En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

vendredi, 18 mai 2018

Keith Preston: Who Am I?


Keith Preston: Who Am I? 1

Ex: http://www.attackthesystem.com 

This is the transcript of an interview I recently did with a Swiss journal.

In your book “Attack the System” you describe the current ideology of the West as a “totalitarian humanism,” yet you claim to be to the left of Marx (I am referring to a statement you made on the Tom Woods Show). You describe yourself as an anarchist, yet you hold speeches at Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute. Please tell us: Who is Keith Preston?

I am to the left of Marx in the sense that anarchism was always the left-wing opposition to Marxism. This was true even in the period before the First International when anarchists such as Pierre Joseph Proudhon and Max Stirner would voice their opposition to state-socialism of the kind championed by Marx and his predecessors like Louis Blanc. Marx was so incensed by these attacks from anarchists that he devoted considerable effort to his own counterattacks. For example, much of Marx’s The German Ideology is an attack on Stirner, and Marx’s The Poverty of Philosophy is an attack on Proudhon. It was anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin that led the opposition to the influence of Marxism in the First International, for which the Bakuninists were expelled. Bakunin was a prophetic opponent of state-socialism and predicted that if the Russian socialist revolutionaries ever gained state power they would become as tyrannical as the czars ever were. Bakunin essentially predicted much of the course of the twentieth century when state-socialist regimes ruled one third of the world’s nations. The anarchists were not only critics of the state, including state-socialism, but were also early critics of imperialism and colonialism during the heyday of these in the nineteenth and twentieth century. Marx and Engels, on the other hand, were champions of imperialism and colonialism, believing these to be historically progressive forces. All of these questions are examples of why I, as an anarchist, am to the left of Karl Marx.

KPB2.jpgI have spoken to the National Policy Institute on two occasions. I spoke there in 2011, and presented a critique of mass immigration that pointed out that large scale migration of the kind that modern societies are experiencing is something that is being driven by the entire range of power elite institutions at the expense of the native populations and working classes of particular societies. The impact of mass migration is to import a “reserve army of labor,” a nice Marxist term, into the advanced capitalist societies for the purpose of wage suppression and exacerbating social conflict in a way that undermines working class cohesion and solidarity. This has the effect of strengthening the forces of state and capital, while simultaneously depriving the developing and underdeveloped world of human capital thereby undermining development and progress in poor countries. The liberal class supports this process because it allows them to pose as cosmopolitan humanitarians while advancing their own class interests and political interests.

I spoke at the National Policy Institute again in 2015 where I presented a critique of American imperialism as a unique and perhaps unprecedented threat to the survival of the world’s many ancient and unique cultures. These are being absorbed in the homogeneity of cultural imperialism driven by the commercial culture that the United States seeks to impose on the world by means of neoliberal hegemony. This is a process that many specialists in international relations have referred to as “McDonaldization,” “Wal-Martization,” or simply as “Americanization.” During that presentation I focused to a great degree on the Americanization of Europe, which I felt to be appropriate given the Eurocentric orientation of the National Policy Institute, although I could have just as easily focused on Southeast Asia, the Middle East or the Amazon rain forests. But what I said at the National Policy Institute was essentially the same as what I would say if I were speaking to a Communist or Islamist organization. I am interested in networking with all enemies of neoliberal imperialism.

What exactly do you mean when you say “totalitarian humanism”?

Totalitarian humanism is a term that I took from a countercultural writer many years ago who suggested that a phenomenon called “totalitarian humanism” was developing into a third wave of totalitarian political ideology in the developed world. The first of wave was Communism which claimed to be liberating the working class from capitalist oppression. The second wave was Fascism or Nazism which claimed to be advancing the interests of allegedly superior races and nations over allegedly inferior ones. The third wave is Totalitarian Humanism which claims to be advancing the interests of all of humanity, but in reality postulates the same kind of dualistic millenarianism rooted in out-group enmity, and with the same double standards, mendacity, and authoritarianism that were found in these older totalitarian ideologies.

KPB3.jpgWe see many different examples of this. On a localized level, we see examples of the state attempting to micromanage every aspect of life for the purpose of advancing some kind of therapeutic, egalitarian, or ostensibly humanitarian objective. This include everything from banning smoking in pubs, to arresting parents for allowing children to play outside unsupervised, to levying special taxes on foods and beverages for social engineering purposes. We also see examples of the state attempting to subjugate local communities, regions, the private sector, and civil society for the purpose of imposing ostensibly progressive values on all of these competing centers of power. This has the effect of eroding zones of autonomy that serve as a bulwark against the state. We see the example of people being removed from their professional or academic positions for expressing ideas that defy progressive orthodoxy. The worst example is what I call “human rights imperialism,” which involves destroying entire nations such as Libya and Iraq under the guise of rescuing them from oppression.

In your political evolvement you went from the Christian right to the far left, from there to libertarianism and after that to the militia movement. At the end of this journey you call yourself an anarcho-pluralist. What is the worldview that stands behind this term?

Anarcho-pluralism is a term that I first heard from an anarchist named Sam Dolgoff many years ago. He was a veteran of the classical anarchist movement of the early twenty first century, and had written extensively about the Spanish Civil War. He used the term anarcho-pluralism to describe his embrace of the range of anarchist thought in terms of potential forms of economic self-organization by the working class. I use the term in a similar but more expansive way. It is an umbrella term that I use to describe the entire range of anarchist thought and tendencies, as well as libertarian, decentralist, anti-state, and anti-authoritarian movements and ideologies generally.

In your book you contrast that with what you refer to as “neoliberal imperialism.” Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Neoliberal imperialism is a term that is meant to subscribe the system of global plutocratic rule by means of the G20, individual states that are aligned with the major military and trading blocks, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, NATO, transnational corporations, and the wider network of financial, business, media, academic, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations that are connected to this system. At present, for example, about 150 corporations control nearly half of the world’s wealth, and about 200 states control virtually all of the world’s territory.

How would an anarcho-pluralist movement look like and what strategy would it apply, especially given the widely varying conceptions different anarchists have of things like ethics and property rights?

Anarcho-pluralism would involve efforts to decentralize systems of political and economic power into the hands of regions, localities, voluntary associations, and other kinds of communities and organizations that are comprised of people pursing their own interests, whether individually or collectively, in a way that is independent of the state or other external institutions. I do not see anarcho-pluralism, or pan-anarchism, as a prescription for any particular kind of organizational forms, specific sets of economic arrangements, positions on social issues, or as anything which favors any set of identity groups or value systems over others. Rather, anarcho-pluralism could include an infinite array of interests of these kinds, from indigenous tribes that prefer a pre-modern existence, to religious monasteries, to hippie communes, to Afro-centric or neo-pagan or LGBTQ or vegan and animal rights oriented communities, to medieval or Star Trek themed communities, to Islamic or Hasidic or Kekistan communities, to rave partiers to those who dream of colonizing space with communities of robots, from nudist colonies to conservative religious communities, or just ordinary, boring centrist communities.

KPB4.jpgJust as anarcho-pluralism might include an infinite array of values systems and identity or affinity groups, it might also include a similar array of strategies. These could include secession movements that wish to proliferate the number of sovereign countries, regions, and localities, the creation of micronations and independent municipalities, to those building seasteads on the oceans, to anarcho-syndicalist labor unions and worker cooperatives, to mutual aid societies, to the practice of agorist countereconomics, to civil disobedience or independent militias, to alternative currencies, to any kinds of communities, organizations and activities that are functioning independently of the state and which will be the prototypes for the eventual elimination of the state. What I have mentioned are only a few examples.

What is your biggest critique of the current mainstream anarchism in the United States?

The mainstream anarchist movement in North America is largely a youth subculture rather than a political movement. To the degree that mainstream anarchism is politically serious at all, it largely limits itself to a focus standard left-progressive issues, and largely renders itself to being not much different from the local precinct chapter of the Democratic Party as a result. A much more serious issue with mainstream anarchism involves the fact that most anarchists have yet to fully comprehend Nietzsche’s critique of slave morality or Stirner’s critique of humanism, much less incorporate these ideas into their paradigm. Many dissidents from the dominant slave morality paradigm within the general anarchist milieu often error in the other direction and become reactionaries. An example would be those former libertarians that have embraced the neo-reactionary movement, the alt-right or neo-fascism. I am in favor of the development of a form of anarchism that is in opposition to slave morality but without embracing reaction. I suppose you could say that I represent the post-postmodern revolutionary post-left.

In chapter 1 of “Attack the System” you delve into the philosophical foundations of anarchism and you exclusively name German thinkers: Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Stirner and Ernst Jünger. Let’s go through them: How has Nietzsche laid the foundations for modern-day anarchism and what can he tell us about the crisis of the West?

kpb5.jpgNietzsche was not an anarchist. What Nietzsche did was issue the most serious reply to anarchists and one that anarchists have yet to address. Nietzsche considered the political Left to be a modernized, secularized version of Christian morality, in the sense of the idea of the suffering just and notions like the least will be the first, and he considered anarchists to be the Left’s version of fundamentalist true believers. This critique is absolutely correct, and this is why so many mainstream anarchists have such a pronounced inclination towards the persecution of anyone they deem insufficiently progressive that have become the modern versions of heretics. This is why we see ostensibly “anarchist” Antifa thugs attacking peaceful people who are engaged in the exercise of free speech. Until anarchists examine this flaw in their own thinking, and make the necessary changes in their own actions, they will never be anything more than a prototype for a new kind of authoritarian statism of the kind that I call “totalitarian humanism.”

Nietzsche also thought Western civilization was headed for an existential crisis that was rooted in the loss of traditional cultural, religious, moral and philosophical ideas, and that modern ideologies were an effort to find an appropriate substitute. He correctly surmised that these substitutes would prove to be unsatisfactory and that by the twenty-first century Western civilization would be faced with the crisis of nihilism. The only possible resolution of this crisis, in Nietzsche’s view, was the “transvaluation of values,” which would in turn involve a process of both individual and collective “self-overcoming,” and ultimately “becoming who we are,” once again on both the individual and collective level.  I am inclined towards the view that Nietzsche regarded the pre-Socratics, particularly the Sophists, as a kind of prototype for what a post postmodern world might maintain as a philosophical or intellectual foundation. If so, this would represent of a kind of cyclical process that involved a return to a kind of primordial essence. In fact, I am inclined towards the view that this is what Nietzsche meant by his concept of “eternal recurrence.”

How about Stirner?

Stirner was a very similar to thinker to Nietzsche in the sense of recognizing that, as Stirner himself put it, “our atheists are very pious men.” Like Nietzsche, he recognized that humanism of the kind that came out of the Enlightenment was not a rejection of religion or even of Christianity as much as a kind of secularized Christian heresy. I am inclined to think that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner in an unacknowledged way, and that Nietzsche’s concept of the overman was essentially rooted in Stirner’s idea of a society that consisted of a union of egoists with the idea that the overman would be the product of the union of egoists. However, it is interesting that we have self-proclaimed egoists today who utterly fail to grasp this concept.

And what is Ernst Jüngers contribution?

Ernst Junger’s later work is particularly important for the purposes of cultivating a well-developed philosophical anarchism, especially his novel “Eumeswil” where he introduces the idea of the “Anarch.” During his elder years, Junger was less of a social or political critic, and was instead focused on how the individual might achieve an inner freedom in the face of persistent tyranny that abounds on an external level. His thinking on this question was heavily influenced by Stirner and also resembles certain Buddhist precepts in many ways. The core idea of the Anarch is one that renounces authority on an internal basis even if one does not defy authority on an external basis. The Anarch grants loyalty to nothing but his or her own thoughts and thereby achieves a kind of inward resolution of conflict. However, there is another way in which Junger’s thought is relevant to anarchism and that is his conception of a warrior ethos that stands in opposition to slave morality. An anarchist that was guided by the ideas of Nietzsche, Stirner, or Junger would not be a religious zealot persecuting those who have sinned against slave morality, but an egoist that is both internally self-liberated, and engaged in warfare against external authority as an expression of self-overcoming or becoming who they are.

What is your personal critique of modernity?

Modernity is a model of civilization where traditional institutions have largely been eradicated and replaced by the dominance of the impersonal corporate state that rules as an abstract entity even as its personnel changes. The features of modernity are the public administration bureaucracy, mass society dominated by mass institutions and organizations, the hegemony of commercial values and consumerism with social status largely conferred on the basis of one’s capacity for what Thorstein Veblen called “conspicuous consumption,” technology fused with scientism, therapeutism egalitarianism replacing theocratic traditionalism as the foundation of civil values, sophisticated systems of propaganda promulgated by the mass media and the public relations and advertising industries, the rise of the culture industry, the erosion of intermediary institutions, atomized individualism, and the erosion of individual identity except for that of subject of the state, worker, and consumer. Modernity is essentially a replication of feudalism but within the context of a commercial and technologically driven society where mass bureaucratic institutions assume the role of the new manorial systems.

kpb6.jpgYou engage in conversations with all anarchist camps, yet refuse to pick a label for yourself except for “anarchist without adjectives.” Which critique would you voice specifically towards Anarcho-Capitalism?

Anarcho-Capitalism is the mirror image of Anarcho-Communism in the sense that just as Anarcho-Communism runs the risk of degenerating into Big “C” Communism so does Anarcho-Capitalism runs the risk of degenerating into Big “C” Capitalism and becoming a new kind of plutocratic rule. I would have parallel critiques of virtually any school of anarchist thought, from anarcho-primitivism to anarcho-transhumanism. For example, I am neither an Austrian nor a Marxist when it comes to economic critiques but instead to draw from the better ideas of multiple schools of economic thought. That might include the Marxist or Austrian paradigms in certain ways, but no more so than it would include, for example, the paradigms of behavioral economics or institutional economics. Rather, it is necessary to critique systems of power wherever they appear, and in whatever kind of context, whether political, economic, or social. I am heavily influenced by elite theory in this regard, as well as a range of critics of power from Bertrand Russell to Michel Foucault.

What is your personal brand of anarchism grounded in? Utilitarianism? The self-ownership of one’s own body?

I am neither a utilitarian nor do I subscribe to self-ownership theory which is a derivate of Locke’s natural rights doctrine. I see these ideas as particular to the tradition of English liberalism, which is a fine tradition but not one that represents universal principles. Instead, I regard Anarchist philosophy a representing an intellectual trajectory that can be traced back to Zeno and Diogenes in the West and Zhaung Zhou and Lao-tzu in the East, and which has prototypes in all sorts of indigenous, traditional, and pre-modern societies. Anarchism crystallized as a modern intellectual movement during the time of the Enlightenment with both a left and right wing dimension, with many different cousins and distant relatives, and which continues to evolve and assume new forms over time. Anarchism can be Dorothy Day and Ivan Illich, or it can be the Situationists or the Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade. It is necessary to move away from singular models and closed systems towards pluralistic models and open-ended systems.

Let’s say you were able to recommend one thinker to the readers of eigentümlich frei, who would make them question their premises. Who would that be?

The thinker that I would recommend would depend on the general political and cultural orientation of the individual I was speaking with. For someone who was more left-leaning, I might recommend Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon,” or Carl Schmitt’s “The Concept of the Political.” Koestler’s work illustrates very well the legacy of oppression that has historically been perpetrated by ostensibly “progressive” regimes. Schmitt challenges utopian illusions in favor of an uncompromising realism. Leftists of any kind have a bad habit of thinking only conservatives and reactionaries can be tyrants. For someone who was more right-leaning, I might recommend Peter Gay’s “The Enlightenment” or Stefan Zweig’s “The Right to Heresy.” Rightists of any kind have a bad habit of glorifying the past as having been better than it really was. In reality, the past was often quite terrible. One particular thinker whose works I would recommend to both leftists and rightists would be Thomas Szasz, a heterodox psychiatrist who developed a classical liberal-influenced critique of the modern therapeutic state.

What is your favourite anarchist thinker and why?

I can’t say that I have a single favorite anarchist thinker.  I am influenced by too many thinkers in anarchist and related traditions to identify one that really stands out. Philosophically, I am the closest to Stirner. I am closest to Proudhon on economics. I very much appreciate Bakunin as a class theorist, particularly his emphasis on the lumpenproletariat, as well as a strategist and critic of Marxism. Kropotkin’s analysis of the historical development of the state is similar to my own. I am in general agreement with Voline’s critique of the limitations of Platformism. I also very much appreciate the American individual-anarchist tradition. The organizational methods employed by the Spanish anarchist movement are worthy of study. There is an English anarchist writer named Peter Marshall that has produced a voluminous history of anarchism that outlines a trajectory that is very similar to the one that I used when describing the anarchist tradition. There is an anarchist anthropologist named Harold Barclay that has examined anarchist trends in pre-modern societies. If I had to pick one of the more well-known figures from history, it would probably be Voltairine de Cleyre since her “anarchism without adjectives” approach is very similar to my own. Another tradition I admire is panarchism which was first formulated by Paul Emile de Puydt, and the leading contemporary proponent of which is John Zube. I am also pleased to see the ongoing proliferation of new forms of anarchism, and the blending of anarchist ideas with those that have been accumulated from a vast range of other traditions. Tendencies such as Green anarchism, Christian anarchism, black anarchism, national-anarchism, anarcha-feminism, indigenous anarchism, post-colonial anarchism, Islamic anarchism, queer anarchism, anarcho-monarchism, anarcho-transhumanism, and geo-anarchism are examples of these ideas.

I’d like to end the interview with the words you chose to start your book with: “To all enemies of the state, whoever they are and wherever they may be.” Any objections?’

No objections at all. I would say that is an excellent way to end any statement or conversation.

13:15 Publié dans Entretiens | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : keith preston, amérique, états-unis, anarchisme, entretien | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

mercredi, 07 février 2018

The Frankfurt School and the New Left: Sorcerer's Apprentices and Hobgoblins

The Frankfurt School and the New Left:
Sorcerer's Apprentices and Hobgoblins

Ex: https://equityandfreedom.com

And the 'terrible waters' they have wrought since 1968.

