Anonymous Comrade writes:

"Toward Post-Modern Anarchism"

L. Gambone

Modernity and Post-Modernity (1)

In order to understand the importance of Post
Modernity, (hereafter abbreviated as PM) we must
first understand what is meant by Modernity. In terms
of thought or underlying philosophy, Modernity means
the abstract universalism of Enlightenment
Rationalism.(2) Economically, it means Industrialism.
Socially, mass society, the decline of organized
religion and the rise of nihilism and secular
religions (ideologies) like Nationalism, Communism and
Fascism. Local, particular beliefs, customs,
economies, forms of government and mutual aid are
pushed aside by universalized belief systems and
national organizations. Abstract universals manifest
themselves in such collective forms as the Nation
State and the multi- national business corporation.
The bureaucrat is the personification of Modernity,
the Corporate State or State Capitalism its ultimate
political-economic form. State socialism, fascism,
social democracy and corporate liberalism, though
differing in the level of repression, have similar
results -- the destruction of individual freedom and
the growth of bureaucracy.With Post-Modernity comes a breakdown of
Rationalist certainty. "Progress" is increasingly
questioned. "Left" vs. "right" becomes obsolete.
Secular religions find ever fewer believers.(3) The
nation state begins to lose importance. Industrialism
tends to be replaced by a service and
information-based economy. De-bureaucratization
commences, (though so far, more in word than in deed.)
Terrorism and civil war lose what little "charm" they
might have possessed, for with Modernism, political
violence reached its apogee, with some 170,000,000
victims of wars, government- created famines, gulags
and gas-ovens. The highly integrated technology of
Post-Modernity makes humanity extremely vulnerable to
political violence, and thus, violent revolution
becomes unthinkable.(4)

The down-side of PM is that it pushes to the utmost
extreme the nihilism lying at the core of the
Modernist project. Post-Modernism perverts
individualism into narcissism. "Anarchism" in the
hands of PM nihilists becomes an ideological
rationalization for this narcissism. At the same
time, an intense spiritual and moral hunger exists,
exemplified in such perverse ways as New Ageism and
the New Absolutism found in technophobic
environmentalism and cult of Political Correctness.

The Quadruple Revolution

Modernity has seen four interconnected revolutions;
the technological revolution, the knowledge
revolution, the economic revolution and the
demographic revolution. The first of these is well
known, the others, less so. The knowledge revolution
is exemplified by the fact it took 1500 years for
knowledge to double. (From 1AD to 1500AD) By 1900 the
figure was down to 50 years. At present knowledge
doubles in five years. The economic revolution, most
especially its later phase, Fordism or mass
consumerism, raised the majority out of poverty in the
developed world. One result of this was the
demographic revolution. Life expectancy doubled and
infant mortality tumbled from 300 to 6 per thousand
births. The four revolutions are the most sweeping in
history. PM accelerates these revolutions and spreads
them to other parts of the world.

The Economy in the PM Era

Late Modernity saw the rise of state capitalism and
the giant corporation. Small business seemed to be
disappearing and wealth concentrating into ever fewer
hands. Many corporations practiced "vertical
integration". An auto manufacturer mined the iron ore,
rolled the steel etc. Corporations diversified
becoming "conglomerates". A soap company might own a
TV station, a flour mill and a supermarket chain. Late
Modernity saw an expansion of the corporate
bureaucracy, with as much as one third of employees
classified as supervisors.

Post Modernity found Late Mod business practices
inefficient. "Far better to do one thing well, than
many things poorly". Workers and lower management face
mass unemployment -- a kind of cannibalism of the
workforce. While only a minority of workers suffer
this upheaval, it has generated much general
insecurity and is a potential for future unrest. The
number of smaller companies has increased, even though
consolidation of the large corporations has not
stopped. (The new stripped-down firms are now buying
each other out.) However, the real growth in both
business and employment is in smaller industry. It is
far too early to say whether big companies are
becoming dinosaurs, but the economy is far more
complex than ever before.

