Lawrence Jarach Responds to Michael Albert on Anarchism
Submitted by Chuck0:Original article: http://www.zmag.org/anarchism.htm
Is Michael Albert really worried about anarchism not attracting enough
allegiance among social change activists? It might seem so to the
uncritical reader of his ridiculous essay. For Albert there is good
anarchism and bad anarchism; the bad tendency is the one that the media
pays attention to, because its adherents make good copy--quite the
opposite of his own lackluster crowd at Z Magazine. Since anarchists are
getting a lot of attention, Albert can't afford to ignore us either. But
he uses the same sorts of hostile dismissals that come out of the
mainstream: "distasteful," "debilitating," "unsustainable,"
"objectionable," "negative." Good anarchists, according to Albert, just
lack clarity and a compelling and structured vision for an alternative to
the current organization of international capitalism. And like all
self-appointed leaders, he's only too happy to help.
His assumptions about anarchists rejecting "illegitimate authority" and
promoting "appropriate control" over people is the basis of his overall
cluelessness. A fundamental aspect of anarchist theory is the rejection
of any and all forms of institutionalized authority, whether it derives
from knowledge and expertise or raw coercion. Anarchists don't believe
that anyone can exercise "appropriate control." Anarchists believe that
any control is inappropriate and illegitimate; that is why we are
anarchists.
"Assuming that societies need to fulfill adjudicative, legislative, and
implementation functions…" Well, these are statist assumptions, not those
of most anarchists. How can he then demand that anarchists come up with
alternative ways of performing these tasks if anarchists want to dispense
with them altogether? Is it a rhetorical device, or is he just dense? He
wants these functions to be fulfilled more positively. Like all leftists,
his project is to appoint/elect/mandate better, wiser rulers. Anarchists
want no rulers; that is why we are anarchists.
Albert wants anarchists to be remade in his own image--that of a social
democrat. But anarchists are not extreme social democrats any more than
we are extreme liberals or extreme leninists. Anarchism is a discrete
philosophy that begins from the premise that the principle and practice
of government is as pernicious as it is unnecessary. Albert, like all
leftists, doesn't share this analysis, but his disgust is tempered by his
implicit acknowledgement that anarchism is more attractive than social
democracy. He wants good anarchists to be interested in institutionalized
structures for maintaining appropriate control through the exercise of
legitimate authority. Some anarchists may be suckered into this, but they
won't be good anarchists any more; they'll be no kind of anarchist at
all.
Michael Albert is certainly worried, but not about anarchism becoming
less popular. His complaints about what are some of the most fundamental
principles of anarchist philosophy are based on his adherence to
authoritarian principles and their hierarchical manifestations. His
project of new, improved leadership is unattractive to anyone intelligent
enough to see through the same old shuck and jive. By trying to foment a
split between good anarchists and bad anarchists, and by wanting to drag
the good ones into leftist irrelevance with him, he shows himself to be
as desperate as he is in the dark.