The activities of the Frankfurt School, the group of intellectuals which spawned the New Left, the movement that from 1968 onwards captured the cultural hegemony in the West, can be likened to the story of the ‘Sorcerer’s Apprentice’.

This famous ballad by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is known in the English-speaking world primarily due to the cinematic rendering of it in Walt Disney’s ‘Fantasia’, with Mickey Mouse in the title role. The creators of the ten-minute cartoon episode remained fairly true to the original, with these exceptions: Goethe’s apprentice does not fall asleep, and he hacks the bewitched broom in two only, not in innumerable splinters. A third deviation comes right at the end: In the original, the sorcerer doesn’t whack his wayward assistant with the broom. Instead, the returning senior wizard simply puts everything back in order. There is no mention of any sanction at all. Prompted maybe by Paul Dukas’ compelling and in parts spooky music (a symphonic poem composed 1897 specifically with Goethe’s ballad in mind), Disney’s filmmakers may simply have assumed the punishment and the other changes.

In the German-speaking world, one line of the poem is often cited when describing a development over which the instigator has lost control: ‘Die ich rief, die Geister, werd’ ich nun nicht los.’ Which translates into: The spirits which I summoned, I now cannot get rid of.

What’s interesting in this context is that Goethe wrote the ballad in the year 1797, according to Wikipedia as a warning to his contemporaries in view of developments in France after the revolution.

Disney’s Fantasia makes no mention of Goethe, although their version is quite obviously based on his poem. Possibly because, by the time the film was being made in 1940, talk of looming war made it inexpedient to mention the great German. Instead, the introduction simply says it is an ‘ancient tale.’


So, how does this ballad relate to the Frankfurt School and their doings in the real world? It is now half a century since the pivotal year of 1968, when people – mostly young and impressionable – across the whole West, inspired by the Frankfurt School, started their infamous ‘long march through the institutions.’ These ‘68ers’ can be divided into two groups: Sorcerer’s apprentices and hobgoblins.

The sorcerer’s apprentices are those who with their words change – not a broom, but – other humans into the equivalent of hobgoblins and set them in motion. The latter become the water carriers for the former, until a few of the apprentices (by far not all), appalled at the ‘terrible waters’ (‘entsetzliches Gewässer’) thus rendered, desperately try to dispel the new evil.

The representatives of the Frankfurt School, the intellectuals of the so-called ‘critical theory,’ are, or were, real life sorcerer’s apprentices. ‘Critical theory’ is not actually a theory but a school of thought, or rather a project. According to its leading theorist, Max Horkheimer (1895 – 1973), critical theory seeks “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.” According to the German Wikipedia page on the subject, the aim of critical theory is to “reveal the ideologies of the mechanisms of power and oppression” and to achieve a “rational society of responsible human beings.”


On the face of it, this all sounds well and good. However, if those really are the aims, why do we never hear anything from that group about our monetary system? Maybe I’ve overlooked something, but I don’t think any representative of the Frankfurt School has ever seriously grappled with, say, the Austrian business cycle theory. Indeed, the words ‘rational society’ indicate a very different tradition from that of the Austrians, namely that of Plato and his notion of philosopher kings, who were permitted unethical means, such as the ‘noble lie,’ to attain the overarching aim.

The only person who was in any way close to the attitudes of the Frankfurt School and who had seriously dealt with economics, was of a slightly earlier generation, namely John Maynard Keynes (1883 – 1946). Leading Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises once wrote an article titled ‘Stones into Bread: The Keynesian Miracle,’ in which he charges the British mathematician turned economist with exactly that: bragging to be able to perform an economic miracle akin to one of the demands with which Satan tempted Jesus Christ.

In other words, Keynes too was a sorcerer’s apprentice of the kind Goethe described. Ethically and morally too, he was of the same corrosive substance as the Frankfurt School thinkers. He was a serial philanderer and described himself as an ‘immoralist.’ As such, the Platonist Keynes anticipated what leading Frankfurt School representative Herbert Marcuse (1898 – 1979) propagated in his book ‘Eros and Civilization.’ Marcuse claimed that liberation of the ‘non-procreative Eros’ would lead to new, paradisiacal conditions, where alienated labor would disappear and be replaced by non-alienated libidinal work.


As Keynes despised principles, among others the principle of solid financing, he was an early representative of the present relativism and the modern sorcerer’s apprentice of magical money proliferation. Without this – today pervasive – deliberate inflation, there would be much less money illusion, much less loitering, much less financing of unproductive, dreamy, or even destructive activities and organizations. His cynical adage, in the long run we are all dead, is virtually the paragon of willful present-orientation and dismissal of the future, which is characteristic of the basic attitude to life among today’s representatives of the New Left, and of their followers, conscious or otherwise.

Marcuse, in turn, was the creator of the term ‘repressive tolerance.’ What he meant was that normal tolerance actually serves to marginalise and suppress the truth about our immiseration (or impoverishment) in the ruling system. Contrary to that, Marcuse established the term ‘liberating tolerance.’ He simply claimed that revolutionary minorities are in possession of the truth and that it is therefore their duty to liberate the majority from their fallacious views. Thus the revolutionary minorities have the right to suppress rival and supposedly harmful opinions. In addition, Marcuse also permitted the use of violence by this revolutionary minority. He legitimised this use of force as ‘defensive.’ It isn’t the beginning of a new chain of violence, he claimed, but the attempt to break an existing one.

This kind of misuse of language was typical of the Frankfurt School. Another example is immiseration. Because the Marxist theory of immiseration had been refuted by reality, the thinkers of the New Left switched from economics to psychology. Now they claimed that while capitalism had lead to material wealth, it had caused psychological and intellectual immiseration.

What is also striking, apart from the distortion of words and meanings, is the predominance of negativity. As the name indicates, ‘critical theory’ was always keen to criticise. Their utopia always remained very woolly. The reason for this is simple: Otherwise they would have had to admit that their vision was that of communism. Nevertheless, clear-sighted contemporaries realised this even in 1968. In that year, Erwin K. Scheuch edited a book about the ‘68ers and gave it the title ‘Die Wiedertäufer der Wohlstandsgesellschaft,’ meaning ‘The Anabaptists of the Affluent Society.’ In this book he wrote that the New Left wanted an ‘undifferentiated society,’ without division of labor. It seems that Marx’s vision that in future people would hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, farm livestock in the evening and criticise after dinner, is still the vision of the New Left even today.

lukacs.jpgHowever, the Frankfurt School suggested a different road to the communist paradise than that chosen by Lenin and Stalin in Soviet Russia. The direct intellectual precursors of the Frankfurt School, the Italian Antonio Gramsci (1891 – 1937) and the Hungarian Georg Lukács (1885 – 1971) (photo), had recognized that further west in Europe there was an obstacle on this path which could not be eliminated by physical violence and terror: the private, middle class, classical liberal bourgeois culture based on Christian values. These, they concluded, needed to be destroyed by infiltration of the institutions. Their followers have succeeded in doing so. The sorcerer's apprentices of the Frankfurt School conjured up an army of hobgoblins who empty their buckets over us every day. Instead of water, the buckets are filled with what Lukács had approvingly labelled ‘cultural terrorism.’

The hobgoblins of 1968 and the following years, mostly students, later became lecturers, teachers, media employees, civil servants and of course politicians. They and their later progeny are endowed with a sense of mission and the illusion of being on the side of moral righteousness. In thousands of more or less important, but always influential, positions of authority, they succeed in injecting entire generations with a disgust for their own culture and history, and a selective inability to think. With their allegedly liberating tolerance, they have torn down natural or culturally nurtured inhibitions and replaced them with state enforced prohibitions on thinking and acting. These in turn have almost completely destroyed the natural workings and defense mechanisms of a healthy society.

How could they have been so successful in such a short space of time? The sorcerer's apprentices apparently managed to fill a psycho-spiritual gap in the market; they supplied a demand keenly felt by those they turned into hobgoblins. The market niche to fill was an apparent shortcut to paradise. The sorcerer's apprentice in Goethe's ballad transforms the broom into a hobgoblin, so that it can do the hard work of carrying water for him. Likewise, we are always tempted to find a shortcut to paradise. Just as Keynes did with his monetary policy, which would allegedly turn proverbial stones into bread.

eroscivpostcard400pxh-198x300.jpgThe sorcerer's apprentices of the Frankfurt School dreamt of a communist paradise on earth. Initially, among the hard left they were the only ones aware of the fact that this brutal path to paradise would fail. With the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, however, this failure was obvious to all. This was the New Left’s moment. It was only then that they got any traction and noticeable response. At least in Western Europe. In the US, this moment of truth may have come a little later. Gary North contends in his book ‘Unholy Spirits’ that John F. Kennedy’s death was “the death rattle of the older rationalism.” A few weeks later, Beatlemania came to America. However, the appearance of the book ‘Silent Spring’ by Rachel Carson in September 1962, which heralded the start of environmentalism, points to the Berlin Wall as the more fundamental game changer in the West. A few years later, the spellbound hobgoblins began their long march through the institutions.

Half a century after 1968, we see the catastrophic effects of this magic: a desire for instant gratification and a loss of meaning of life. The desire for instant gratification can be seen in the destruction of established institutions, especially the family, and in the countless number of abortions. Or in unbounded sexuality and the supremacy of the pleasure principle. Loss of meaning of life can be recognized in drug abuse, for example. Other effects are the dulling of the mind, a lack of general, all-round education, uncritical acceptance of claims that cannot be falsified, such as that of a supposedly man-made climate change, the acceptance of violence as a means of political debate and, of course, the cultural bursting of the dam concerning migration.

The sorcerer’s apprentices have become very quiet lately. Maybe some of them are shocked by what they have wrought. At least two of them could see what was happening even in 1968 and tried to stop the unfolding catastrophe. One of them was Theodor W. Adorno (1903 – 1969). The other was his student Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929). In the face of disrupted lectures and rising violence in general, they accused the radicals of ‘left-wing fascism.’ Like Goethe’s apprentice, they realised they had created a ‘spawn on hell’ (‘Ausgeburt der Hölle’). They tried to stop the hobgoblins with a new spell, but failed.

Currently, some people are trying to turn things around with other spells. The spells of these new sorcerer’s apprentices use magic words such as ‘nation’ and ‘the people.’ Like their predecessors, they believe that they can use the state as a magic wand, e.g. to force children into schools to learn certain world views, and everything will be all right again.

So far, none of them, neither the older nor the younger apprentices, are calling for the ‘master’ to return, as Goethe’s apprentice does in desperation near the end. However, the ‘cultural terrorism’ keeps flowing, and the ‘terrible waters’ are rising alarmingly. The legacy of the revolt of 1968 is a complete catastrophe for western civilization. This civilization had already been suffering from the disease of statism, but nevertheless had survived two world wars and one depression. Now, the culture war is finishing it off. The result is a society that still harbours some civilizing elements, but is no longer a civilization. It is merely a shaky structure that has not yet collapsed completely, but only because the hobgoblins have not yet managed to create a strong enough wave.

What can be done? First, we need to stop using the state like a magic wand. We have to urgently defund the hobgoblins. That means defunding, i.e. withdrawing the state from, the universities, schools and media that keep them on the move. However, there is something more fundamental we must do. We have to recognise that there’s no short cut to paradise. We have to call the ‘master.’ In Goethe’s ballad, this is a master sorcerer. Goethe himself seems to have been an agnostic. Nevertheless, I interpret this figure as the Creator. Disney’s film makers seem to have had a similar idea, consciously or not. The way they depict the master removing the water, accompanied by Dukas’ dramatic music, reminds the viewer of Moses parting the sea.


In his ‘The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,’ C.S. Lewis has Aslan, the Christ-like lion, talk of ‘deeper magic’ that is more powerful than that of the White Witch. Mises’ Student Murray Rothbard spoke of ‘Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature.’ For those who believe, state-funded, forced egalitarianism is a revolt against God. To successfully combat this illusory magic, we ultimately need God’s ‘deeper magic.’

Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said, in a speech entitled ‘Godlessness: the first step to the Gulag’: ‘If I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, ... I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.’

In the face of the atrocities of the French Revolution, Goethe predicted in his ballad that, in the end, only the ‘master’ would be able to finally stop the march of the hobgoblins and make everything right again. We would do well to remember that when we attempt to put a stop to the New Left’s evil game.

The above is a translation and adaptation of a speech given by Robert Grözinger at the “eigentümlich frei” conference in Zinnowitz, Germany, on January 14, 2018.

mardi, 07 novembre 2017

Redécouvrir et relire Proudhon avec Thibault Isabel


Les Entretiens de Métamag :

Redécouvrir et relire Proudhon avec Thibault Isabel

Thibault Isabel
Docteur ès lettres, philosophe, rédacteur en chef de la revue Krisis et collaborateur d’Éléments

Interviewé par Michel Lhomme

Ex: https://metamag.fr

Juste avant l’été, le rédacteur en chef de Krisis, Thibaut Isabel faisait l’événement dans les milieux de la dissidence avec la publication de son livre sur Proudhon, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, l’anarchie sans désordre, préfacé par Michel Onfray et publié aux éditions Autrement. Le romancier Alain Santacreu l’avait recensé pour Métamag  et un colloque Krisis auquel nous vous avions conviés avait même été organisé à l’espace Moncassin dans le 15ème arrondissement.

Proudhon n’a jamais été aussi actuel et on attend avec impatience la sortie annoncée du prochain numéro de Nouvelle Ecole consacré à l’anarchiste français. C’était le moment opportun pour nous entretenir avec l’auteur Thibaut Isabel. Métamag.

Michel Lhomme : Votre dernier livre sur Pierre-Joseph Proudhon est sorti en juin. Pourriez-vous nous le présenter en quelques mots et surtout nous expliquer les raisons qui vous ont poussé à l’écrire ?

Thibaut Isabel : Depuis l’effondrement du communisme, le monde moderne vit dans l’idée qu’il n’existe plus d’alternative viable au libéralisme. « There is no alternative », disait déjà Margaret Thatcher. Or, nous oublions tout simplement que ces alternatives existent toujours, à condition d’en revenir au socialisme pré-marxiste, qui n’avait rien à voir avec le collectivisme stalinien. Proudhon offre une pensée contestataire à visage humain, incompatible avec le goulag et la dictature du prolétariat. Il nous permet ainsi de repenser le présent à la lueur des idéaux oubliés du passé. C’est pour cela qu’il est utile et qu’il nous faut absolument le relire.

proudhonYhIs.jpgProudhon est un autodidacte, il vient d’un milieu modeste et, toute sa vie, il devra travailler pour vivre. Il sera ouvrier, puis deviendra rapidement travailleur indépendant en gérant sa propre imprimerie. En quoi cela a-t-il influencé ses réflexions ?

Proudhon avait horreur du salariat. Il trouvait humiliant d’avoir à travailler pour un patron, de ne pas pouvoir conduire soi-même sa propre activité professionnelle. La vertu cardinale était à ses yeux la responsabilité, l’autonomie. Tout homme devrait être maître de ses actes et de sa destinée. C’est pourquoi le philosophe bisontin nourrissait un amour sans borne du travail indépendant. Toute sa doctrine économique et politique visait à rendre le travail plus libre, pour affranchir les individus de la domination des puissants.

Proudhon – penseur de l’équilibre – est une référence pour des intellectuels venus d’horizons très divers. En quoi peut-on dire qu’il est transcourant, non conforme ? Quelles furent ses influences ? Ses héritiers ?

Proudhon n’était ni capitaliste, ni communiste. Or, toute la pensée politique du XXe siècle a été structurée autour de cette opposition du capitalisme et du communisme. Dès lors, la pensée proudhonienne nous paraît aujourd’hui inclassable, puisqu’elle n’est pas réductible à un camp clair et bien défini sur l’axe droite-gauche tel que nous le concevons. La plupart des héritiers de Proudhon échappaient eux-mêmes à ce clivage, comme le montrent très bien les non-conformistes des années 1930, notamment les jeunes intellectuels personnalistes rassemblés à l’époque autour d’Alexandre Marc. Quant aux auteurs qui ont influencé Proudhon, il faudrait à vrai dire citer tous les pionniers du socialisme : Cabet, Owen, Leroux, Fourier, etc. Nous avons tendance à oublier qu’il existait alors une vaste nébuleuse d’intellectuels antilibéraux de grand talent, qui n’étaient pas stricto sensu communistes.

Longtemps après sa mort, l’écrivain catholique Georges Bernanos a pu dire de la civilisation moderne qu’elle était avant tout « une conspiration universelle contre toute espèce de vie intérieure ». Quel point de vue Proudhon portait-il sur la Modernité et la philosophie du Progrès ?

Proudhon défendait le progrès social, mais il ne croyait pas au Progrès linéaire de la civilisation. Il était même convaincu que le progressisme revêtait un caractère utopique et chimérique. C’est pourquoi il se disait simultanément partisan du progrès et de la conservation, parce que nous avons en réalité besoin des deux pour faire fructifier sainement toute société.

Proudhon a tenu des propos particulièrement virulents à l’encontre des institutions ecclésiastiques mais se montrait en parallèle très conservateur sur le plan des mœurs. Quel était son rapport à la question religieuse ? Et à la morale ? Était-il puritain ?

Proudhon était passionné par la religion. D’abord élevé dans le catholicisme par sa mère, il s’est affranchi progressivement de la mystique théiste pour s’orienter vers une sorte de panthéisme, sous l’influence notamment de la franc-maçonnerie traditionnelle (et non bien sûr de la franc-maçonnerie laïque). Proudhon se sentait très proche des vieilles cultures païennes, et il s’intéressait en particulier au taoïsme, voire à la religion amérindienne.

Sur la question des mœurs, il défendait des positions extrêmement rigides, que plus personne ou presque ne pourrait reprendre à son compte aujourd’hui, même dans les milieux catholiques traditionalistes. C’est à mon avis l’aspect de sa pensée qui a le plus vieilli. Il est en tout cas intéressant de constater que cet auteur, généralement considéré comme le pionnier de la gauche radicale en France, aurait objectivement été classé à l’extrême droite s’il avait vécu de nos jours, en défendant les idées morales qui étaient les siennes à l’époque.