PM brings with it a renewed importance of finance
capital, but a finance capital different from
Lenin's bug-bear. Modernity saw large-scale industry
owned by wealthy shareholders, many of whom were
bankers. Late Mod. saw the decline of the "family
corporation" and the self-financing of companies. Post
Modernity sees much investment capital in the hands
of institutional investors, such as insurance
companies, credit unions, trade union investment
funds, mutual funds and pension funds -- investments
held by the "middle class" worker. Many of the
problems facing the workforce (layoffs) and the
economy (instability) are a result of this vast pool
of money racing around the world chasing a higher
profit. In many respects, the "wicked capitalists" are
us.

The Nature of Class

In its destruction of traditional society,
Modernity seemed to be evolving in the direction of
Marx's two class model. With the sole exception of
England however, peasants and artisans made up a
majority or large minority of the population until the
second half of the 20th Century. At the point where
the two class concept was on the verge of realization,
Fordism intervened. Home ownership, automobiles,
vacations, higher education, appliances, all
previously the preserve of the traditional middle
class, in one generation, became the norm for working
people in the developed world..

Fordism made workers believe they were "middle
class". Thus Late Modernity saw a decline in the
notion of class, both among workers and the population
in general. (An auto worker, an electrician, a shop
owner and a notary all see themselves as "middle
class", sandwiched between the poor and wealthy
minorities.) As a result of their economic determinist
ideology, marxists(4) underestimated the importance of
status. For workers, the proof of a pudding is always
in the eating. They don't live by theories. If the
middle class owns houses and cars and Joe Plumber does
too, then Joe feels that he too, is middle class.

Post- Modernity leads even further away from the
simple marxist model. The population is split into:

a. middle class workers
b. low wage workers
c.
government employees
d. traditional self-employed
e.
new self- employed
f. underclass or
lumpenproletariat
g. the New Class
h. the
Corporate- Managerial Elite.

Along with these changes
comes a general decline in the importance of work,
both as a means of survival and of self- fulfillment.
People cease to measure themselves by what they do for
a living. Nor is it necessary to work all the time in
order to survive, as was the case only two generations
ago. In spite of these limitations, the notion of
class should not be jettisoned, it should just not be
overstated.

The State and Post-Modernity

While the state has lost some of its ability to
control the economy on a global scale, it has
moved into new areas of dominance. Education, child
rearing, interpersonal-relations, at one time the
purview of the family or the community, are now taken
over by the "Therapeutic State". A New Class rooted in
the State bureaucracy, the media and the university,
uses the Therapeutic State as a job creation device.
The state deliberately fosters dependency and creates
client populations who become statist pressure
groups.

State Capitalism has taken a slight battering.
Pressure to rein-in the
state has caused a minor reduction of statism in some
countries. Not as a result of some "right wing plot",
but a response to fundamental flaws in the state
capitalist system. It became all too evident that most
of what the state did was better done by non-statist
means. Centralization of decision-making left people
victims of distant bureaucrats. Working class tax
payers got tired of footing the bill. PM has thus seen
a rise in anti-government, decentralist, localist and
regionalist tendencies.

Globalization

With its siblings, fascism and leninism defeated,
liberal corporatism now rules the world unchallenged.
The possibility arises for a World Government
promoting its "ideals." Globalization is the ultimate
Modernist fantasy, and is the project of both the
corporate elite and the New Class, the latter
standing to gain important posts in the World State,
as well as retaining power in the satraps. Should
this occur, all particular and local customs will be
swept away by a universal consumer culture or turned
into harmless folk dances for tourists. Freedom is to
be reduced to a choice in consumer items. Everyone, as
in contemporary suburbia, is to be swathed in
regulations -- for "their own good", of course.
Democracy is to remain a choice between elites, with
any serious challenges to power marginalized.

But globalization is not as many people think,
global peonage, but global consumerism, Fordism
universalized, Brave New World, not 1984.(5)
(Corporate leaders are not stupid and have long
understood the poor are lost customers.) Hence, it is
much harder to confront, for if the poor thought they
were to stay mired in poverty, they might revolt, but
if it's Disney World for everyone?

If the decline of the nation state does not lead to
the revitalization of
community and genuine federalism, instead empowering a
supra-national body, we are in trouble. A global
government is a frightening development. In the past,
if leninists, fascists or other tyrants seized power,
you could flee. Not so with a World State.

Decent people concerned about such things as land
mines, the environment and global warming are being
used to promote global legislation. Since legislation
without enforcement is meaningless, global
bureaucracy and policing will result, and thus the
World State.

