself a carrier of the same virus of controland rigidity.

The Machine as SadomasochisticOverseer and Technology as aNew Layer of Character Armor

If sexual repression forms an early and majorlayer of our “character armor,” then how manyadditional layers of domestication are added ashuman life begins to merge more and more fullywith technology? And why is it that all leftistmodels for a “socialist future” seem to resemblethe workings of a machine? The second questionis the easier one to answer and it lies in the factthat leftists have always seen themselves associal engineers and have always had a nearlyreligious faith in continued linear progress andthe limitless development of scientific andtechnical knowledge. The machine age and the“machine-age consciousness” it promulgatestranslates into an engineering vision of human

beings reworked according to properly mechanicalprecepts. In the leftist techno-utopia the repressedsexual energy of the “masses” will be sublimatedinto work, as we all trudge in uniform fashionto the conveyor belts that will deliver us to ourdreary, mind-numbing tasks each day, becomingeffectively human extensions of the machine. The cumulative result of all this is clear:more misery and more repression, as technologypenetrates our lives even more thoroughly,creating mechanical patterns to which we areexpected to conform.

Welcome to Eugene, LeftistCapital of the World or

“It’s Starting to Get a LittleKooky Around Here”

Several years ago a leftist “emotional plague”swept through the Eugene anarchist milieu,leaving a trail of shattered lives and sabotaged

projects in its wake. The “plague” was introducedinto the community by a small group of formeror currently enrolled, middle-class collegestudents whose objective seemed to be notonly silencing opinions they didn’t like but alsodestroying, both personally and publicly, theindividuals who expressed those opinions.A huge preoccupation of this “vanguardintelligentsia” was the imposition of politicallycorrect speech codes and the calculated,manipulative use of certain politically-loadedbuzzwords (like “racist,” “sexist” and “ho-mophobic”) to stigmatize anyone who hadan “unapproved” point of view. Hiding behind legitimate issues of oppression(and camouflaging themselves for a short timeas anarchists) this nasty, humorless sectpromoted a group identity and employed allthe hallmark leftist strategies of bullying andbrowbeating anyone who was too naive to seewhat was going on. Particularly fascinating waswatching this constipated, dour-faced crewattempt to formulate a new, community-wideleftist morality, one that was decidedlyanti-erotic, and even anti-pleasure. Like mostleftists, they seemed to have zero interest infreedom and actually appeared to be fighting

for more pain! The “administrators” of this leftist

plague, the small cadre of self-appointed(and self-oppressed) “teachers” whobelieved that they — and only they— possessed the “superior knowl-edge,” academic training, and socialdesign to restructure human nature,began to develop a pedagogicalstyle that isolated and demonizedanyone they saw as “backwards”and “uneducated” — as well as

anyone who des i red to haveegalitarian relationships with others

and wasn’t willing to be treated as a“subordinate.” A new Thought Police

began to emerge under the guise of“abolishing sexism,” “smashing racism,”

etc. and implicitly sent out the messageto stay quiet about the new leftist orthodoxy,

lest you become the next victim of a “reputationassassination.” It was a clever strategy andhelped to distract people from recognizing justhow devoid these power-tripping socialistswere of radical ideas and analysis! Sadism and masochism seemed to be thepsychological mechanics employed to fostergroup-think, along with “sin” and repentance,guilt, shame, fear of freedom, punishment,unworthiness, and distrust of one’s ownthoughts and instincts: in short, the usualreprogramming techniques utilized by anyother cult, from the Moonies to the U.S. Army.The whole “plague” began to take on an eerieresemblance to Catholicism, and fortunately,only infected our community just long enoughto serve as a graphic, firsthand example ofhow the Left wants to control our lives throughthe imposition of new, uniquely leftist, formsof repression.