D’ailleurs, dans De la justice dans la révolution et dans l’Église, puis dans La Pornocratie (paru incomplet et posthume), Proudhon peut bien être considéré comme misogyne. Alors, sa vision de la Femme et sa critique de la féminisation de la société sont-elles intrinsèques à ses réflexions économiques et politiques ?

Non, très franchement, je ne le pense pas. Les propos de Proudhon sur les femmes, quoi qu’effectivement assez lamentables de mon point de vue, n’ont pas eu d’incidence sur sa pensée philosophique profonde. J’irais même jusqu’à dire qu’il n’a pas réussi à étendre les principes de sa philosophie à la question des sexes, ce qui lui aurait permis de préfigurer l’idée d’« équité dans la différence », chère à bien des féministes différentialistes contemporaines. Proudhon en était resté à l’infériorité constitutive des femmes, qu’il ne nuançait que dans de rares développements de ses livres. Il restait en cela fidèle à la vision extrêmement patriarcale de la bourgeoisie industrielle.

Les réflexions proudhoniennes sur la propriété sont aujourd’hui particulièrement galvaudées et, d’ailleurs, on ne cite très souvent Proudhon en terminale que pour son rejet de la propriété privée. Pourriez-vous donc nous éclairer un peu plus sur sa fameuse phrase « La propriété c’est le vol » ?

Proudhon était au fond un défenseur acharné de la petite propriété privée, qui lui semblait constituer un frein au développement du grand capital. Quand Proudhon affirme que « la propriété c’est le vol », il dénonce seulement l’accumulation du capital, c’est-à-dire le fait que les petits propriétaires indépendants soient peu à peu remplacés par de grands propriétaires capitalistes. Je reconnais que les premières œuvres de Proudhon restaient quelque peu ambigües sur cette distinction, mais les dernières œuvres rectifieront le tir d’une manière tout à fait explicite.


On dit Proudhon socialiste, anarchiste, vous parlez d”’une anarchie sans désordre” mais peut-on également le considérer comme un précurseur de la Décroissance ou un écologiste ?

Au sens propre, non, car, au XIXe siècle, il n’y avait guère de sens à réclamer davantage de frugalité pour lutter contre la dévastation écologique, dont les effets n’étaient pas aussi visibles qu’aujourd’hui. En revanche, Proudhon a incontestablement été l’un des grands précurseurs de la décroissance par sa philosophie générale. Il remettait en cause l’accumulation de richesses pour elle-même et privilégiait le qualitatif au quantitatif. On trouve également chez lui un rapport à la nature quasi-religieux. En comparaison des écologistes actuels, je dirais qu’il était moins conscient des dangers de l’industrie que nous ne le sommes, mais qu’il avait anticipé la critique de la société de consommation.

La Commune de Paris, survenue quelques années après sa mort, peut-elle être vue comme une tentative (consciente ou inconsciente) de mise en pratique de certaines de ses idées ?

Assurément, d’autant que la majeure partie des communards étaient proudhoniens ! N’oublions pas que, jusqu’à cette époque, Proudhon était beaucoup plus célèbre que Marx… En revanche, la défaite de la Commune va mettre un coup d’arrêt à l’expansion du proudhonisme en France : beaucoup de proudhoniens perdront d’ailleurs la vie au cours des événements de cette période, ou s’exileront à l’étranger. Je sais d’ailleurs que vous avez vous-même beaucoup travaillé sur l’influence de Proudhon en Amérique latine, par exemple. Mais c’est sans doute en Russie que Proudhon aura l’influence la plus profonde et la plus pérenne, notamment sur les intellectuels populistes (Herzen, Tchernychevski, etc.).

Proudhon fut député socialiste et affirma qu’« il faut avoir vécu dans cet isoloir qu’on appelle l’Assemblée Nationale pour concevoir comment les hommes qui ignorent le plus complètement l’état d’un pays sont presque toujours ceux qui le représentent ». Cette phrase est pour le moins assassine ! Quelle était sa vision générale de la Démocratie et de la Politique ?

Proudhon n’aimait guère la démocratie parlementaire, qu’il jugeait technocratique et potentiellement dictatoriale. Il n’aurait eu aucun goût pour les « présidents jupitériens », j’imagine. Proudhon défendait plutôt les démocraties locales et décentralisées, où le peuple s’exprime d’une manière beaucoup plus directe et participe au pouvoir.

Proudhon considérait que la France est « le pays du juste milieu et de la stabilité… en dépit de son esprit frondeur, de son goût pour les nouveautés et de son indiscipline » et qu’en chaque français sommeille « un conservateur doublé d’un révolutionnaire ». Quel rapport Proudhon, fier franc-comtois, défenseur du fédéralisme et du principe de subsidiarité, entretenait-il à la Nation française et à l’État français, voire au conservatisme et à la Tradition ?

Proudhon n’aimait pas beaucoup la France, qu’il associait au jacobinisme, à la centralisation et au mépris des particularismes locaux. Il était plutôt régionaliste. Mais son fédéralisme impliquait la coexistence de différentes échelles de pouvoir, où la France aurait pu servir de strate intermédiaire entre la région et l’Europe. Proudhon estimait que la nationalité française était une abstraction et qu’elle ne correspondait à aucune patrie charnelle. Seules les régions avaient réellement grâce à ses yeux, parce qu’elles sont plus proches de l’homme. Le terroir, c’est ce qui nous entoure de manière immédiate et façonne concrètement notre manière de voir le monde.

On peut tout à fait considérer que Proudhon était conservateur. L’hostilité à l’État bureaucratique et la défense des corps intermédiaires se retrouvait en des termes très proches chez des auteurs comme Burke, Tocqueville ou Burckhardt, qui ont compté parmi les chefs de file de la tradition conservatrice. Proudhon estimait que le progrès allait de pair avec la conservation : prétendre progresser sans rien conserver de ce qui mérite de l’être serait une grave erreur. On ne doit pas faire table rase du passé. Dire que Proudhon était un tenant de la Tradition serait en revanche excessif. Ses positions spirituelles le rapprochaient des religions anciennes, du christianisme hérétique et de certains aspects de l’ésotérisme, mais il n’en avait qu’une connaissance très parcellaire.

Quels conseils de lecture donneriez-vous à un jeune militant ? Quels sont les œuvres à lire en priorité de Pierre Joseph Proudhon ?

C’est assez difficile à dire. Proudhon écrivait beaucoup, et il avait la fâcheuse habitude de diluer sa pensée dans d’interminables digressions qui ont parfois mal résisté à l’épreuve du temps. Ses derniers livres sont à mon avis les meilleurs, et les plus synthétiques. Je recommanderais donc surtout Du principe fédératif, qui condense ses principales réflexions politiques autour de la démocratie.

Dans son livre sur la Justice, Proudhon adopte un ton kantien dans ses analyses (la justice comme respect d’autrui et égalité fondamentale) et cela nous rappelle beaucoup la théorie contemporaine de la Justice de John Rawls. On sait qu’à John Rawls vont répondre les communautariens américains et canadiens des années 1970-1980. Or, ne décèle-t-on pas chez Proudhon cette même tension, mais ici réunie dans la même œuvre, entre l’idéal de Justice et le Bien commun ? Est-ce le principe fédératif qui est appelé à résoudre cette tension de manière politique ou les communautés autonomes ? Et quelles communautés ? Sur quelles identités se fonderont-elles à l’avenir ?

Dans la première partie de sa vie, Proudhon est resté enferré dans une conception déontologique de la Justice qui devait en effet beaucoup à Kant, ne serait-ce qu’indirectement. Il épousera aussi brièvement une vision du monde positiviste, sous l’influence de Saint-Simon et de Comte. Mais il s’en dégagera au profit d’une perspective qu’on pourrait qualifier de pragmatiste, et même de pré-nietzschéenne par moments. Son livre sur la Justice est le témoin de cette phase de transition.


Le dernier Proudhon aurait à mon avis clairement penché en faveur de la pensée communautarienne défendue par Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel et Alasdair MacIntyre (et non en faveur de John Rawls). Sa remise en cause du contrat social individualiste devient d’ailleurs patente vers la fin de sa vie, même s’il restera toujours sensible à la défense des libertés individuelles contre l’oppression communautaire. Proudhon considère en définitive que l’individu et le groupe doivent s’équilibrer : la communauté ne doit pas opprimer les personnes singulières, mais les individus ne doivent pas non plus se retrancher de la collectivité. L’ensemble de notre vie politique et sociale gagnerait en d’autres termes à s’inscrire dans un processus fédéral : l’homme est ouvert à ses communautés, et les communautés sont ouvertes à la fédération. Au lieu de mettre l’accent sur un pouvoir technocratique centralisé, comme dans l’Union européenne du XXIe siècle, on laissera l’essentiel des prérogatives aux pouvoirs communaux. Pour autant, le fédéralisme établira un lien national et continental entre les différentes communes, afin d’assurer l’alliance de l’Un et du Multiple.
En matière d’identité, enfin, le philosophe défendait les identités concrètes contre les identités abstraites. Cela signifie qu’il accordait la prééminence au local contre le global. La nation, à ses yeux, n’était qu’une première étape vers un processus de globalisation plus large. C’est en ce sens que Proudhon était anti-nationaliste et favorable aux régions. Le cœur du pouvoir mérite de rester entre les mains des citoyens. Seule la commune peut y pourvoir.

Thibaut Isabel, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, l’anarchie sans le désordre, préface de Michel Onfray, Autrement Paris 2017, 18,50.

Thibault Isabel: Proudhon l'anarchiste, penseur pour 2017?

La plupart des institutions politiques et médiatiques semblent se mettre En Marche ! C'est ce contexte étrange qui pourrait servir une idéologie jusque-là marginale mais qui pourrait de nouveau faire parler d'elle. Nous avons reçu Thibault Isabel, Rédacteur-en-chef de la revue Krisis et auteur de l'essai 'Proudhon, l'anarchie dans le désordre' (Autrement, 2017)

mercredi, 30 novembre 2016

Peter Kropotkin: Der Seismograph der Revolution


Peter Kropotkin: Der Seismograph der Revolution

mercredi, 23 novembre 2016

“Anarcho-Fascism”: An Overview of Right-Wing Anarchist Thought


“Anarcho-Fascism”: An Overview of Right-Wing Anarchist Thought

This is the text of a lecture delivered to the H.L. Mencken Club on November 5, 2016.

The topic that I was given for this presentation is “Anarcho-Fascism” which I am sure on the surface sounds like a contradiction in terms. In popular language, the term “fascism” is normally used as a synonym for the totalitarian state. Indeed, in a speech to the Italian Chamber of Deputies on December 9, 1928 Mussolini describe totalitarianism as an ideology that was characterized by the principle of “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

However, the most commonly recognized ideological meaning of the term “anarchism” implies the abolition of the state, and the term “anarchy” can either be used in the idealistic sense of total freedom, or in the pejorative sense of chaos and disorder.

Anarchism and fascism are both ideologies that I began to develop an interest in about thirty years ago, when I was a young anarchist militant who spent a great deal of time in the university library reading about the history of classical anarchism. It was during this time that I also became interested in understanding the ideology of fascism, mostly from my readings on the Spanish Civil War, including the works of Dr. Payne, whom I am honored to be on this panel with. And I have also looked into some of these ideas a little more since then. One of the things that I find to be the most fascinating about anarchism as a body of political philosophy is the diversity of anarchist thought. And the more that I have studied right-wing political thought, the more I am amazed by the diversity of opinion to be found there as well. It is consequently very interesting to consider the ways in which anarchism and right-wing political ideologies might intersect.

Anarchism is also normally conceived of as an ideology of the far Left, and certainly the most well-known tendencies within anarchism fit that description. The anarchist movement of the nineteenth and early twentieth century was certainly a movement of the revolutionary Left, and shaped by the thought and actions of radicals such as Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, the Ukrainian anarchists, the Spanish anarchists, and others. Anarchism of this kind also involved many different ideological sub-tendencies including anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, collectivist anarchism, and what was known as “propaganda by the deed” which was essentially a euphemism for terrorism, and other forms of anarchism that advocated violent resistance to the state, such as illegalism or insurrectionary anarchism.

There is also a modern anarchist movement that largely functions as a youth subculture within the context of the radical left, and modern anarchism likewise includes many different hyphenated tendencies like “queer anarchism,” “transgender anarchism,” or “anarcha-feminism,” and many of which, as you might guess, maintain a very “politically correct” orientation.

However, there are also ways in which the anarchist tradition overlaps with the extreme right.

FR-anadr782130414087_v100.jpgThe French intellectual historian Francois Richard identified three primary currents within the wider philosophical tradition of anarchism. The first of these is the classical socialist-anarchism that I have previously described that has as its principal focus an orientation towards social justice and uplifting the downtrodden. A second species of anarchism is the radical individualism of Stirner and the English and American libertarians, a perspective that posits individual liberty as the highest good.  And still a third tradition is a Nietzsche-influenced aristocratic radicalism, or what the French call “anarchism of the Right” which places its emphasis not only on liberty but on merit, excellence, and the preservation of high culture.

My actual presentation here today is going to be on the wider traditions of anarchism of the Right, right-wing anti-statism, and Left/Right crossover movements which are influenced by the anarchist tradition.

First, it might be helpful to formulate a working definition of “anarcho-fascism.” An “anarcho-fascist” could be characterized as someone that rejects the legitimacy of a particular state, and possibly even uses illegal or extra-legal means of opposing the established political or legal order, even if they prefer a state, even a fascist state, of their own.

There are looser definitions of “anarcho-fascism” as well, and I will touch on some of these in a moment. However, it should also be pointed out that many anarchists of the right were not part of a movement or any kind of political parties or mass organizations. Instead, their affinity for anarchism was more of an attitude or a philosophical stance although, as I will explain shortly, there were also efforts to translate right-wing anarchist ideas into a program for political action.

Anarchists of the Right during the French Revolution and Pre-Revolutionary Era

Left-wing anarchist thought can to some degree trace its roots to tendencies within revolutionary France of the late eighteenth century, as well as the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary periods. This is also true, to some degree, of the right-wing anarchist tradition. Once again, to cite Francois Richard:

“Here, at the end of the 18th century, in the later stages of the ancien régime, formed an anarchisme de droite, whose protagonists claimed for themselves a position “beyond good and evil,” a will to live “like the gods,” and who recognised no moral values beyond personal honour and courage. The world-view of these libertins was intimately connected with an aggressive atheism and a pessimistic philosophy of history. Men like Brantôme, Montluc, Béroalde de Verville and Vauquelin de La Fresnaye held absolutism to be a commodity that regrettably opposed the principles of the old feudal system, and that only served the people’s desire for welfare.” –Francois Richard

These intellectual currents that Richard describes mark the beginning of an “anarchism of right” within the French intellectual tradition.  As mentioned previously, these thinkers could certainly be considered forerunners to Nietzsche, and later French thinkers in this tradition included some fairly prominent figures. Among them were the following:

-Arthur de Gobineau, a 19th century writer, and early racialist thinker

-Leon Bloy, a novelist in the late 19th century

-Paul Leautaud, a theater critic in the early 20th century

-Louis Ferdinand Celine, a well-known French writer during the interwar period

-George Bernanos, whose political alignments were those of an anti-fascist conservative, monarchist, Catholic, and nationalist

-Henry de Montherlant, a 20th century dramatist, novelist, and essayist

-Jean Anouilh, a French playwright in the postwar era

Among the common ideas that were shared by these writers were an elitist individualism, aristocratic radicalism, disdain for established ideological or ethical norms, and cultural pessimism; disdain for mass democracy, egalitarianism, and the values of mass society; a dismissive attitude towards conventional society as decadent; adherence to the values of merit and excellence; a commitment to the recognition of the superior individual and an emphasis on high culture; an ambiguity about liberty rooted in a disdain for plebian values; and a characterization of government as a conspiracy against the superior individual.

Outside of France

A number of thinkers also emerged outside of France that shared many ideas in common with the French anarchists of the Right. Ironically, considering where we are today, one of these was H. L. Mencken, who was characterized as an “anarchist of the right” by another French intellectual historian, Anne Ollivier-Mellio, in an academic article some years ago. An overlapping tradition is what has sometimes been referred to as “anarcho-monarchism” which included such figures as the famous author J.R.R. Tolkien in England, the artist Salvador Dali in Spain, the Catholic traditionalist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in Austria, and, perhaps most intriguingly, the English occultist Aleister Crowley, who has been widely mischaracterized as a Satanist.

Conservative Revolutionaries  

The traditions associated with right-wing anarchism also overlap considerably with the tendency known as the “Conservative Revolution” which developed among right-wing European intellectuals during the interwar period. Among the most significant of these thinkers were Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and Stefan George in Germany, Maurice Barres in France, Gabriele d’Annunzio in Italy, and, considerably later, Yukio Mishima in postwar Japan.

AN 251 1.jpgPerhaps the most famous intellectual associated with the Conservative Revolution was Ernst Junger, a veteran of World War One who became famous after publishing his war diaries in Weimar Germany under the title “Storms of Steel.” Much later in life, Junger published a work called “Eumeswil” which postulates the concept of the “Anarch,” a concept that is modeled on Max Stirner’s idea of the “Egoist.” According to Junger’s philosophy, an “Anarch” does not necessarily engage in outward revolt against institutionalized authority. Instead, the revolt occurs on an inward basis, and the individual is able to retain an inner psychic freedom by means of detachment from all external values and an inward retreat into one’s self. In some ways, this is a philosophy that is similar to currents within Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies.