However, globalization remains more of a threat
than a reality. Remaking the world is not going
smoothly. The inability to deal with even "minor"
crises like Bosnia show its hollowness. Technology
that makes for instant capital transfer also makes for
instant communications among dissidents. An ever
growing number of people express doubts about the
plans laid for them. There are obstacles to economic
development. Corporate liberalism does not come easy
in countries where nepotism, corruption, and
totalitarianism have been the norm. One cannot adopt
corporate liberalism like putting on a new shirt,
as the Russians and SE Asians found out.

The Death of Marxism

Even as late as the 1960's, Marxism seemed to have
something to offer us. Small business was being
swallowed by large corporations and the independent
worker was disappearing -- as Marx said they would.
Today, the situation has reversed gear due to
technological changes unforeseen by Marx. There is a
steady growth in the numbers of self-employed and
small- medium businesses are on the "cutting edge".
(As well as being the largest employment-generators.)

Advances in paleontology, anthropology and
historical research have
shown Marx's concept of the origins of class and the
state to be a Hobbsian fable. It is also impossible to
discover the alleged transition point between
feudalism and capitalism in the 17th Century. Thus,
the foundations of Historical Materialism are no
longer certain.

Hegel scholars question Marx's understanding of the
philosopher and
studies of Hegel's notes (unknown in Marx's day)
reveal that he had made the synthesis of German
philosophy and British political economy 40 years
before the student from Trier told the world of his
discoveries. Nor did Marx "stand Hegel on his feet" --
he always was on the ground. Marx's dishonest and
insulting attacks upon his former friends -- like
Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin -- today, win few
converts to his cause.

The labor theory of value and the supposed decline
in the rate of profit have come under serious attack.
The "immizerization of the proletariat" and the
"tendency of wages to remain at the level of
subsistence" are simply embarrassing. For a while it
looked as though all labor might be reduced to
factory-like simplicity, yet Late Modernity brought
with it a mushrooming of skilled employment and a host
of new professions. The factory worker -- allegedly the
most revolutionary of workers -- has declined in
numbers and may soon join agricultural laborers as a
tiny fragment of the work force.

Marx's communism revealed itself as the purist of
utopias -- while many of the "Utopian Socialists" with
their co-operatives and Mutual Aid societies he
attacked have proven to be rather practical reformers.
Nowhere have workers ever attempted to institute
Marxian communism -- Bakuninist collectivism,
anarcho-syndicalism and Mutualism, yes, but to abolish
exchange and centrally plan the economy? Never. Nor
was Marx aware of the incredible difficulties involved
in setting up a planned economy. (And he could not
since he was neither a statistician or an accountant.)

Marx has now finally and truly been surpassed by
history and to remain a marxist is to engage in a
narrow and futile scholasticism like that of the Late
Middle Ages. Thus, he has almost nothing to offer us
for the development of a Post-Modern Anarchism.

Anarchism, Modernity, Post-Modernity

Modernity undermined the small community, the
independent producers, artisans and farmers. The
dominant tendency was economic and political
centralization, thus destroying any possibility for
a libertarian society. Anarchism can be seen in part
as a protest against this. Post-Modernity, however,
allows an opening for regionalism and the independent
worker. Modernity worked against us, PM, is at least
in some ways, working for us.

Anarchism was a product of Modernity, both
as an off-shoot of
Enlightenment thinking and as a reaction to the
Enlightenment and its
socio-economic manifestations. But anarchism
synthesized Enlightenment thought with pre-modern
communalism and mutualism. As such, anarchism had a
healthy rooted relationship with the past, not trapped
in Modernity's abstract universals, nor falling
completely into atavism like fascism or leninism. A
problem does remain nonetheless. While anarchism is
not completely of Modernity, many contemporary
anarchists still relate to the world in Modernist
terms. Hence the need for a specifically Post-Modern
anarchism.

A Post Mod. anarchism has to take into account the
developments in science and general knowledge since
the "classical period". Indeed, much anarchist
thinking has not caught up with Late Modernity, let
alone the Post Modern. This should not be a matter of
adopting in a pick and choose manner some aspect of
science or knowledge which appeals to our prejudices,
but a general and honest re-examination. We cannot
repeat the ideas of 19th Century thinkers without
taking into account contemporary developments in
anthropology, philosophy, psychology, physics,
economics and history.