(continued on next page)

BACK TO BASICS volume #2

by John Zerzan

THE LEFTTODAY

Suggested Readings:Suggested Readings:Suggested Readings:Suggested Readings:Suggested Readings:

Alas, still around to some degree, going throughthe motions and in some cases finding newways to repackage the same old shit. The eternally superficial liberal-left“progressives” are as transparently averse toliberation as are the few surviving leninoidauthoritarians. Not even worth a line or two.But there are more current maneuvers possiblydeserving a little critical attention…. The Social Forum, in its “Global” as well asmore local forms, is a recent catch-all for leftists,including communists looking for a home inthe post-Soviet Union era. At anti-G8 Genoain 2001, Genoa Social Forum partisans didtheir best to deliver anarchists to the police andworked hard afterwards to spread lies about theBlack Bloc effort in Genoa. At last year’s GlobalSocial Forum in Porto Alegre these statists—or those in charge, anyway—spent their timepraising Brazilian president Lula’s leftistregime and having anarchists physicallyattacked in the streets. Closet “anarchist”Noam Chomsky is one of the main SocialForum leaders. The “anti-state communists” we still havewith us, although they seem to be goingnowhere. The term has appeal to some, but ismeaningless and contradictory. The anti-statecommies have yet to criticize mass productionand global trade, because they apparently wantto preserve all the techno-essentials of themodern setup. It is impossible to have globalproduction and exchange without government–call it by any name you like––to coordinateand regulate any such mass system. Michael Albert’s participatory economics(“parecon”) holds that the state function could

be replaced by an enormous amount ofmeeting-hours by everyone, in order to setproduction and trade quotas, etc. If one’spriority is to run a world just like the one wenow endure, I guess such an unappealingblueprint somehow makes sense. A rather different phenomenon is the (largelyEuropean) “insurrectionalist” stance, whichseems to be a kind of amorphous hybrid ofseveral contradictory tenets. In order tomaximize the unity required to achieve aninsurrectionary condition, insurrectionalistsfind it useful to minimize a potentiallynon-unifying discussion of specifics. But thisapproach runs the risk of tending toward sup-pression of ideas. Meanwhile, insurrectionalisttheorist Alfredo Bonanno can espouse nationalliberation fronts (states-in-waiting), whileothers in this camp are very lucidly anti-civilization (Bonanno, it should be added, hasbeen prosecuted repeatedly and imprisoned inItaly for his courageous resistance over theyears). Maybe insurrectionalism is less anideology than an undefined tendency, part leftand part anti-left but generally anarchist. What all these left-leaners lack is a willingnessto confront the basics of domination with theresolve and pointed questioning required ifdomination is to be erased.

by John Zerzan

Take a bite out of leftism!Take a bite out of leftism!

Anything Can Happen Anything Can Happen Anything Can Happen Anything Can Happen Anything Can Happen by Fredy

Perlman (A collection of essays on themesranging from authoritarianism, nationalism,and industrialism) Phoenix Press

Marxism and Native AmericansMarxism and Native AmericansMarxism and Native AmericansMarxism and Native AmericansMarxism and Native Americansedited by Ward Churchill (A provocativedialogue amongst native activists andMarxists) South End Press

Industrial Society and Its FutureIndustrial Society and Its FutureIndustrial Society and Its FutureIndustrial Society and Its FutureIndustrial Society and Its Future(T(T(T(T(The Unabomber Manifesto) he Unabomber Manifesto) he Unabomber Manifesto) he Unabomber Manifesto) he Unabomber Manifesto) by F.C.(While offering an excellent critique oftechnology, industrial society, and the left,it is lacking in other regards) GA Distro

Anarchy After LeftismAnarchy After LeftismAnarchy After LeftismAnarchy After LeftismAnarchy After Leftism by Bob Black(A great debunking of leftist anarchists,although we are discouraged by his dismissalof feminism) CAL Press

Anti-Mass: Methods Of Organiza-Anti-Mass: Methods Of Organiza-Anti-Mass: Methods Of Organiza-Anti-Mass: Methods Of Organiza-Anti-Mass: Methods Of Organiza-tion For Collectivestion For Collectivestion For Collectivestion For Collectivestion For Collectives (argumentsagainst mass organization in favor of moreautonomous action) GA Distro