Yet another well-known figure from the Conservative Revolutionary era, and one that is certainly influential among the more radical tendencies on the alternative right today, is Julius Evola. Evola was a proponent of an extreme elitism that characterized the period of the Kali Yuga of Hindu civilization during approximately 800 B.C. as the high point in human development. Indeed, he considered everything that has taken place since then to have been a manifestation of degeneracy. For example, Evola actually criticized fascism and Nazism as having been too egalitarian because of their orientation towards popular mobilization and their appeals to the ethos of mass society. Evola also formulated a concept known as the “absolute individual,” which was very similar to Junger’s notion of the “Anarch,” and which can be described an individual that has achieved a kind of self-overcoming, as Nietzsche would have called it, due to their capacity for rising above the herd instincts of the masses of humankind.

Now, I must emphasize that the points of view that I have outlined thus far were largely attitudes or philosophical stances, not actual programs of political action. However, there have also been actual efforts to combine anarchism or ideas borrowed from anarchism with right-wing ideas, and to translate these into conventional political programs. One of these involves the concept of syndicalism as it was developed by Georges Sorel. Syndicalism is a revolutionary doctrine that advocates the seizure of industry and the government by means of a worker insurrection or what is sometimes called a “general strike.” Syndicalism was normally conceived of as an ideology of the extreme left, like anarchism, but a kind of right-wing syndicalism began to develop in the early twentieth century due to the influence of Sorel and the German-Italian Robert Michels, who formulated the so-called “iron law of oligarchy.” Michaels was a former Marxist who came to believe that all organizations of any size are ultimately organized as oligarchies, where the few lead the many, and believed that anti-capitalist revolutionary doctrines would have to be accommodated to this insight.

Cercle Proudhon

Out of these intellectual tendencies developed an organization called the “Cercle Proudhon,” which combined the ideas of the early anarchist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, such as mutualist economics and political federalism, with various elitist and right-wing ideas such as French nationalism, monarchism, aristocratic radicalism, and Catholic traditionalism. Cercle Proudhon was also heavily influenced by an earlier movement known as Action France which had been founded by Charles Maurras.

Third Positionism, Distributism and National-Anarchism

Another tendency that is similar to these is what is often called the “Third Position,” a form of revolutionary nationalism that is influenced by the economic theories of Distributism. Distributism was a concept developed by the early 20th century Catholic writers G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc, which postulated the idea of smaller property holders, consumer cooperatives, workers councils, local democracy, and village-based agrarian societies, and which in many ways overlaps with tendencies on the radical Left such as syndicalism, guild socialism, cooperativism or individualist anarchism. Interestingly, many third positionists are also admirers of Qaddafi’s “Green Book” which outlines a program for the creation of utopian socialist and quasi-anarchist communities that form the basis for an alternative model of society beyond both Capitalism and Communism.

Within more recent times, a tendency has emerged that is known as National-Anarchism, a term that was formed by a personal friend of mine named Troy Southgate, and which essentially synthesizes anarchism with the notion of ethno-cultural identitarianism.


Troy Southgate

Right-wing Anarchism, Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism

Certainly, any discourse on right-wing anarchism needs include a discussion of the sets of ideas that are associated with Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism of the kinds that are associated with an array of free-market individualist thinkers such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and, of course, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard.

In many ways, modern libertarianism has a prototype in the extreme individualism of Max Stirner, and perhaps in thought of Henry David Thoreau as well. The more recent concept of anarcho-capitalism was developed in its most far reaching form by Murray Rothbard and his disciple, Hans Hermann Hoppe. Indeed, Hoppe has developed a critique of modern systems of mass democracy of a kind that closely resembles that of earlier thinkers in the tradition of the French “anarchists of the Right,” Mencken, and Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

SkonkonIII.jpgIt is also interesting to note that some of the late twentieth century proponents of individualist anarchism such as James J. Martin and Samuel E. Konkin III, the founder of a tendency within libertarianism known as agorism, were also proponents of Holocaust revisionism. Indeed, when I was doing research on the modern libertarian movement, I discovered that Holocaust revisionism  was actually popular among libertarians in the 1970s, not on anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi grounds, but out of a desire to defend the original isolationist case against World War Two. Konkin himself was actually associated with the Institute for Historical Review at one point.

Samuel E.  Konkin III

There are also various types of conservative Christian anarchism that postulated the concept of parish-based village communities with cooperative or agrarian economies. Such tendencies exist within the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox traditions alike. For example, Father Matthew Raphael Johnson, a former editor of the Barnes Review, is a proponent of such an outlook.

Very similar concepts to conservative Christian anarchism can also be found within neo-pagan tendencies which sometimes advocate a folkish or traditionalist anarchism of their own.

Left/Right Overlaps and Crossover Movements

A fair number of tendencies can be identified that involved left/right overlaps or crossover movements of some particular kind. One of these was formulated by Gustav Landauer, a German anarcho-communist that was killed by the Freikorps during the revolution of 1919. Landauer was also a German nationalist, and proposed a folkish anarchism that recognized the concept of national, regional, local and ethnic identities that existed organically and independently of the state. For example, Landauer once characterized himself as a German, a Bavarian, and a Jew who was also an anarchist.

In the early 1980s, a tendency emerged in England known as the Black Ram, which advocated for an anarcho-nationalism that sought to address the concept of national identity as this related to left-wing anarchism. Black Ram was a conventionally left-wing tendency in the sense of being anti-statist, anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-sexist, but which understood nationalities to be pre-existing cultural and ethnic expressions that were external to the state as an authoritarian institution.

Dorothy_Day_1916.jpgDorothy Day was an American radical, a religious pacifist, and advocate of social justice, who combined anarchism and Catholic traditionalism. She was the founder of the Catholic Worker movement, and considered herself to be a supporter of both the Industrial Workers of the World and the Vatican.

One of the godfathers of classical anarchism was, of course, Mikhail Bakunin, who was himself a pan-Slavic nationalist, and continues to be a peripheral influence on the European New Right. In fact, Alain De Benoist’s concept of “federal populism” owes much to Bakunin’s thought and is remarkably similar to Bakunin’s advocacy of a federation of participatory democracies.

Dorothy Day

There are a number of left-wing anarchists that have profoundly influenced the ecology movement that have also provided inspiration for various thinkers of the Right. Kirkpatrick Sale, for example, is a neo-Luddite and the originator of a concept known as bioregionalism. Leopold Kohr is best known for his advocacy of the “breakdown of nations” into decentralized, autonomous micro-nations. E.F. Schumacher is, of course, known for his classic work in decentralist economics, “Small is Beautiful.” Each of these thinkers is also referenced in Wilmot Robertson’s white nationalist manifesto, “The Ethnostate.”

Anarchism and Right-Wing Populism

Because American political culture contains strands of both anti-state radicalism and right-wing populism, it is also important to consider the ways in which these overlap or run parallel to each other. For example, there are tendencies among far right political undercurrents that favor a radically decentralized or even anarchic social order, but which also adhere to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories or racial superiority theories. There is actually a tradition like that on the US far right associated with groups like the Posse Comitatus.

There is also a radical right Christian movement that favors county level government organized as an uber-reactionary theocracy (like Saudi Arabia, only Christian).  Other tendencies can be observed that favor no government beyond the county level, such as the sovereign citizens, who regard speed limits and drivers’ licensing requirements to be egregious violations of liberty, the proponents of extra-legal common laws courts, and various other trends within the radical patriot movement.

The relationship between the Right and the state in many ways mirrors that of the Left in the sense that both Right and Left have something of a triangular interaction with systems of institutional and legal authority. Both Left and Right can be divided into reformist, libertarian, or totalitarian camps. In the case of the Left, a leftist may be a reform liberal or social democrat, they may be an anarchist or a left-libertarian, or they may be a totalitarian in the tradition of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and others. Similarly, a rightist may advocate for reforms of a conservative or rightward leaning nature, they may be an anarchist of the right or a radical anti-statist, or a person of the Right may be a proponent of some kind of right-wing authoritarianism, or a totalitarian in the fascist tradition.

dimanche, 20 mars 2016

"Robert Dun, un éveilleur de la conscience européenne"


Emission n°268 : "Robert Dun, un éveilleur de la conscience européenne"

Ce soir, Méridien Zéro vous propose de revenir avec notre camarade Robert Steuckers sur la vie et l'oeuvre de Robert Dun, figure sulfureuse et souvent méconnue du XXème siècle. 

A la barre et à la technique, Eugène Krampon et Wilsdorf.


Pour écouter:


jeudi, 16 octobre 2014

Anarquismo de Derecha

Anarquismo de Derecha

Karlheinz Weißman 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

English version here [2]

Traducido por Francisco Albanese

celine_s.jpgEl concepto de anarquismo derechista parece paradójico, de hecho, oximorónico, partiendo desde la suposición de que todos los puntos de vista políticos “derechistas” incluyen una evaluación particularmente alta del principio de orden… En efecto, el anarquismo de derecha ocurre sólo en circunstancias excepcionales, cuando la hasta ahora velada afinidad entre el anarquismo y el conservadurismo puede hacerse aparente. 

Ernst Jünger ha caracterizado esta peculiar conexión en su libro Der Weltstaat (1960):

Der Anarchist in seiner reinen Form ist derjenige, dessen Erinnerung am weitesten zurückreicht: in vorgeschichtliche, ja vormythische Zeiten, und der glaubt, daß der Mensch damals seine eigentliche Bestimmung erfüllt habe. (…)

In diesem Sinne ist der Anarchist der Urkonservative, der Radikale, der Heil und Unheil der Gesellschaft an der Wurzel sucht.

El anarquista en su forma pura es aquél, cuya memoria se remonta más en el pasado: a lo prehistórico, incluso a lo mítico, y que cree que el hombre cumplió en ese momento con su verdadero propósito. (…)

En este sentido, el anarquista es el ur-conservador, el radical, que busca la salud y la enfermedad de la sociedad en sus raíces.

Jünger más tarde llamó “Anarca” a este tipo de anarquista “conservador” o “prusiano, y refirió su propia “désinvolture” como de acuerdo con la misma: un retraimiento extremo, el cuál se nutre y se arriesga en las situaciones límites, pero sólo permanece en una relación observacional con el mundo, ya que todas la instancias del orden verdadero se disuelven y una “construcción orgánica” no es aún, o no será jamás, posible.

Aunque el mismo Jünger fue influenciado inmediatamente por la lectura de Max Stirner, la afinidad de tales pensamientos complejo con el dandismo es particularmente clara. En el dandy, la cultura de la decadencia a finales del siglo XIX personificada, que por un lado era nihilista y ennuyé, por el otro ofrecía el culto de lo heroico y el  vitalismo como alternativa a los ideales progresistas.

index.jpegEl rechazo de las jerarquías éticas actuales, la preparación para ser “no apto, en el sentido más profundo de la palabra, para vivir” (Flaubert), revelan puntos comunes de referencia del dandy con el anarquismo; su estudiada frialdad emocional, su orgullo y su aprecio por la sastrería fina y los modales, así como la pretensión de constituir “un nuevo tipo de aristocracia” (Charles Baudelaire), representan la proximidad del dandy a la derecha política. A esto se suma la tendencia de los dandies políticamente inclinados a declarar simpatía a la Revolución Conservadora o a sus precursores, como por ejemplo Maurice Barrès en Francia, Gabriele d’Annunzio en Italia, Stefan George o Arthur Möller van den Bruck en Alemania. El autor japonés Yukio Mishima pertenece a los seguidores tardíos de esta tendencia.

Además de esta tradición de anarquismo de derecha, ha existido otra tendencia, más antigua y en gran medida independiente, conectada con circunstancias específicamente francesas. Aquí, al final del siglo XVIII, en las etapas posteriores del ancien régime, se formó un anarchisme de droite, cuyos protagonistas reclamaron para sí una posición “más allá del bien y del mal,” una voluntad de vivir “como a los dioses”, y que no reconocieron valores morales más allá del honor personal y el coraje. La cosmovisión de estos libertinos se hallaba íntimamente unida con un ateísmo agresivo y una filosofía pesimista de la historia. Hombres como Brantôme, Montluc, Béroalde de Verville, y Vauquelin de La Fresnaye sostuvieron al absolutismo para ser una materia prima que lamentablemente se opuso a los principios del antiguo sistema feudal, y que sólo sirvió a deseo de bienestar económico de la gente. Actitudes, que en el siglo XIX volvieron a encontrarse con Arthur de Gobineau y Léon Bloy y también en el siglo XX con Georges Bernanos, Henry de Montherlant y Louis-Ferdinand Céline. Esta posición también apareció en una versión específicamente “tradicionalista” con Julius Evola, cuyo pensamiento giraba en torno al “individuo absoluto”.

En cualquier forma en que el anarquismo de derecha aparezca, siempre es conducido por un sentimiento de decadencia, por el desprecio a la era de las masas y por el conformismo intelectual. La relación con la política no es uniforme; sin embargo, no pocas veces el retraimiento se torna en activismo. Cualquier unidad más allá está ya negada por el individualismo altamente deseado de los anarquistas de derecha. Nota bene, el término es a veces adoptado por hombres –por ejemplo, George Orwell (anarquista Tory) o Philippe Ariès– que no exhiben signos relevantes de una ideología anarquista de derecha; mientras que otros, que exhiben objetivamente estos criterios –por ejemplo, Nicolás Gómez Dávila o Günter Maschke– no hacen uso del concepto.


Gruenter, Rainer. “Formen des Dandysmus: Eine problemgeschichtliche Studie über Ernst Jünger.” Euphorion 46 (1952) 3, pp. 170-201.
Kaltenbrunner, Gerd-Klaus, ed. Antichristliche Konservative: Religionskritik von rechts. Freiburg: Herder, 1982.
Kunnas, Tarmo. “Literatur und Faschismus.” Criticón 3 (1972) 14, pp. 269-74.
Mann, Otto. “Dandysmus als konservative Lebensform.” In Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner, ed., Konservatismus international, Stuttgart, 1973, pp. 156-70.
Mohler, Armin. “Autorenporträt in memoriam: Henry de Montherlant und Lucien Rebatet.”Criticón 3 (1972) 14, pp. 240-42.
Richard, François. L’anarchisme de droite dans la littérature contemporaine. Paris: PUF, 1988.
______. Les anarchistes de droite. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1997.
Schwarz, Hans Peter. Der konservative Anarchist: Politik und Zeitkritik Ernst Jüngers. Freiburg im Breisgan, 1962.
Sydow, Eckart von. Die Kultur der Dekadenz. Dresden, 1921.


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/10/anarquismo-de-derecha/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Celine04.jpg

[2] here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/08/right-wing-anarchism/

lundi, 27 janvier 2014

L’infréquentable Pierre-Joseph Proudhon


L’infréquentable Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
par Edward Castleton
Ex: http://anti-mythes.blogspot.com
Que connaît-on de la pensée de Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, deux cents ans après sa naissance, le 15 janvier 1809 ? Une formule : « La propriété, c’est le vol ! », mais guère plus. Celui que Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve décrivait comme le plus grand prosateur de son temps, ou Georges Sorel comme le plus éminent philosophe français du XIXe siècle, ne trouve plus asile que dans les librairies libertaires et sur les rayonnages d’érudits. A la différence d’autres penseurs et écrivains de la même époque — Karl Marx, Auguste Comte, Jules Michelet, Victor Hugo ou Alexis de Tocqueville —, les grandes maisons d’édition le dédaignent.

Le centenaire de sa naissance, en 1909, n’était pourtant pas passé inaperçu. Le président de la République, Armand Fallières, s’était rendu à Besançon, lieu de naissance de Proudhon, pour inaugurer une statue en bronze du « père de l’anarchisme ». Les sociologues durkheimiens (1), les juristes, les avocats républicains de la laïcité, des théoriciens du syndicalisme révolutionnaire et même des royalistes antiparlementaires s’intéressaient alors à lui.

Mais la vague anarcho-syndicaliste reflue rapidement. Les intellectuels et ouvriers qui appréciaient Proudhon avant la Grande Guerre tentent après la révolution russe de le transformer en un anti-Marx. Les pacifistes favorables à la création de la Société des Nations invoquent ses idées fédéralistes. De leur côté, des partisans de Vichy récupèrent certains aspects corporatistes de sa pensée afin d’asseoir la légitimité de leur régime. Cela ne suffit pas à sauver la statue de Proudhon, fondue par les nazis durant l’Occupation, mais le crédit du penseur auprès des progressistes s’en trouva durablement affecté.

D’autant que l’après-guerre favorise en France la domination intellectuelle du marxisme à gauche et relègue au second plan d’autres sources, pourtant très riches, de la pensée sociale du XIXe siècle. Exit Proudhon, donc, qui cherchait un moyen terme entre la propriété privée (appropriation exclusive des biens par des particuliers) et le communisme (appropriation et distribution égalitaire des biens des particuliers par l’Etat).

D’où sort ce précurseur d’une « troisième voie » anarchiste ? Né d’un père tonnelier-brasseur et d’une mère cuisinière, Proudhon se montre très doué pour les lettres classiques avant de devoir, en raison des problèmes financiers de sa famille, abandonner ses études pour travailler comme imprimeur. Grâce aux encouragements de certains Francs-Comtois, il obtient une bourse de trois ans de l’Académie de Besançon pour poursuivre des recherches linguistiques et philologiques. Proudhon mesure alors les écarts de classe et d’expérience qui le séparent des membres de cet institut censés suivre ses recherches, à Paris. Il perçoit aussi les limites des tentatives de théoriciens libéraux de la Restauration et de la monarchie de Juillet pour asseoir la souveraineté sur les « capacités » supérieures des possédants.

C’est l’époque du suffrage censitaire : qui possède vote pour élire quelqu’un qui possède encore plus que lui. Face au droit inviolable et sacré de propriété, la réalité de la misère, celle du paupérisme, contredit les espoirs des libéraux lorsqu’ils cherchent, au même moment, à enraciner l’ordre social dans le droit civil des particuliers.

Après les journées de juin 1848, il devient l’homme le plus diabolisé de son temps

Convaincu que la distribution des richesses au sein de la société importe davantage que la représentation politique, Proudhon ne voit pas dans l’élargissement du suffrage prôné par les républicains une solution suffisante au problème des inégalités sociales. Cette constatation l’amène à l’économie politique.