How many anarchists look at the world with
absolutist concepts, when contemporary philosophy and
physics sees the world in terms of probability? Just
having the ability to construct a rational argument
and cease engaging in the logical fallacies favored in
political discussion would be a big step forward. How
many anarchists borrow chunks of 1930's marxist
economics? Why the unending chatter about "monopoly
capital", and "capitalist underdevelopment" as though
these were iron-clad facts? How many anarchists treat
human beings as rational actors, oblivious to the last
100 years of psychology? How many anarchists are
blithely unaware of contemporary social science with
its concept of the New Class and its critique of
ideology and Enlightenment Rationalism? And how many
anarchists have any knowledge of demography?

Post Modern pluralism should be adopted. The
exclusiveness of the past, when it was thought that
only syndicalism, only communalism, only
individualism, could bring about liberty, has to go.
All of these concepts are part of what creates a
liberatory movement. A person is not just a worker,
or someone living in a community, or even an
individual, but is all of these. Increased leisure
time has also made for greater social complexity.

Violent revolution is finished as an option, (If it
ever was one) a result of urbanization and an
ever-growing interdependence.

And what about the authoritarian left? Most
anarchists saw leftists as
misguided brethren and united with them -- and then
became their first
victims. Anarchists must follow through with their
libertarian argument -- the authoritarian left is not
"progressive" or "misguided" but is pure,
unadulterated, reaction or "red fascism". They are the
vanguard of state
capitalism and have nothing to offer us but prison and
death. Antiquated notions of class and "class
struggle" must not cause us to involve ourselves with
those who are among our worst enemies.

Post-Modernity also forces us to arrive at a clear,
precise statement about what constitutes anarchism.
This seems to contradict PM pluralism. Not so. With
the loss of the old certainties, people grasp at
anything maintaining a vestige of their past beliefs.
Some leftists have gravitated to what they call
anarchism, a most peculiar version which supports
marxist leninist "national liberationist" groups or
wants a stronger central government.(7) Post-Modern
nihilism has also become equated with anarchism. This
results in a great deal of confusion and thus the
concept of anarchism needs clarification as never
before.

One example of a supposed PM anarchism is found
with Michel Onfray's work, Politique du Rebelle, in
which he discusses the need for a "revolutionary
hedonism" -- at the very time corporate capitalism
promotes hedonism, whether "revolutionary" or or
otherwise. Onfray considers it "a reductionist error"
of the old anarchists to criticize statism, and
following his idols, Gilles Deleuze and Michel
Foucault, calls for an attack upon "the thousands of
rhizomes or molecules of authority" within society.
Rhizomes such as hostility toward immigrants, sexism,
homophobism etc. The problem with dropping
anti-statism is that it plays into the hands of the
Politically Correct Left who use opposition to these
alleged "rhizomes of authority" as a means of
increasing state power and the authority of the New
Class. Thus, Onfray is no more an effective critic of
authority than of contemporary capitalism. Anarchism
in his hands becomes incorporated into the state
capitalist system as a kind of counter-cultural Loyal
Opposition.

PM should not be used as an excuse for fuzzy
thinking or as a means of saying "anything goes". If
"anarchism" means any old thing, the term is
meaningless. We lose something. If anarchism is only
a sub-species of leninism or social democracy, it no
longer exists as a separate concept . Endorsing clear
anarchist principles does not imply sectarianism.
People who do not fully endorse such principles are
not enemies. They just aren't anarchists. To not be an
anarchist does not mean one is less of a person or
that one should be condemned. Anarchists must work
with and have always worked with, thousands of people
who accept only part of the message. This is the way
it is, and most likely will always be.

What about those people who go part way, who accept
some but not all of our message? What are they?
Certainly not anarchists. Perhaps those who accept
most of our ideas, who want less coercion, but cannot
find themselves going to the extent of supporting our
final goals, should be called libertarians. Those who
support only a portion of our ideas, say mutualism,
decentralism or federalism, should be called
mutualists, decentralists and federalists. No shame or
sectarianism should be implied in not being considered
an anarchist. There is nothing wrong with "merely"
being a libertarian or a decentralist. If people only
accept half of what we believe, we should be
overjoyed. Only fanatics demand everyone think
exactly as they do.