Elements of Refusal, FutureElements of Refusal, FutureElements of Refusal, FutureElements of Refusal, FutureElements of Refusal, FuturePrimitive, Primitive, Primitive, Primitive, Primitive, and Running on Empti- Running on Empti- Running on Empti- Running on Empti- Running on Empti-nessnessnessnessness by John Zerzan (Compilations ofsome of John’s critical essays on the Leftand civilization) GA Distro

Anarchy: A Journal of DesireAnarchy: A Journal of DesireAnarchy: A Journal of DesireAnarchy: A Journal of DesireAnarchy: A Journal of DesireArmedArmedArmedArmedArmed (an excellent long-running post-leftist magazine which comes out twice a year)PO Box 1446, Columbia, MO 65205-1446,www.anarchymag.org

The Irrational In PoliticsThe Irrational In PoliticsThe Irrational In PoliticsThe Irrational In PoliticsThe Irrational In Politics byMaurice Brinton (An extremely in-depthapplication of Reich’s theories of sexualrepression to the former Soviet Union) See

Sharp Press

This World We Must LeavThis World We Must LeavThis World We Must LeavThis World We Must LeavThis World We Must Leave byJacques Camatte (anthology of essayscritiquing leftist political rackets by afar-left anti-state communist) Autonomedia

* Don* Don* Don* Don* Don’t forget to check out the GA Distrot forget to check out the GA Distrot forget to check out the GA Distrot forget to check out the GA Distrot forget to check out the GA Distro

Suggested Readings:Suggested Readings:Suggested Readings:Suggested Readings:Suggested Readings:

The RobotsWill Not Get Through!

Authoritarians can be most easily distinguishedfrom anarchists by the fact that authoritariansmake their demands of life not merely on them-selves but, above all, on other people and onthe social environment as a whole. The personafflicted with the authoritarian plague imposestheir mode of life upon others by force and willnot tolerate views that threaten their authoritarian,repressed character armor or unmask theirconcealed motives. The repressed-authoritarianpersonality fights against other modes of life(and thought) even when they don’t (orshouldn’t) concern them in any way; they areimpelled to fight because they perceive thevery existence of other beliefs and ways oflife as a provocation. Left and Right-wing authoritarians all tend toview the human animal as a flawed machine thatcan be perfected through the installation of thecorrect “software” into our hard drive. But theLeft is divided amongst itself, and there issignificant (and often bitter) disagreement asto what the correct software program is,particularly with regard to human sexuality.Some leftists advocate compulsory homo-sexuality for “political reasons,” while others,like the RCP, regard homosexuality as a“perversion” and a symptom of the decadenceof bourgeois society. Other leftists go a stepfurther and promote an anti-sex celibacy thatthey see as the solution to problems suchas sexism and rape. But one thing’s for sure, the Left is veryinterested in the sexuality of other people, asare all authoritarians. Leftist regimes — fromthe Soviet Union to Cuba to communist China— have all created classes of sexual “criminals”and have all (just like Protestants and capitalists)used the repressed sexual energy of the largerhuman mass as an instrument of control andas fuel for their grand human and socialreengineering projects. Authoritarians all have a strong hatredagainst every process which provokes itsown orgiastic yearning (suffering from whatReich called “orgasm anxiety”). This helpsexplain why almost nowhere in the vastcanon of leftist theoretical works are subjectslike pleasure, ecstasy and self-determinationever discussed... maybe the desire for Eroswill be disciplined out of us by the Stateover time? We know that sexual repression is only oneof many layers of repression placed on thehuman animal by civilization and ruling elites(the suppression of violence and anger, sobrilliantly discussed by Frantz Fanon, will beelaborated on in this Spring’s “Rewilding”issue of Green Anarchy ) but we wanted to tacklethe subject of the left in a way that brings it backhome, into our own lives. We’ve also attemptedto provide something that’s conspicuouslyabsent from many of the newer “anarchist”publications, like Onward and the NortheasternAnarchist: a critique of authoritarianism.

THE LEFTTODAY