Il estime que la valeur d’une chose doit être évaluée selon son « utilité », c’est-à-dire ses effets sociaux, réels et matériels. Ses contemporains économistes, soucieux de la circulation des richesses à travers les échanges, la définissent indépendamment des besoins de subsistance des producteurs. « Les produits s’échangent contre les produits », dit alors Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832). Ce qui revient à dire que la vente des marchandises est favorisée par le commerce d’autres marchandises et que, en dernière instance, les produits valent ce qu’ils coûtent. Assise sur des conventions, la valeur n’a pas de base fixe.

Selon Proudhon, elle s’étalonne par conséquent à l’aune de son utilité. Bien entendu, l’idéal de l’équilibre entre production et consommation reste souhaitable, mais, pour y arriver, le produit vendu et le travail que ce produit incorpore doivent se trouver constamment en adéquation. Or la nature juridique de la propriété fait obstacle à des échanges égalitaires car la richesse reste concentrée entre les mains des propriétaires, rentiers et capitalistes. Il conviendrait donc de lire la loi des débouchés de Say (l’offre crée sa demande) d’une manière beaucoup plus révolutionnaire.

Curieusement, ces thèses attirent des économistes libéraux contemporains, tel Adolphe Blanqui, frère de Louis Auguste, le révolutionnaire. Leur caractère iconoclaste paraît en mesure de jeter un pont entre la critique des socialistes (auxquels Proudhon reproche d’écrire des amphigouris néochrétiens exprimant des sentiments vagues et bien-pensants, comme la fraternité) et celle des économistes, juristes et philosophes de l’ordre établi.

Sur ce terrain, Marx lui-même a apprécié la théorie de la plus-value que Proudhon formulait dans Qu’est-ce que la propriété ? (1840) : « Le capitaliste, dit-on, a payé les journées des ouvriers ; pour être exact, il faut dire que le capitaliste a payé autant de fois une journée qu’il a employé d’ouvriers chaque jour, ce qui n’est point du tout la même chose. Car, cette force immense qui résulte de l’union et de l’harmonie des travailleurs, de la convergence et de la simultanéité de leurs efforts, il ne l’a point payée. Deux cents grenadiers ont en quelques heures dressé l’obélisque de Louqsor sur sa base ; suppose-t-on qu’un seul homme, en deux cents jours, en serait venu à bout ? Cependant, au compte du capitaliste, la somme des salaires eût été la même. Eh bien, un désert à mettre en culture, une maison à bâtir, une manufacture à exploiter, c’est l’obélisque à soulever, c’est une montagne à changer de place. La plus petite fortune, le plus mince établissement, la mise en train de la plus chétive industrie, exige un concours de travaux et de talents si divers, que le même homme n’y suffirait jamais. »

Sans doute Marx partageait-il aussi la critique que Proudhon avait faite de ce que, dans ses manuscrits de 1844, il appellerait le « communisme grossier ». La rupture entre les deux hommes, qui se fréquentaient à Paris, intervint en 1846. Marx ne tarda pas à exprimer ses sarcasmes envers un auteur qui préférait, comme il le lui écrivit dans sa lettre de rupture, brûler la propriété « à petit feu ». Il considérait le désir de Proudhon de réconcilier prolétariat et classe moyenne pour renverser le capitalisme comme l’inclination d’un « petit-bourgeois constamment ballotté entre le capital et le travail, entre l’économie politique et le communisme ».

A la suite de la révolution de 1848 et de l’instauration de la IIe République, Proudhon est élu député et siège à la commission des finances de la Chambre. Il y réclame la création d’une banque nationale, capable de centraliser la finance ; la monnaie, gagée sur la production, n’y aurait qu’une valeur purement fiduciaire (le franc est alors gagé sur l’or). Il réclame aussi la réduction des taux d’intérêt, d’escompte, et celle des loyers et des fermages. Après les journées de Juin (2), ces propositions lui valent le statut d’homme le plus caricaturé et diabolisé de son temps par la presse bourgeoise.

Les projets proudhoniens de réforme se soldant par un échec, leur auteur va mener une réflexion sur les apories de la représentation politique. A ses yeux, l’expérience de la IIe République a représenté l’émergence d’une oligarchie élective au sein de laquelle les députés ne sont pas de réels mandataires, le consentement des citoyens aux lois n’étant qu’indirectement exprimé lors des élections législatives.

La plupart du temps, le peuple demeure donc impuissant face à ses délégués, qu’il ne peut sanctionner qu’en refusant de les réélire. De fait, la coupure entre élus et électeurs se creuse rapidement. Et Proudhon témoigne : « Il faut avoir vécu dans cet isoloir qu’on appelle une Assemblée nationale pour concevoir comment les hommes qui ignorent le plus complètement l’état d’un pays sont presque toujours ceux qui le représentent. » (Les Confessions d’un révolutionnaire, 1849.)

Le prolétariat devrait créer des associations fondées sur le principe de mutualité

Mais son analyse va au-delà de ce simple constat : il estime que la Constitution de 1848 confère trop de pouvoir exécutif au président de la République et que l’évolution vers une dictature est inéluctable. Emprisonné pour avoir dénoncé l’affaiblissement de l’Assemblée et les menées de Louis Napoléon Bonaparte (3), déçu ensuite tant par la couardise de la bourgeoisie face au coup d’Etat du 2 décembre 1851 que par la popularité du régime impérial dans les classes populaires, Proudhon observe avec amertume, de sa cellule, l’installation du Second Empire (lire « [16665] », les extraits de ses carnets inédits).

A sa libération, en 1852, il s’élève contre la concentration des richesses — liée aux concessions des chemins de fer et aux connivences des spéculateurs à la Bourse — entre les mains de quelques-uns. Proudhon doit, en 1858, s’exiler en Belgique afin d’éviter un nouvel emprisonnement après la publication de son ouvrage anticlérical De la justice dans la Révolution et dans l’Eglise. Il ne regagne Paris qu’à la fin de sa vie, plus pessimiste que jamais quant au caractère « démocratique » du suffrage universel.

Dans ses derniers écrits avant sa mort, le 19 janvier 1865, il dénonce même l’inutilité des candidatures ouvrières. Le prolétariat devrait rompre avec les institutions « bourgeoises», créer des associations fondées sur le principe de mutualité et institutionnaliser la réciprocité. Bref, inventer une « démocratie ouvrière ».

Si on laisse de côté certains aspects des conceptions de Proudhon (antiféminisme, misogynie, voire antisémitisme), hélas fréquents chez les socialistes du XIXe siècle, sa pensée demeure d’actualité. Notamment compte tenu du climat de scepticisme face au fonctionnement du système démocratique dans les pays capitalistes avancés. Car il n’est pas certain que les intérêts des classes populaires et travailleuses soient aujourd’hui mieux « représentés » par les partis politiques qu’à l’époque de Proudhon...

Dans toutes les tentatives actuelles visant à « moderniser » le socialisme, existe-t-il une place pour une idéologie prônant une rupture de classe radicale mais pacifique ; exigeant l’organisation de la société en fonction d’une division du travail mutualiste et visant à une moindre différenciation des salaires ; recherchant la justice en se souciant de l’économie ; préférant la représentation socioprofessionnelle à un suffrage universel toujours susceptible de dégénérer en césarisme ; déclarant la guerre aux spéculateurs et aux grandes fortunes ; prêchant un fédéralisme radicalement décentralisateur et non point libre-échangiste ? Ou Proudhon n’est-il surtout destiné qu’à ceux, plus marginaux et moins médiatisés, qui préfèrent les cercles libertaires aux plateaux de télévision ?

En attendant l’improbable venue du président de la République à Besançon pour célébrer, le 15 janvier 2009, le bicentenaire de la naissance de Proudhon, on peut simplement espérer que ce penseur et ce militant retrouve une partie de la renommée qui était la sienne il y a cent ans.
Edward Castleton
Edward Castleton est l’éditeur du livre de P.-J. Proudhon, Carnets inédits : journal du Second Empire, CNRS Editions, Paris, à paraître en février.

lundi, 07 octobre 2013

Julius Evola y Hakim Bey


por Juan Manuel Garayalde – Bajo los Hielos –

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

Charla dictada el día 16 de Diciembre de 2004 en el Centro de Estudios Evolianos, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

I – Anarquismo Mítico y Filosófico

Julius+Evola.jpgComo todo pensamiento político, el anarquismo ha tenido diferentes puntos de vista. Una importante cantidad de intelectuales sitúan al nacimiento del anarquismo en el siglo XIX, cuando podemos hallar en la Metamorfosis de Ovidio, una mención a un sistema político de similares características que se lo hallaría en el inicio de una Edad de Oro, donde no habría leyes, jueces ni nada que se le parezca para sancionar a los ciudadanos, puesto que entre ellos existía una visión del mundo similar. Asimismo, no podemos olvidar a las comunidades anarquistas como los seguidores del Patriarca Gnóstico Carpócrates de Alejandría que fundó comunidades cristianas en el norte de Africa y en España en el siglo II. Diferente al anarquismo filosófico del siglo XIX, que sitúa al anarquismo al final de la historia humana, como un proceso evolutivo, tal como fue formulado de manera similar el paraíso comunista de Karl Marx.

Dentro de esta corriente del siglo XIX, se destacaron autores como William Godwin, Proudhon, Max Stirner, Bakunin, etc.. Stirner, el más importante exponente del individualismo anarquista, fue en contra no sólo del Estado, sino en contra de la Sociedad; fue mas lejos que cualquier pensador anarquista convirtiendo al hombre en el Absoluto, la nada creadora, en ser belicoso por naturaleza que lucha por la propiedad de si mismo, la “propiedad del único”, rechazando al Estado, la burguesía, las instituciones sociales y educativas, la familia, las leyes. Destruir las ilusiones para descubrirse a sí mismo y ser dueño de sí mismo.

Su principal obra, “El único y su propiedad”, fue recibida con hostilidad por Karl Marx, quien lo ve como una amenaza a todo su materialismo dialéctico, a lo que se dedicará con esmero a refutar sus ideas. Así, el anarquismo filosófico comienza a verse como amenaza al marxismo.

Posteriormente, será Bakunin el que desafiará el crecimiento del comunismo. Este pensador anarquista, marcará la diferencia con los otros, puesto que si dicho movimiento logró cierta presencia en la lucha social, será gracias a él. Es impensable el sindicalismo anarquista sin Bakunin (recordemos a FORJA en la historia Argentina, y la famosa “Semana Trágica” de 1919). Europa quizás nunca habría presenciado un movimiento político anarquista organizado, sino hubiese sido por la labor activa de Bakunin.


II – Anarquismo, Liberalismo y Socialismo


El surgimiento del anarquismo filosófico, está enlazado a la crisis social post-medieval. La burguesía comienza a establecer relaciones con las viejas aristocracias, en tanto se demolían los gremios y asociaciones que protegían a los pequeños productores. Ante el crecimiento del comercio y las manufacturas, los viejos gremios medievales eran una traba a ese nuevo desarrollo. Los pequeños artesanos y productores agrícolas, comenzaban a quedar desamparados ante el crecimiento de la competencia, en tanto crecían los derechos monopolistas en manos de grandes compañías industriales, agrícolas y comerciales.

Surgieron en esa época de transición dos corrientes de protesta: el Liberalismo Radical, que pretendía reformas parlamentarias para frenar el poder del Estado, y el Anarquismo. Los liberales (Locke) consideraban a la propiedad como un derecho natural, y le legaban la responsabilidad al Estado para que protegiera la misma de ataques internos y externos, permitiendo así el libre intercambio de mercaderías. Los anarquistas en cambio, decían que el Estado protege la propiedad de los ricos, y que las leyes favorecen la concentración de la propiedad. Para los anarquistas, se debía crear una sociedad igualitaria de productores pequeños y económicamente autónomos, libres de privilegios o distinciones clasistas, donde el Estado sería innecesario.

Se considera al Anarquismo una ampliación radical del Liberalismo. Esto significa, que tiene mas similitudes con el Liberalismo que con el Socialismo. Sin embargo, con este último hubo alianzas, siendo que lo único en que coincidían era en la estrategia revolucionaria contra el poder burgués. Durante el siglo XX, el anarquismo participó en dos importante acontecimientos: la Revolución Rusa de 1917 y la Guerra Civil Española de 1936. En ambas, el enemigo principal que se les manifestó, fueron los comunistas, los que llegaron a hacer ejecuciones en masa de militantes anarquistas.

El anarquismo tuvo su primera gran derrota cuando Marx se adueña de la Primera Internacional, luego de acalorados debates con Bakunin. Dicha hegemonía se mantuvo hasta 1991, con la desintegración de la URSS. Desde entonces, surgirán nuevas corriente del pensamiento anarquista, pero de todas ellas, la que aquí queremos rescatar por su nueva orientación, es el anarquismo ontológico, que tiene al británico Peter Lamborn Wilson, mas conocido como Hakim Bey como su principal exponente.


III – El Anarquismo Ontológico de Hakim Bey


hakimbey.jpgSe torna dificultoso poder definir el concepto del anarquismo ontológico, puesto que es una forma de encarar la realidad, donde no se necesitan teorías que cierren en si mismas, sino acciones que tienden a despojar al hombre de preconceptos modernos. El anarquismo ontológico es un desafío abierto a la sociedad actual, donde el Yo es puesto a prueba, para ver si es capaz de cuestionarse ciertos comportamientos y pensamientos que se manifiestan mecánicamente. Su lenguaje principal, es lo que Hakim Bey denomina el “terrorismo poético”, una forma brusca pero profunda de rechazar las convenciones de toda sociedad organizada en torno a ilusiones.

Ante la crisis espiritual que afecta principalmente a Occidente, propone Hakim Bey un nomadismo psíquico, un retorno al paleolítico, siendo mas realista que simbólico este último concepto. Como él dice, “se busca la transmutación de la cultura basura en oro contestatario”. Su frase principal es “El Caos nunca murió”, donde para él, seria el espacio donde la libertad se vive a pleno, en tanto que ve al Orden como la presentación de una serie de estructuras políticas, sociales, culturales, educativas, policiales; en sí, límites impuestos a la mente que debe poseer una naturaleza de libertad plena. Ese Orden actual, no hace más que aprisionar al hombre poniéndole por encima, leyes de una civilización que se detiene en el tiempo, para congelar y matar el Espíritu.

Bey nos dice que el Caos es derrotado por dioses jóvenes, moralistas, por sacerdotes y banqueros, señores que quieren siervos y no hombres libres. Seguidor de grupos sufíes no muy ortodoxos, plantea la jihad espiritual, la rebelión contra la civilización moderna.

El modelo social de lucha que plantea Hakim Bey, es la de la pandilla, del grupo de salteadores que tiene su propia ley. Ese es el sentido del paleolítico, la banda de cazadores y recolectores que erraban por los bosques y desiertos de una tierra antigua sin dioses tiranos.

Hace pocos años, se estrenó una película, en la cual, uno de sus realizadores, estuvo influido por los escritos de este autor. La película se llamaba “El Club de la Pelea” donde se describe un hombre sumiso al sistema económico y moral, que se le plantea una ruptura mental que lo lleva a crear un mundo real donde podía estar fuera del sistema atacándolo, burlándose del mismo continuamente.

Esto nos lleva a estudiar el aporte que consideramos el mas interesante de la obra de Hakim Bey: el concepto de TAZ, es decir, la Zona Temporalmente Autónoma.


IV – Zona Temporalmente Autónoma (TAZ)


Existe una coincidencia semántica con el pensador tradicionalista italiano, Julius Evola: Ambos autores utilizan el término “rebelión” como forma de reacción ante los síntomas de la decadencia espiritual y material del Hombre.

Para Hakim Bey, el planteo de una Revolución, implica un proceso de transformaciones donde se va de una situación caótica a un nuevo Orden, pero, un Orden al fin. El escritor nos dice: “¿Cómo es que todo mundo puesto patas arriba siempre termina por enderezarse? ¿Por qué siempre a toda revolución sigue una reacción, como una temporada en el infierno?” (1). De esta manera, un Orden dentro del Kali Yuga, implicaría retornar a una forma de conservadurismo decadente. Implica la frustración de ideales revolucionarios iniciales, ante las reacciones naturales de los que quieren volver las cosas a su cause normal, saliendo del CAOS.

H.B. utiliza los términos de “rebelión”, “revuelta” e “insurrección”, que implicaría “un momento que salta por encima del tiempo, que viola la “ley” de la historia”. En este caso, estamos muy cercanos al concepto evoliano del “idealismo mágico”.

Redondeando estas ideas: en tanto la Revolución es un proceso que va del CAOS a un Orden determinado, la rebelión que plantea H.B. es temporal: es un acto extra-ordinario, que busca cambiar el mundo y no adaptarse a él, que busca vivir la utopía y no conformarse con un Orden a medias.

Pero, si no hay un Orden determinado a crearse por parte de los anarquistas ontológicos, ¿de dónde parte la rebelión y a dónde retorna la misma una vez desatada? Allí H.B. nos habla de la TAZ, las Zonas Temporalmente Autónomas, que es un lugar físico que permite justamente un desarrollo de la libertad interior. Hay que aclarar, que la TAZ no es un concepto abstracto, sino real e histórico .. aunque esta siempre quiso manifestarse por fuera de la Historia.

Uno de los ejemplos que trata H.B., es la utopía pirata. Menciona fundamentalmente el período comprendido entre el siglo XVI y XVII. En América, la zona del Caribe es muy conocida por su historia de piratas, y el autor nos habla de la famosa Isla de la Tortuga que fue el refugio de los barcos piratas y de todo delincuente que transitó esos rumbos alejados de la civilización. Era una isla al norte de Haití, de 180 km. Cuadrados, con un mar rodeado de tiburones. En dicha isla, no existía ninguna autoridad, leyes, códigos de comercio, impuestos, y todo aquello a lo que hoy estamos sometidos para poder pertenecer a un determinado sistema social. Ellos supieron crear un sistema por fuera del Sistema, o sea, un anti-sistema, el CAOS, el lugar donde un anarquismo ontológico podía encontrar cause para su desarrollo. Si hablamos de la gente que componía los barcos piratas, hallaremos que eran de distintas razas: negros, blancos, asiáticos; distintas religiones, diferente educación y clase social de la cual quedaron desheredados: todos estaban en pie de igualdad, pero no una igualdad colectivista, sino guerrera.