There have never been large numbers of anarchists.
As an example, at the turn of the century there were
hardly more than a few thousand anarchists in France.
Given this history, it is unlikely a "mass"
anarchist movement will arise and therefore we will
have to function alone, or within movements that
accept only part of our ideas. Such movements,
however, are not to be led by an anarchist vanguard.
We lead by example only, striving for ever greater
liberty. The primary goal must be that of liberty,
beginning with a reduction in the "thousand and one"
petty governmental tyrannies with which we are faced
daily. In order to do this, we need some kind of a
libertarian movement involving a large number of
people.

Such a movement cannot be based on wishful
thinking. Rather upon conditions and people as they
are, not how things "should be". Nor what some dogma
or theory tells us. Nor what might be, but for which
little or no evidence exists. If we need a "New Man"
forget it! Liberty must grow from existing humanity,
otherwise our goal is just another hopeless Pie-In-
The Sky utopia. Classical anarchists saw society
divided into a pole of authority and a pole of
liberty. If this judgment is true, libertarianism
exists in the real world. The task is to discover the
libertarian aspects and build upon them, at the same
time breaking down the authoritarian structures that
impede this liberty. It is not a matter of bringing
the truth to the ignorant -- the vanguardist mentality
-- but attempting to generalize from existing
libertarian practices.(8) These would include most
forms of voluntarism and self-reliance, as well as
social practices such as mutual aid, co-operation,
localism, federalism and free exchange.

The social (9) exists in a myriad of ways, often
hidden from the casual observer or the academic in his
ivory tower. Our task should be to reveal and support
these developments. Modernism glorified in the
destruction of the social, in the same way it praised
the obliteration of the traditional. This was
especially true of Marxism. The alienation of the
workers was supposed to lead them to revolt.
Unfortunately for this theory, the alienated tend
only to produce more alienation. The workers who
went farthest in their rebellion were precisely those
who had strong community roots and a long history of
mutual aid.

There is today, to a degree not existing in the
past, a deep hostility
toward government, politicians and bureaucrats. Nor is
there any love for corporations, the media, or any
other "authority figures". People want a say in the
community and the workplace and are deeply concerned
about the breakdown of community and ethics. A
libertarian movement could be constructed on this
basis. Yet, many anarchists have been chasing the
fleeting ghosts of 1890, or dreams of primitivism and
youth counter- cultures. The overwhelming majority of
the population has been ignored. Most of this
libertarian sentiment has been co-opted by
Neo-conservative politicians. Leftists, on the other
hand, ignore or attack this libertarian orientation,
since it runs counter to their neurotic statist
fantasies.

The contemporary working population is deeply
suspicious of ideology, emphasizing the here and now
and the practical. This has always been the case.
Lenin was right. Workers, on their own, will never
opt for "socialism", or any other fantasy. However,
instead of being a weakness, this practicality is a
strength. It made them wary of both Modernism's
universalist obsessions and Post-Modern nihilism.

There are also the remains of "traditional
communities". Modernism wrote these off as "people
without history", "a reactionary Vendee", "standing in
the way of Progress", or "sexist, racist and
homophobic rednecks". In the PM era existing
traditional societies, (rural and village society,
indigenous minorities) are an important force in
maintaining sociability. True, not all traditions are
beneficial, but neither can communal values be reduced
to cruelty.(10) However, with the advance of PM
nihilism, one is almost tempted to say that any
values are better than no values.

Eighty percent of the population working for
someone other than themselves is not a good basis for
community. The Early Modern workers' movements sought
to abolish the wage system. During Late Modernity
these movements were co-opted (or destroyed) by
Leninists and social democrats who abandoned this goal
for a more equitable consumption of consumer goods.
In the PM era it is time to reconsider the "abolition
of the wage system." Not through a communistic utopia,
but a movement based on contemporary developments.
There has been a major expansion of self employment
(10-15% growth p.a. in this sector) and vast growth
of capital ownership by workers through pension, trade
union and mutual funds. A possibility arises for a
PM version of the old mutualist ideal.

The complexity of the PM world makes a populist
approach almost
inevitable. How else can one pull together in
opposition to the Corporate Elite and the New Class
such diverse groups as white collar workers,
independent workers, retirees, students, minorities,
skilled workers, regionalists, traditional
communities, decentralists, small government
"conservatives", libertarians, co-operators, and
syndicalists? We have seen populism arise quite
naturally in the 1990's. Its drawback has been the
strong social conservatism which some people find
offensive. By no means all "social liberals" are
unabashed state cultists. Hence, so-called "right
wing" populism has tended to split the potential
anti-statist forces over social issues. The way to
overcome this problem is libertarian populism -- a
populism oriented to decentralization, the limiting of
the state, the promotion of mutual aid and leaving the
divisive social issues alone.

Does this mean a "political" movement? Gustav
Landauer said rather
than confronting the state directly, we must choose to
live in a different
manner. He was mostly correct. We have opted for
alternatives in housing, medicine, schooling, consumer
goods, media and forms of exchange. Indeed, much more
can be done in these areas. And to be effective,
libertarian populism must be rooted among people who
are already living this life to some extent.(11)
Without such a base, a movement has no foundation,
will defect at the first resistance and be vulnerable
to demagoguery.

But the contemporary state is vastly more intrusive
than 90 years ago. As only one example, there was no
income tax in Landauer's day. Since the state forces
the employer to deduct this tax from our pay, there is
no way we can resist this theft. While the increase in
the number of independent workers and barter systems
make governmental theft more difficult than it was 20
years ago, most people remain employees and thus the
state still has control. Like it or not, some aspects
of the state must be dismantled, which means a
movement working toward that end.

However, libertarian populism cannot be an
electoral movement. Populist movements are wrecked
by electoralism. The movement should exist outside
the parliamentary arena, as a continual and relentless
push for decentralization, authentic federalism,
mutualism and the dismantling of the state. Would
people support an extra-parliamentary opposition? All
polls and surveys show cynicism toward politicians and
the political process. Non-violent change, through
mass protests and civil disobedience, might well get a
hearing. We have the example of the 1989 East German
protests that overthrew the Stalinists. If it worked
under Red Fascism, why not under Elite Democracy?

Endnotes

1. Like the contemporary English anarchist Brian
Bamford, I too use the concept of Post- Modernism more
"out of convenience rather than conviction" and refuse
to make a fetish out of the idea. (FREEDOM Letters,
Nov. 15 1997) It should also be noted that the title
of this pamphlet is "Toward a Post-Modern Anarchism"
-- only the beginning of a discussion.

2. By Enlightenment I mean the French, not the
Scottish or American Enlightenments. The latter were
based upon Empiricism and therefore suspicious of
Rationalist Universalism, politically opposed to
Rousseau and in favor of limiting the power of
government.

3. Totalism and utopianism do not necessarily imply
"totalitarianism", yet the pursuit of these phantoms
often led in that direction. The early workers
movement emphasized the practical with its trade
unions, mutual aid societies and co-ops. When the
intellectuals took over, abstract ideas began to
predominate.

4. See "Death By Government" by E. J. Rummel and "Le
Livre Noir du Communism" by Bartosek, Courtois, et al.

5. "marxists" or "marxism" does not necessarily refer
to Marx's theories, but the ideology of marxism,
often a different kettle of fish.

6. Nor is globalism a conspiracy. It is merely an
extension to the world level of what exists in North
America. The goals of global government and global
consumerism have never been hidden.

7. See Noam Chomsky's statement in "The Progressive",
March 1996: Right now I'd like to strengthen the
Federal government. If this is an example of
"anarchism", what hope is there?

8. This is a highly orthodox view. Proudhon, Tucker,
Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tolstoy, and Landauer (among
others) saw libertarianism rooted in existence, not
something cooked up and served by revolutionary chefs
to a mindless mass.

9. The "social" and "sociability" do not refer to
"socialism" or any other ideology, but to the
voluntary, co-operative efforts of people living in a
community or united in a mutual aid association.
Obviously, the social can only fully exist where
liberty predominates. Only fools (or intellectuals)
believe liberty and community to be ultimately in
conflict.

10. Examples of such cruel traditions include female
genital mutilation and the "sport" of fox hunting.

11. The libertarian workers movement had a host of
mutual aid societies, associations, newspapers,
schools, etc. Late 19th Century American populism was
rooted in the co-operative movement.