Esta TAZ, esa Zona Temporalmente Autónoma que fue la Isla de la Tortuga, no duro muchos años; y esa es justamente la característica de la TAZ, su limitación en el tiempo, que según H.B. como mucho, puede durar la vida de una persona, no mas de eso, puesto que el Sistema ira en su búsqueda para destruirla. Veamos como el autor define la TAZ:

El TAZ es como una revuelta que no se engancha con el Estado, una operación guerrillera que libera un área – de tierra, de tiempo, de imaginación- y entonces se autodisuelve para reconstruirse en cualquier otro lugar o tiempo, antes de que el Estado pueda aplastarla”. (2)

Es la estrategia de la barricada, que cuando esta viene a ser destruida, es abandonada, y levantada en otro lugar. Es el ámbito de la Internet, donde uno ingresa para criticar el sistema a través de una página web, y cuando esta cae, vuelve a aparecer en otro lugar.

Pero, sigamos con los ejemplos históricos que H.B. utiliza para describir su concepto de TAZ. En este caso, citamos un párrafo completo, con el objetivo de que puedan apreciar todos los elementos vulgares, artísticos, esotéricos, poéticos del pensador, que parece mezclar la realidad con la fantasía, con la utopía y con lo oculto. Esta forma de escribir, que como hemos dicho anteriormente, él ha definido como “terrorismo poético”:

“Por tanto, de entre los experimentos del periodo de Entreguerras me concentraré si no en la alocada república de Fiume, que es mucho menos conocida, y no se organizó para perdurar.”

“Gabriele D’Annunzio, poeta decadente, artista, músico, esteta, mujeriego, atrevido pionero aeronáutico, mago negro, genio y canalla, emergió de la I Guerra Mundial como un héroe con un pequeño ejército a sus órdenes: los “Arditi”. A falta de aventuras, decidió capturar la ciudad de Fiume en Yugoslavia y entregársela a Italia. Después de una ceremonia necromántica junto a su querida en un cementerio de Venecia partió a la conquista de Fiume, y triunfó sin mayores problemas. Sin embargo Italia rechazó su generosa oferta; el primer ministro lo tachó de loco.”

“En un arrebato, D’Annunzio decidió declarar la independencia y comprobar por cuanto tiempo podría salirse con la suya. Junto a uno de sus amigos anarquistas escribió la Constitución, que declaraba la música como el fundamento central del Estado. Los miembros de la marina (desertores y anarcosindicalistas marítimos de Milán) se autodenominaron los Uscochi, en honor de los desaparecidos piratas que una vez vivieron en islas cercanas a la costa saqueando barcos venecianos y otomanos. Los mudemos Uscochi triunfaron en algunos golpes salvajes: las ricas naves italianas dieron de pronto un futuro a la república: dinero en las arcas! Artistas, bohemios, aventureros, anarquistas (D’Annunzio mantenía correspondencia con Malatesta) fugitivos y expatriados, homosexuales, dandis militares (el uniforme era negro con la calavera y los huesos pirata; robada más tarde por las SS) y reformistas chalados de toda índole (incluyendo a budistas, teósofos y vedantistas) empezaron a presentarse en Fiume en manadas. La fiesta nunca acababa. Cada mañana D’Annunzio leía poesía y manifiestos desde el balcón; cada noche un concierto, después fuegos artificiales. Esto constituía toda la actividad del gobierno. Dieciocho meses más tarde, cuando se acabaron el vino y el dinero y la flota italiana se presentó, porfió y voleó unos cuantos proyectiles al palacio municipal, nadie tenia ya fuerzas para resistir.”

(…). En algunos aspectos fue la última de las utopías piratas (o el único ejemplo moderno); en otros aspectos quizás, fue muy posiblemente la primera TAZ moderna.” (3)


V – La TAZ en la Historia Argentina


Llegados a este punto, nos preguntamos: ¿puede hallarse un ejemplo de la TAZ en nuestra historia argentina? ¿Pudo haber hallado H.B. un ejemplo para aportar a su trabajo?. La respuesta es afirmativa, y ello lo encontramos nada mas y nada menos, que en nuestra obra cumbre de la literatura argentina: El Martín Fierro.

Esta obra, cuyo protagonista es una creación del autor, representa la confrontación entre la “Civilización” y la “Barbarie”, y forzando un poco los términos, entre la Modernidad y la Tradición. El tiempo en que se desarrolla este poema guachesco es durante el período de la organización nacional, entendido este como la adaptación de un país de carácter católico, libre y guerrero, al sistema constitucional liberal, laico, de desacralización del poder político en post de las ideologías que apuntalaron, reforzaron a la Modernidad.

Martín Fierro es el arquetipo de la “Barbarie”; el Hombre que no acepta una “Civilización” ajena a su cultura, que quiere obligarle a adoptar una nueva forma de vida, a riesgo de perderla si no obedece. Por tal motivo, Martín Fierro huye más allá de la frontera sur, a vivir con los indios. Leemos en esta obra:

“Yo sé que los caciques

amparan a los cristianos,

y que los tratan de “hermanos”

Cuando se van por su gusto

A que andar pasando sustos …

Alcemos el poncho y vamos”.

La Frontera, las tolderías, son la TAZ que supo existir en la Argentina. Allí, los hombres que estaban fuera de la ley, encontraron la libertad: fueron quienes desertaban del nuevo ejército constitucional, ladrones de ganado, asesinos, esclavos, muchachos jóvenes que huían de sus casas optando por la libertad que se vivía mas allá de la frontera. También existieron ejemplos de mujeres que cautivas de los indios, tuvieron familia, y que al regresar a la civilización, no pudieron acostumbrarse y regresaron con los indios. Martín Fierro nos describe la vida libre, hasta holgazana de vivir con los indios:

“Allá no hay que trabajar

Vive uno como un señor

De cuando en cuando un malón

Y si de él sale con vida

Lo pasa echado panza arriba

Mirando dar güelta el sol.”

Lo cierto es, que no existía mucha diferencia entre la toldería y el medio rural. La diferencia comenzó a ampliarse a medida que crecían las leyes y la coerción y se perdía la libertad que el gaucho conocía. La frontera pasa a convertirse no solo en una válvula de escape para las tensiones sociales, sino también, para las existenciales.

Pero del arquetipo, pasemos también a un ejemplo concreto, a un hombre que la literatura retrató varias veces en novelas, cuentos y obras de teatro, a lo que se le sumará muchos relatos acerca del lugar que utilizó para escapar de la “civilización”. Este hombre que hemos elegido al azar, se llamó Cervando Cardozo, conocido como Calandria por su hermosa voz para el canto. Fue un gaucho que nació en 1839 y fallece -muerto por la policía- en 1879. Tuvo una vida como cualquiera de su tiempo, pero a diferencia que decidió luchar cuando la institucionalización política del país comenzó a querer robarle su libertad. Él se incorpora a la última montonera de la historia nacional, la comandada por el caudillo entrerriano Ricardo López Jordán, al que la historia oficial, lo acusa de haber participado en asesinar al caudillo Justo J. de Urquiza, quién para entonces, era el principal responsable de las transformaciones políticas del país. Calandria peleará junto a López Jordán, y al ser derrotado su levantamiento, es obligado a incorporarse a un ejército de frontera. Calandria no acepta, y deserta. Nace así su vida de matrero, que la vivirá dentro de la provincia de Entre Ríos en la denominada Selva de Montiel, donde las fuerzas policiales jamás podrían capturarlo.

Aquí nos adentramos a una nueva TAZ: el monte. En muchas tradiciones, los bosques representan lugares prohibidos, donde abundan espíritus, criaturas fantásticas, y en donde se corría peligro de hallar una muerte horrenda. Uno de los ejemplos mas conocidos por todos, son los bosques de Sherwood donde encontraron refugio varios “fuera de la ley” que luego seguirían al famoso Roobin Hood.

En nuestra tierra, los montes representaban el lugar donde los gauchos matreros se escondían, donde hechiceros, curanderos, brujas, opas y deformes tenían su guarida. Es también el sitio donde los aquelarres se realizaban, que bien expresados están en nuestras canciones populares; por ejemplo en La Salamanca de Arturo Dávalos, dice su estribillo: “Y en las noches de luna se puede sentir, / a Mandinga y los diablos cantar”, o Bailarín de los Montes de Peteco Carabajal, en su estribillo también dice: “Soy bailarín de los montes / nacido en la Salamanca”.

Aquí haremos una breve profundización de este tema de La Salamanca: originalmente, la leyenda parte de España, de la región de Salamanca. Allí, se encontraban las famosas cuevas donde alquimistas, magos, kabbalistas, gnósticos, y otros, se reunían en secreto para eludir las persecuciones de la Inquisición. Como allí se efectuaban todo tipo de enseñanzas de carácter iniciático, quedo una leyenda negativa impulsada desde el clero católico de la época, donde allí se invocaba al demonio; y es por eso, que todo el proceso del que ingresa a la Salamanca hasta llegar frente al Diablo, es de carácter iniciático .. pero, hacia lo inferior. Es por eso, que se dice, que en la actualidad, hay dos entradas a la Salamanca con resultados diferentes, uno de ascenso y otro de descenso. La Salamanca, es para la TAZ argentina, el modelo de iniciación, en tanto se logre hallar “la otra puerta”.

Retomando, la Selva de Montiel (llamada así, por lo impenetrable de la misma) fue el refugio de muchos, como Calandria, que se resistieron al cambio, a perder su libertad y apego a la tradición a causa – como dice un motivo popular entrerriano – de la reja del arado, de la división de la tierra y del alambrado. Estos matreros conservaron en pequeña escala parte de la figura que representaron en otro momento los Caudillos, puesto que tenían un respeto y comprensión hacia los pobladores, y estos terminaban siendo cómplices silenciosos de las aventuras de estos outsiders.

Cito aquí, un párrafo de la obra de teatro “Calandria” de Martiniano Leguizamón, estrenada en 1896. En este fragmento que leeré, habla el gaucho matrero frente a la tumba de su Madre:

“¡Triste destino el mío! …. ¡Sin un rancho, sin familia, sin un día de reposo! … ¡Tendré al fin que entregarme vensido a mis perseguidores! … Y ¿pa qué? ¿Por salvar el número uno? … ¿Por el placer de vivir? … ¡No, si la libertad que me ofrecen no had ser más que una carnada! No; no agarro. ¡Qué me van a perdonar las mil diabluras que le he jugao a la polesía! ¡Me he reído tanto de ella y la he burlao tan fiero! … (Riendo) ¡La verdá que esto es como dice el refrán: andar el mundo al revés, el sorro corriendo al perro y el ladrón detrás del jues! … ¡Bah … si el que no nació pa el cielo al ñudo mira pa arriba!” (4)

Calandria no fue el único de estos gauchos matreros. Nuestro Atahualpa Yupanqui fue un gaucho matrero en los años ´30. Luego de una fallida revolución radical en la que participó, huyo a Entre Ríos y se ocultó en la Selva de Montiel. Fue en esa época que compuso la canción “Sin caballo y en Montiel”.

Pero avancemos más en esta construcción de la TAZ en nuestra tierra. Si el gaucho matrero es una representación, en pequeña escala, del Caudillo, ¿dónde podemos hallar una figura de tal magnitud que cuadre con el modelo del anarquismo ontológico?. Podremos hallar verdaderas sorpresas en nuestra historia nacional. Una de ellas, es la del joven Juan Facundo Quiroga, el “Tigre de los Llanos”, que por las descripciones que se hicieron sobre su persona, nos atrevemos a decir que fue uno de los primeros líderes anarcas que hubo en nuestra historia nacional.

Sarmiento, que conoció a Quiroga en su etapa juvenil -no ya la adulta donde se comenzaría a preocuparse por la forma organizativa que debía lograrse con la Confederación Argentina-, en su “Facundo”, entre el odio y la admiración escribe estas palabras sobre Quiroga:

“Toda la vida publica de Quiroga me parece resumida en estos datos. Veo en ellos el hombre grande, el hombre genio a su pesar, sin saberlo él, el César, el Tamerlán, el Mahoma. Ha nacido así, y no es culpa suya; se abajará en las escalas sociales para mandar, para dominar, para combatir el poder de la ciudad, la partida de la policía. Si le ofrecen una plaza en los ejércitos la desdeñará, porque no tiene paciencia para aguardar los ascensos, porque hay mucha sujeción, muchas trabas puestas a la independencia individual, hay generales que pesan sobre él, hay una casaca que oprime el cuerpo y una táctica que regla los pasos ¡todo es insufrible!. La vida de a caballo, la vida de peligros y emociones fuertes han acerado su espíritu y endurecido su corazón; tiene odio invencible, instintivo, contra las leyes que lo han perseguido, contra los jueces que lo han condenado, contra toda esa sociedad y esa organización de que se ha sustraído desde la infancia y que lo mira con prevención y menosprecio. (…) Facundo es un tipo de barbarie primitiva; no conoció sujeción de ningún género; su cólera era la de las fieras …” (5)

Y como todo anarca, Quiroga no era de los hombres que querían sentarse en un escritorio a gobernar lo que mucho le había costado conseguir. Sus batallas nunca finalizaron. Citamos nuevamente a Sarmiento:

“Quiroga, en su larga carrera, jamás se ha encargado del gobierno organizado, que abandonaba siempre a otros. Momento grande y espectable para los pueblos es siempre aquel en que una mano vigorosa se apodera de sus destinos. Las instituciones se afirman o ceden su lugar a otras nuevas más fecundas en resultados, o más confortables con las ideas que predominan. (…)

“No así cuando predomina una fuerza extraña a la civilización, cuando Atila se apodera de Roma, o Tamerlán recorre las llanuras asiáticas; los escombros quedan, pero en vano iría después a removerlos la mano de la filosofía para buscar debajo de ellos las plantas vigorosas que nacieran con el abono nutritivo de la sangre humana. Facundo, genio bárbaro, se apodera de su país; las tradiciones de gobierno desaparecen, las formas se degradan, las leyes son un juguete en manos torpes; y en medio de esta destrucción efectuada por las pisadas de los caballos, nada se sustituye, nada se establece”. (6)

Aquí se ven con claridad los conceptos de H.B. de psiquismo nómade y de un retorno al paleolítico.


VI – Anarquismo Ontológico y Tradición


Hasta aquí, hemos trazado un paralelismo entre el concepto de la TAZ de H.B. y nuestra historia nacional. Nuestra tarea a continuación es ver a donde nos puede llevar el anarquismo ontológico.

Esta postura, la creemos positiva para el impulso de un Nihilismo Activo, que consistirá en construir bases de acción que son la TAZ: su acción es decontructora, de rechazo a los valores y estructuras de pensamiento de la Modernidad. El anarquismo ontológico ha sabido descubrir en la historia a los outsiders del sistema, y este tema, es una eterna preocupación de la filosofía política contemporánea. Por ejemplo, uno de los pensadores mas importantes del neoliberalismo, Robert Nozick, (7) recientemente fallecido, nos habla de un estado de naturaleza donde paso a paso se va construyendo el Estado Liberal ideal para la sociedad actual. Nos habla de una Asociación de Protección Dominante, donde unos trabajan y otros toman el papel de defender a la comunidad de los agresores externos. De allí, se pasa al Estado Ultramínimo, que tiene como objetivo, justamente, incorporar a los outsiders .. a los fuera de la ley. Supuestamente, para Nozick, los outsiders se integrarían a la sociedad al ofrecerles protección gratuita para que puedan vivir en paz, lo que denominó principio de compensación. Dicho intento teórico fracaso, sobrándonos ejemplos reales para comprobarlo históricamente. El anarca no necesita que nadie lo proteja. El es libre de vivir y morir en su propia Ley. (8)

El Anarquismo Ontológico ha tenido una importante repercusión en los jóvenes, y esta idea de la TAZ hasta fue llevada al cine. La película “El Club de la Pelea” con Eduard Norton y Brad Pitt como actores principales, nos presenta la atmósfera de una generación de jóvenes sin ideales, con futuro incierto y, sobre todo, la revelación absoluta de su propia soledad en el mundo. Allí, como en Doctor Jekill y Mister Hyde, hay un hombre que no se atreve a liberarse de sus propias cadenas, a vivir el mundo sin tratar de controlarlo.

Una película como el Club de la Pelea nos muestra que estamos solos, que no hay nadie allá afuera con los brazos abiertos esperándonos. Uno de los personajes de esta película, Tyler Durden, en su discurso donde inaugura su TAZ, el Club de la Pelea, viviendo en un edificio abandonado en ruinas y rodeado de jóvenes rebeldes, dice: Veo en el Club a los hombres más listos y fuertes, veo tanto potencial y veo que se desperdicia. Dios mío, una generación vendiendo gasolina, sirviendo mesas, esclavos de cuello blanco y todos esos anuncios que promueven el desear autos y ropas con marcas de un tipo que nos dicta cómo debemos vernos. Hacemos trabajos odiosos para comprar lo innecesario, hijos en medio de la Historia sin propósito ni lugar…

Como nos dice con certeza H.B.: “El capitalismo, que afirma producir el Orden mediante la reproducción del deseo, de hecho se origina en la producción de la escasez, y sólo puede reproducirse en la insatisfacción, la negación y la alienación.” (9)

Y, en ese Club de la Pelea, los que lo integran, justamente, aprenden a pelear y no a huir … aprenden a reconciliarse con su propio pasado, a vencer el miedo y la angustiosa realidad materialista; y en el fondo, siempre manifestándose una lucha existencial.

Julius Evola, en su obra “El Arco y la Clava”, en oposición a ciertos movimientos juveniles modernos, describe una nueva orientación denominada anarquismo de derecha: aquí, nos habla de muchachos que no pierden su idealismo luego de pasar los 30 años. Jóvenes con un entusiasmo e impulso desmesurados, “con una entrega incondicionada, de un desapego respecto de la existencia burguesa y de los intereses puramente materiales y egoístas” (10). Una generación que puede hallarse en el presente, que asuman valores como el coraje, la lealtad, el desprecio a la mentira, “la incapacidad de traicionar, la superioridad ante cualquier mezquino egoísmo y ante cualquier bajo interés” (11); todos valores que están por encima del “bien” y del “mal”, que no caen en un plano moral, sino ontológico. Es mantenerse de pie con principios inmerso en un clima social desfavorable, agresivo; capaz de luchar por una causa perdida con una fuerza y energía sobrenatural, que termina inspirando el terror en sus rivales, y entre estos quizás, uno que logre despertar ante lo que creyó como una amenaza. Pocos hombres como estos, serían capaces de detener ejércitos en algún acantilado de la antigua Grecia, o, en los tiempos que hoy vivimos, tomar una Isla del Atlántico Sur sin matar ningún civil o soldado enemigo.

Pero, a diferencia de H.B., la TAZ, el anarquismo ontológico sólo puede ser considerado como una estrategia para la aceleración de los tiempos; pero, dentro de esa TAZ, deberán recrearse los principios de una Orden, que deberá reconstruir el mundo arrasado basándose en los principios de la Tradición Primordial.

Lo que nos separará siempre de la postura anarquista frente a la tradicional, es la aspiración de edificar un Estado Orgánico, Tradicional, y a confrontar un igualitarismo de proclama con las Jerarquías Espirituales. Como en un tiempo estuvieron unidos el Socialismo y el Anarquismo en la estrategia revolucionaria, en el presente, el Anarquismo Ontológico sigue el mismo camino postulado por el pensador italiano Julius Evola, de cabalgar el tigre, de controlar el proceso de decadencia para estar presentes el día en que el Tiempo se detenga. Quizás, cuando llegue ese día, ambas posturas estén unidas en la tarea de construir una nueva Civilización que sea inicio de una nueva Era.

En similitud el caso argentino, sin un Juan Facundo Quiroga que comenzó a desafiar la autoridad iluminista del Partido Unitario, en los años ´20 del siglo XIX, sumergiendo al país en la anarquía junto con otros Caudillos, no hubiese llegado una década mas tarde, un Juan Manuel de Rosas a comenzar a edificar la Santa Confederación Argentina: ambos son parte del Ser y del Devenir; ambos parte de la “Barbarie” en oposición al anti – espíritu alienante de la “Civilización”. El anarca y el Soberano Gibelino terminan juntos trayendo el alma del Desierto a las ciudades sin Luz interior.

No queremos concluir esta exposición sin volver a retrotraernos a nuestra tradición folclórica, a la TAZ que intentó resistir el avance de la Modernidad. Hoy, aquí reunidos, hemos conformado una TAZ. Y cuando cada uno de nosotros se haya marchado y las luces de este lugar se apaguen, la TAZ se disolverá para luego crearse en otros lugares. El espíritu rebelde del Martín Fierro, está en nosotros viviendo a través de todos estos años.

Concluimos con un fragmento de un poema con el cual nos identificamos, dedicado al gaucho Calandria, que murió peleando en su propia ley y soñando permanecer por siempre libre en su Selva de Montiel:

“En mí se ha reencarnado el alma de un matrero,

como la de Calandria, el errabundo aquél,

que amaba la espesura, igual que el puma fiero,

y que amplió las leyendas del bravío Montiel”

* * *


(1) Hakim Bey. TAZ. Zona Temporalmente Autónoma. http://www.merzmail.net/zona.htm

(2) Hakim Bey. Ob. Cit.

(3) Idem.

(4) Leguizamón, Martiniano. Calandria. Del Viejo Tiempo. Edit. Solar/Hachette – Buenos Aires 1961. P..47.

(5) Sarmiento, Domingo F. Facundo. Civilización y Barbarie. Ed. Calpe – Madrid, 1924. p.106-107.

(6) Sarmiento, Domingo F. Ob. Cit. p. 123.

(7) Nozick, Robert. Anarquia, Estado y Utopía. FCE – Buenos Aires, 1991.

(8) Existe una diferencia entre el anarquismo (los “ismos”) y el anarca, concepción que esta mas cercana a la filosofía de Max Stirner. El escritor mexicano José Luis Ontiveros, nos da una explicación del mismo: “El anarca es un autoexiliado de la sociedad. El anarca es, también, un solitario, que cree en el valor incondicional y absoluto de los actos. A diferencia del anarquista, el anarca ha dejado de confiar en la bondad natural del ser humano, y en utopías y fórmulas filantrópicas que salven o rediman a la humanidad. Su ser se funda, en el sentido original de la voz griega anarchos “sin mando”, pero su autoridad individualista reconoce principios como la disciplina y la moral de la guerra, su combate se libra contra cuando menos dos o tres enemigos, su ámbito es el bosque, el fuego, la montaña en donde el hombre debe abandonar la máscara de la sociabilidad, para retornar a la experiencia primigenia, al ser que se otorga a sí mismo la voluntad”. Ontiveros, José Luis. Apología a la Barbarie. Ediciones Barbarroja – España 1992. p. 38.

(9) Hakim Bey. Ob. Cit.

(10) Evola, Julius. El Arco y la Clava. Editorial Heracles – Buenos Aires 1999. p. 244.

(11) Evola, Julius. Ob. Cit. p. 245.

Fuente: Bajo los Hielos

jeudi, 19 septembre 2013

Silvio Gesell: der “Marx” der Anarchisten


Silvio Gesell: der “Marx” der Anarchisten

Analyse: Klaus SCHMITT/Günter BARTSCH (Hrsg.), Silvio Gesell, “Marx” der Anarchisten. Texte zur Befreiung der Marktwirtschaft vom Kapitalismus und der Kinder und Mütter vom patriarchalischen Bodenunrecht, Karin Kramer Verlag, Berlin, 1989, 303 S., ISBN 3-87956-165-6.

silvio_gesell.jpgSilvio Gesell war ein nonkonformistischer Ökonom. Er nahm zusammen mit Figuren sowie Niekisch, Mühsam und Landauer an der Räteregierung Bayerns teil. Der gebürtige Sankt-Vikter entwickelte in seinem wichtigsten Buch “Die natürliche Ordnung” ein Projekt der Umverteilung des Bodens, damit ein Jeder selbständig-autonom in totaler Unabhängigkeit von abstrakten Strukturen leben konnte. Günter Bartsch nennt ihn ein “Akrat”, d.h. ein Mensch, der frei von jeder Bevormündung ist, sei diese politischer, religiöser oder verwaltungsartiger Natur. Für Klaus Schmitt, der Gesell für die deutsche nonkonforme Linke wiederentdeckt (aber nicht kritiklos), ist der räterepublikanische Akrat ein der schärfsten Kritiker der “Macht Mammons”. Diese Allmacht wollte Gesell mit der Einführung eines “Schwundgeldes” bzw. einer “Freigeld-Lehre” zerschmettern. Unter “Schwundgeld” verstand er ein Geld, das man nicht thesaurisieren konnte und für das keine Zinsen gezahlt wurden. Im Gegenteil war für Gesell die Hortung von Geldwerten die Hauptsünde. Geld, das nicht in Sachen (Maschinen, Geräte, Technik, Erziehung, Boden, Vieh, usw.) investiert wird, mußte durch moralischen und ökonomischen Zwang an Wert verlieren. Solche Ideen entwickelten auch der Vater des kanadischen und angelsächsichen Distributismus, C. H. Douglas, und der Dichter Ezra Pound, der in den amerikanischen Regierung ein Instrument des Teufels Mammon sah. Douglas entwickelte distributistische Bauern-Projekte in Kanada, die teilweise noch heute existieren. Pound drückte seinen Dichterhaß gegen Geld- und Bankwesen, indem er die italienischen “Saló-Republik” am Ende des Krieges unterstütze. Pound versuchte, seine amerikanische Landgenossen zu überzeugen, keinen Krieg gegen Mussolini und das spätfaschistischen Italien zu führen. Nach 1945, wurde er in den VSA zwölf Jahre lang in einer Irrenanstalt eingesperrt. Er kam trotzdem aus dieser Hölle ungebrochen zurück und ging bei seiner Dochter Mary de Rachewiltz in Südtirol wohnen, wo er 1972 starb.

silvio gesell,anarchisme,allemagne,histoire,nouvelle droite,théorie politique,sciences politiques,politologieNeben seiner ökonomischen Lehren über das Schwund- und Freigeld, theorisierte Gesell einen Anarchofeminismus, wobei er besonders die Kinder und die Frauen gegen männliche Ausbeutung schützen wollte. Diese Interpretation des matriarchalischen Archetyp implizierte eine ziemlich scharfe Kritik des Vaterrechts, der in seinen Augen die Position der Kinder in der Gesellschaft besonders labil machte. Insofern war Gesell ein Vorfechter der Kinderrechte. Praktish bedeutete dieser Anarchofeminismus die Einführung einer “Mutterrente”. «Gesell und sein Anhänger wollten den gesamten Boden den Müttern zueignen und ihnen bzw. ihren Kinder die Bodenrente bis zum 18. Lebensjahr der Kinder als “Mutter-” bzw. “Kinderrente” zukommen lassen. Ein “Bund der Mütter” soll den gesamten nationalen und in ferner Zukunft den gesamten Boden unseres Planeten verwalten und (...) an den oder die Meistbietenden verpachten. Nach diesem Verfahren hätte jeder einzelne Mensch und jede einzelne Gruppe (z. B. eine Genossenschaft) die gleichen Chancen wie alle anderen, Boden nutzen zu können, ohne von privaten oder staatlichen Parasiten ausgebeutet zu werden» (S. 124). Wissenschaftliche Benennung dieses Systems nach Gesell hieß “physiokratische Mutterschaft”.

Neben den langen Aufsätzen von Bartsch und Schmitt enthält das Buch auch Texte von Gustav Landauer (“Sehr wertvolle Vorschläge”) und Erich Mühsam (“Ein Wegbahner. Nachruf zum Tode Gesells 1930”).

Fazit: Das Buch hilft uns, die Komplexität und Verwicklung von Ideen zu verstehen, die in der Räterepublik anwesend waren. Ist Niekisch wiederentdeckt und breit kommentiert, so ist seine Nähe zu Personen wie Landauer, Mühsam und Gesell kaum erforscht. Auch interressant wäre es, die Beziehungspunkte zwischen Gesell, Douglas und Pound zu analysieren und zu vergleichen. Letztlich wäre es auch, die Lehren Gesells mit den national-revolutionären Theorien eines Henning Eichbergs in den Jahren 60 und 70 und mit dem Gedankengut, das eine Zeitschrift wie Wir Selbst verbreitet hat. Eichberg hat ja auch immer den Akzent auf das Mütterliche gelegt. Er sprach eher von einem mütterlich-schützende Mutterland statt von einem patriarchalisch-repressive Vaterland. Ähnlichkeiten, die der Ideen-Historiker nicht vernachlässigen kann (Robert STEUCKERS).

samedi, 09 mars 2013

Crypto-Anarchism, Cyber-Security, & the New Right


Crypto-Anarchism, Cyber-Security, & the New Right

By Matt Parrott 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

In theory, anarchy is against hierarchy and obedience to authority while traditionalists embrace these unfashionable principles.

In theory, anarchism and traditionalism are polar opposites and naturally antagonistic. In practice, within the current social and political context, the two causes are natural allies. Both anarchists and traditionalists are opposed to this state . . . for the opposite reasons. Anarchists are against any and all sovereign regimes, whereas traditionalists are opposed to this sovereign regime. The anarchist Peter Pan is opposed to parents altogether, while the traditionalist Robin Hood is against this wicked usurper.

Crypto-Anarchism can be understood as an ideology, and it even has its own little Crypto-Anarchist Manifesto [1]. More generally, though, Crypto-Anarchism encompasses any and all efforts to liberate communication from state control and manipulation. It would be ironic for one who conflated Crypto-Anarchism and generic anarchism that the Al Qaeda network–intent on establishing a draconian theocratic global Caliphate–has pioneered the application of cryptography in its ongoing war with several dozen states. Of course, these are the same Leftist fools who rally under the likeness of Catholic traditionalist radical Guy Fawkes, so this confusion should come as no surprise.

There are state laws against cryptography, but they’re utterly inconsequential, except perhaps as additional charges to throw at the condemned. The reason is that it’s impossible to detect cryptography when it’s concealed (steganography), and it’s impractical to detect illegal variants of cryptography when it’s bundled in legal variants of cryptography. While the state may be able to pick off the unwary and ill-prepared, the only complete recourse at this point is for the state to shut off the Internet.

The state’s at least as dependent on the Internet as the citizenry, and untold billions of dollars worth of corporate capital rely on the Internet. The question is not whether this state will tolerate the Internet and secure communication, but whether the Internet and secure communication will tolerate this state. While the Internet did indeed originate in America’s military-industrial complex, and was incubated by multinational corporations, there’s reason to believe that neither the regime nor its financial backers have any real ability to control or contain it.

Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed [2]

There are multiple reasons secure communication remains an afterthought on the Internet, all of which are ephemeral. Some are technical. The “deep web” (the secret Internet behind the Internet) remains flaky and slow because there are relatively few people on it, because the encryption overhead carries a significant performance cost, and because a virtual “commons” intrinsically designed to be devoid of accountability is categorically ripe for abuse. Furthermore, the technology remains a few steps beyond the reach of the digital layman, requiring one to willfully seek it out, download it, and figure out how to use it.

The primary obstacle to achieving ubiquitous secure email communication isn’t a mathematical wizard at the NSA, it’s the frustrating mess of “private keys,” “public keys,” and specific steps involved in the process. Processors and networks will continue incrementally improving, but genuine progress for the deep web will only come when accessing the technology gets easier and carrying on as usual gets harder. Currently, the deep web is largely a frontier occupied by radical dissidents, child pornographers, computer hobbyists, and the sharper organized crime networks.

Up until recently, government regulation of illicit file-sharing networks was rather mild, but that’s changing, driving an increasing amount of it into the deep web and entirely beyond the reach of government enforcement. It’s in the tactical interest of sovereign states to tolerate absolutely all speech and communication except for terrorist plots and the most heinous organized crime (inclusive of child pornography). What grabbing for the royalties of e-book thieves and classic film buffs accomplishes is accelerating the inevitable transition of the entire Internet from a relatively transparent network they can observe like a fishbowl into an inscrutable black box. Military intelligence analysts don’t make policy, they enforce policy. Policy and enforcement is at the hands of corporate lobbying groups like the MPAA and RIAA which lean on legislative, executive, and judicial institutions to rescue their imperiled business models.

There’s an argument that the more advanced intelligence agencies are actually on top of these things. Ultimately, there’s no way to prove or disprove this proposition, and I may be proven wrong, but I don’t believe it’s possible for them to insert back doors into the open source software the Internet runs on. I don’t believe they’ve cracked the more advanced encryption algorithms. There are, after all, substantial cash prizes waiting for those who can demonstrate having cracked the more popular encryption schemes . . . not to mention undying fame within hacker subcultures.

The more successful hacks on record have largely been feats of social engineering, and many of the others have been clever exploitation of simple mistakes at some improbable layer of the technology stack. If the government can control it, Al Qaeda wouldn’t have chat rooms. Banks wouldn’t entrust billions of dollars every day to SSL encrypted websites. Silk Road wouldn’t be mail-ordering cocaine and XTC with impunity. Child pornography wouldn’t be a thriving global black market with only a fraction of the consumers being caught.

What does all this mean, politically? What does it mean for us?

Within the next decade, powerful smartphones will be ubiquitous. The technology connecting them to the deep web will be readily accessible to the layman. Creeping state efforts to intrude upon communication will make the deep web a daily necessity for anybody who desires any degree of privacy. Monetary transactions will gradually shift to the tax-free, inflation-free, fee-free, digital currencies, undermining the global economic order and bringing down with it every regime which relies on military technology or economic incentives to ensure the loyalty of its subjects.

The regimes which rely primarily on financial control rather than more organic and traditional authority are existentially threatened by the rapid advances in secure communication technology. For all the concern about China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea posing a cyber-security threat to the United States government, the greatest threat is coming from BitCoin or a variant thereof. If the state monopoly on legal tender is broken in the same way the music industry’s monopoly on listening to music has been broken, a cascade failure of the prevailing global power structure without historical precedent will follow.

It may be foolhardy to make a prediction as bold and specific as that one, and it’s foolish to speculate on exactly how it will play out. I believe; however, that political progress in the future will favor those vanguards which rely on traditional and organic authority, especially the ones which take the lead in mastering and utilizing the secure communication technologies as they’re developing. As a movement, we have the first half of the equation nailed. To capitalize on the coming revival of tribal and traditional leadership, the New Right needs to know how to send encrypted emails and communicate through encrypted means whenever possible. At the very least, we should all avoid the habit of discussing anything private on services like Facebook, Skype, and Gmail Chat which likely have back doors.

We can't allow technology to overwhelm us.

We can’t allow technology to overwhelm us.

If political pressure on web hosting companies forces our major websites to be pulled, then they should reappear shortly thereafter on the deep web. Readers and supporters should know where to find it.

There’s a certain bias among conservatives and traditionalists against technology, due to its dehumanizing and alienating impact on society, and due to its having been leveraged against conservatism and tradition.

Technology is what one makes of it, and I believe it can be a veritable Excalibur against the global oligarchs and Modernity itself if leveraged intelligently and effectively.

One of the charming aspects of Farnham O’Reilly’s neo-fascist sci-fi novel Hyperborean Home [3] is the proposition that technology will be advanced and ubiquitous, yet seamlessly integrated into the natural world and traditional community. Rather than being a distracting, obnoxious, and gaudy intrusion into our daily lives, it will fade into the background and be there when necessary, as if it were magic. Rather than coming between us, it will help pull us together. Instead of posing an insidious threat to human dignity and privacy, it will enhance both. This is, in my opinion, what the New Right’s position should be on technology, not a reactionary conservative’s reflexive fear of change or the buffoonish liberal’s dehumanizing “futurist” dystopia of bionic people floating in chrome contraptions . . . but a mastery of technology in the service of tribe, tradition, and transcendence.


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/crypto-anarchism-cyber-security-and-the-new-right/

URLs in this post:

[1] Crypto-Anarchist Manifesto: http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html

[2] Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY

[3] Hyperborean Home: http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/07/hyperborean-home/

vendredi, 12 octobre 2012

From Anarchism to The New Right

"From Anarchism to The New Right" with Richard Spencer and Keith Preston on Alternative Right


jeudi, 26 avril 2012

Bakounine visionnaire ?

Bakounine visionnaire ?

portrait-de-bakounine-gd.jpgL'« État a toujours été le patrimoine d'une certaine classe privilégiée : « une classe sacerdotale, une classe aristocratique, une classe bourgeoise. En définitive, lorsque toutes les autres classes se seront épuisées, l'État deviendra le patrimoine de la classe bureaucratique pour finalement tomber — ou, si vous préférez, atteindra la position d'une machine. » Mikhail Bakounine

Fervent de la liberté

« Je suis un amant fanatique de la liberté, la considérant comme l'unique milieu au sein duquel puissent se développer et grandir l'intelligence, la dignité et le bonheur des hommes ; non de cette liberté toute formelle, octroyée, mesurée et réglementée par l'État. » Mikhail Bakounine

La patrie

1004914-Bakounine.jpg« L’État n’est pas la patrie. C’est l’abstraction, la fiction métaphysique, mystique, politique, juridique de la patrie. Les masses populaires de tous les pays aiment profondément leur patrie ; mais c’est un amour réel, naturel. Pas une idée : un fait... Et c’est pour cela que je me sens franchement et toujours le patriote de toutes les patries opprimées. » Mikhail Bakounine

Ex: http://antoinechimel.hautetfort.com/

lundi, 02 avril 2012

Keith Preston on Balkanization and the state of exception

Marginalia on Radical Thinking: Keith Preston on Balkanization and the state of exception

Keith Preston writes the blog Attack the System,  which attempts to tie together both left and right anarchism in a Pan-secessionism against the empire.   While I come from a radically different perspective than Keith, I find his critique of the way many left anarchists are militant shock troops of liberalism to be a serious and disturbing critique as well as the Nietzschean critique of modernity to be taken seriously and not softened as it has been in French post-structuralism. 

Skepoet:  You started out in the libertarian socialist tradition but have moved towards a pan-anarchist movement than includes decentralized nationalists and non-socialists.   Could you describe how you left ”left” anarchism in its socialist variety?

Keith Preston:  I never really renounced “socialist-anarchism.” I’m still interested in schools of thought that fall under that banner like syndicalism and mutualism, and I still very much consider the founding fathers (and mothers!) of classical anarchism to be influences on my thought. But I did abandon the mainstream (if it could be called that) of the socialist-anarchist movement. The reason for that is the left-anarchist milieu in its modern form is simply a youth subculture more interested in lifestyle issues (like veganism and punk music) than in revolutionary politics. And to the degree that these anarchists have any serious political perspective at all, it’s simply a regurgitation of fairly cliched left-progressive doctrines.

If listen to what the mainstream anarchists talk about-gay rights, global warming, immigrants rights, feminism, anti-racism, animal rights, defending the welfare state. the whole laundry list-they don’t sound much different than what you would hear in the local liberal church parish, or at a Democratic party precinct meeting, or a university humanities course. Eventually, I came to the realization that a serious anti-state movement would need to be grounded in population groups whose core values really do put them at odds with the mainstream political culture. There are plenty of these: the urban underclass and underworld, religious sects whose exotic beliefs get them in trouble with the state, ethnic separatists, pro-gun militias, radical survivalists, drug cultures and sex cultures that are considered deviant or criminal, etc. I’ve been very happy to witness the growth of the anti-civilization movement within the ranks anarchism. What you label “decentralized nationalists” and non-socialists who oppose the state also fall into this category. So it’s not so much about abandoning what I was before as much as building on that and expanding my perspective a bit.

S:  Well, these movements have been around since the middle 1990s on my radar, but I have noticed that Occupy movement seems to have pushed this tensions back into the radical milieu, so to speak. What have you noticed in the past year on the ground?

K.P.:  I consider Occupy Wall Street to largely be a recycling of the anti-globalization movement of the late 1990s and early 2000s. I am skeptical as to whether it will fare any better than the anti-globalization movement did. From what I have observed thus far, OWS is a fairly standard representation of the left-wing subculture, in the sense that the OWS movement seems to roll out a hodge-podge of relatively conventional left-of-center issues in a very chaotic way that lacks direction or vision. OWS is a movement that is easily ignored or coopted by the establishment because it is does not threaten the system in any particularly significant way.

I essentially see OWS as the left’s counterpart to the Teabaggers who were easily coopted by the neocons. Where are the Teabaggers today? It will be fairly easy for the Democrats to coopt OWS over the long haul. Look how easily the New Left of the 1960s was coopted and that was a far more radical movement than OWS. The problem is that OWS offers no radical vision that is fundamentally at odds with the survival of the system. OWS has not developed a position of what might be called “radical otherness” in regards to its relationship to the political establishment.

I should probably add to my answer to your first question that I still very much consider socialist-anarchism of the leftist variety to be a legitimate part of the anarchist paradigm. My criticisms of that milieu are based on my perspective that it is too narrowly focused and that it is ineffective at actually attacking the state. The number of strands of anti-state, libertarian, or anti-authoritarian radicalism are quite numerous. I consider all of these, from anarcha-feminism to Islamic anarchism to queer anarchism to national-anarchism, to be different denominations of the broader anarchist philosophy, just like the Christian religion has all of its different denominational or sectarian variations. The problem I have with the left-anarchists is that I regard them as playing the same role in anarchism that a form of sectarian fundamentalism might play in Christianity. I wish to embrace of all of the different tribes of the anarchist paradigm as brothers and sisters within the anarchist “faith,” if you will, despite our own tribal, sectarian, or denominational differences and however much the different types of anarchists may hate each other.

My goal is for a civilization to emerge eventually where anarchism becomes the prevailing political, social, and economic philosophy, just as Christianity dominated medieval European civilization, Islam dominates the civilization of the Middle East, or Confucianism dominates traditional Chinese civilization.

I try to approach controversial social, political, or economic questions from an objective, scholarly perspective  and I try to understand all different sides of issues and glean what tangible facts are available rather than simply relying on the established left-liberal paradigm that dominates the academic world as most anarchists seem to do. This ultimately leads to my taking a lot of unorthodox positions, although my primary concern in the the area of anarchist strategy. I think philosophical abstractions are worthless if they can’t be transmitted into real life action. I’m interested in question like what should the priorities of anarchists be given our current political conditions? What should be our principal goals? What are some real world goals we can set for ourselves that are actually achievable? What is the most practical approach to the question of what a civilization where the anarchist paradigm is the prevalent paradigm might look like? Questions of that nature.

S:  It has been interesting to see your post-left readings of Carl Schmitt who is a jurist whose work was ignored for a long time and I think re-popularized primarily by the works of the left-wing philosophy Agamben and by thinkers on in the European New Right.  How is an anarchist like yourself informed by Schmitt?

K.P.: Schmitt’s thought really unmasks the essence of the state in a way that I think is more penetrating that even much anarchist thought because it lacks the ideological predisposition towards attacking the state that an anarchist would obviously have and there’s also a lot of moral pretentiousness found in much anarchist writing. Schmitt is writing from the perspective of a brutally honest realist. He is one of those rare political theorists like Machiavelli, Hobbes, or Nietzsche that is able to analyze politics without much in the way of illusions.

Schmitt considered the true nature of the political to be organized collectives with the potential to engage in lethal conflict with one another. His concept of political sovereignty is also quite penetrating. As Schmitt said: “Sovereign is he who decides on the state of the exception.” What he meant by that is that the real power in any society resides in those who are able to set aside the formal rule-making process and codified system of laws when it suits the interests of the state. The law is intended for subjects rather than rulers. The state is a ruler or collection of rulers who act in their own interests. The law serves to restrain subjects, and not to restrain rulers in any authentic sense. Within the realm of the truly political, rulers engage in perpetual brawling with other rulers or potential rulers.

S.:  The sovereign exception is an interesting issue. So what is the anarchist answer to the idea of the sovereign exception?

K.P.:  I think that in a civilization where anarchism was the prevailing political perspective the sovereign would be non-state entities that were capable of repelling physical threats to the anarchist polities. For instance, there might be anarchist-led militias, citizen posses, or private defense forces that would serve the function of resisting either an external invasion or the attempted seizure of power by any one political faction for the purpose of creating a new state.

This one reason why I think fourth generation warfare theory is so interesting because it postulates that the sovereignty of the state is receding and giving way to non-state actors in the realm of military conflict.

There are some interesting historical examples of sovereignty without the state. The Icelandic Commonwealth existed for several centuries minus a single sovereign entity with a monopoly on coercion. During the Spanish Civil War, the anarchist militia confederations essentially replaced the state in certain regions of Spain. An interesting contemporary example is Hezbollah, which has for the most part replaced the Lebanese state as the sovereign in Lebanese society. Of course, Hezbollah are not anarchists, but they are an illustration of how a sovereign can emerge that eclipses the state.

S.: On the Fourth generation warfare:  This seems to also seem to be used as an excuse to strengthen the state.  Do you see this is a trend that is, at root, a sign that elements of the larger culture(s) are separating and going into radically different directions?

K.P.:  Sure. I think a major part of the premise behind the US’s “war on terrorism” is awareness on the parts of the overlords of the empire that the fourth generation resistance is rising and challenging the state in many different areas. So the state is trying to strengthen its position.

At present, most serious fourth generation efforts come from the periphery and conflict between these regions and the empire which is for the most part centered in the West has existed for centuries, of course. So there’s nothing particularly new going on there. However, within the center of the empire itself there does seem to be a separation taking class due to a lack of cultural cohesion. In Europe, the conflict is fueled by mass immigration into what were until very recently mostly homogenous societies. In America, I think the conflict is largely a class conflict on two different levels. First, there is the broader widening of class divisions that has simultaneously generated a strengthened plutocracy at the top, a shrinking middle class and a growing lower prolertarian and lumpenproletarian classes. Large scale immigration has played a role in this obviously, but I don’t think it’s the principal cause. Second, there seems to be a particularly intense class struggle between the dying WASP elites and their constituents among the traditional middle class and the rising upper middle class that is informed by the values of political correctness or what I call totalitarian humanism. This is what I consider to be the source of the US culture wars.

K.P.:  I think what you call “totalitarian humanism,” I call liberalism without the gloves on.  This, however, confuses people since the term liberal is linked to the center-left, which is only one of its manifestations.  Do you see the contradictions within totalitarian
humanism leading to more or less balkanization?

S:  Oh, more balkanization. Very much so. In fact, I think the contradictions within totalitarian humanism will be what eventually brings about its demise. Totalitarian humanism will end when the PC coalition fractures and its component parts eventually turn on each other. A key fault line is going to be the incompatibility of Western liberalism with the social conservatism endemic to most non-Western cultures. For instance, I’ve seen some research that shows anti-gay attitudes are more prevalent among African-Americans than any other ethnic group in the US. Secularism is certainly far more prevalent among Western liberals than among Third world immigrants. Right now, the line that the totalitarian humanist Left takes is something along the lines of “Oppressed peoples everywhere, unite against the white bourgeoisie!” or some variation of that. But these fault lines are very real and will increasingly find their way to the surface over time.

S.:  Is this why you have done so much work with alt right? That the Marxist and anarchist left no longer distances itself from liberalism in a meaningful way?

K.P.:  I’d say there are four things that drew me towards the alt right. First, the alt right is about 100% consistently opposed to American imperialist military adventurism. The Left often falls down on this question and gets taken in by supposed “humanitarian interventions,” for instance. The alt right also has a strong Nietzschean foundation which overlaps quite well with my own philosophical and meta-political stance. The alt right is much more willing to critique or criticize Christianity in a way that would be unthinkable to American-style conservatives and in a way that offers a lot more dept than the reflexive secular humanism or theological liberalism found on the Left. Lastly, as you point out, the alt right is the only political tendency that consistently criticizes totalitarian humanism and does so in a penetrating way.

I consider totalitarian humanism to a very dangerous force that is on the rise in the West, and despite their professed oppositional stance, the Marxist and anarchist left have swallowed the totalitarian humanist bait hook, line, and sinker so to speak, essentially making them the useful idiots of the liberal establishment.

S.:  A friend of mine says the same thing: “Lately the rhetoric between liberals and leftist, you’d think the far left would be an alternative to a lot of PC platitudes, but it isn’t anymore.”   This leads me to some serious questions: I have noticed a lot of professed anti-Fascists using fascist-style intimidation against other forms of anarchism. I suspect you see these anarchists essentially reflecting the anarcho-liberal confusion and becoming a sort of militant-wing for liberal identity politics?

K.P.:  The “anti-fascists” are the mirror image of the Nazi stormtroopers who went about physically attacking Jews and Marxists during the Weimar period. Essentially they are the brown shirts of totalitarian humanism. The tendencies that I refer to as the “anarcho-leftoids” are a kind of parody of PC. Describing them as a “militant wing for liberal identity politics” would be apt in some ways, though perhaps too charitable. They are the new fascists in every essential aspect.

Your question here brings up a very important point. I’ve stated before that my ultimate goal is to build a kind of confederation or agglomeration of tribes of anarchists, libertarians, and another anti-authoritarian radicals who may have many, many profound differences of opinion or ways of life but who are united in their commitment to attacking the state. And, of course, I’ve developed the concept of pan-secessionism as a tactic to be used towards that end. I am sometimes asked if whether my persistent criticisms of the left-anarchists in these areas is not antithetical to my larger goal of a unified anarchist resistance. Am I not acting as a divider rather than as a bridge-builder?

But the immediate problem that we are confronted with is the fact that this totalitarian leftist mindset dominates the mainstream of the anarchist movement, certainly in the English-speaking countries. The leftist-anarchists insist on excluding the other anarchist tribes from their midst on the ground that they are not pure enough in doctrine. For instance, anarcho-capitalists, national-anarchists, Tolkienesque anarcho-monarchists, Nietzschean anarchists of the right, religious anarchists, conservative anarchists similar to the late Joe Sobran, sometimes even left-libertarians like the agorists, mutualists, or voluntarists are rejected for their supposed deviance from official doctrine in one way or another. The leftist fundamentalism that dominates the mainstream anarchist movement is comparable in many ways to the Protestant fundamentalism that dominates American Christianity. I know because I’ve been both a Protestant fundamentalist and a left-anarchist at various points in my life.

So I’m in a situation where in order to pursue my long-terms goals of unifying anti-state radicals against our common enemy, it’s necessary to become a divider in the short-term. I’m divisive because I attack the grip that doctrinaire leftism has on the movement, particularly in the USA. Whenever you speak out against the prevailing trend, you automatically become a divisive figure. So of course those within the mainstream anarchist movement will often come to regard someone like me as the equivalent of heretic who has rejected articles of the true faith. But then there are other anarchists who start to think, “well, you know, maybe Preston has a point with some of his criticisms” and maybe I provide a platform for those anarchists who are aware of some of these problems and have been hesitant to speak up. I’m also opening the door for those anarchists whose own beliefs differ from those of the hard leftists to eventually become accepted by and integrated into the wider anarchist milieu. There are a number of trends in left-anarchism that I see as encouraging such as the post-leftist, situationist, and Stirner-influenced tendencies. While I have my differences with primitivists I have not found them to be as hostile towards other types of anarchists as the leftoids. I also very much appreciate those anarchist tendencies that assert a kind of tribal identity among minority ethnic groups, such as Anarchist People of Color or native anarchists. This is of course very consistent with my broader goal of building a confederation of anti-state tribes.

S.:  Do you see the tribe as the only viable and possibly just political unit?

K.P.:  I should probably clarify what I mean by “tribe.” I’m using the term as a metaphor for any kind of voluntary association sharing a common purpose or identity and functioning independently of the state. So in this context there could certainly be anarchist “tribes” in the common sense of a population group sharing a particular language, culture, religion, or ethnicity, but there could also be tribes committed to a specific political stance, or economic system, or lifestyle interest. For instance, some years ago I came across a group advocating a “stoner homeland” for potheads in northern California. Presumably, there could be stoner anarchist tribes and there could be straight edge anarchist tribes just like there can be tribes representing Christians or Muslims or other kinds of identities. Within in the anarchist tradition, for instance, I would consider the syndicalists to be a tribe, the individualist-anarchists to be a tribe, the Kropotkinites to be a tribe, the Catholic Workers to be a tribe, and so forth.

I think tribes are the most natural form of human social organization. Therefore, they are probably the most viable in terms of durability as well. As to whether they are the most just, I think that’s a subjective question. I don’t really believe in the concept of abstract justice found in much of traditional Western metaphysics of the kinds associated with, for instance, Plato or the Church fathers or the natural rights theorists of the Enlightenment. I’m very much a Nietzschean, possibly a Foucaultian, on this question.

S.:  What do you think is Nietzche’s relevance to anarchism?

K.P.:  Of all the great thinkers of the modern era, Nietzsche was probably the most prescient and penetrating. He recognized that the core foundations of Western civilization-philosophical, cultural, moral, religious-had essentially been overthrown by the advancements in human knowledge that came out of the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, and the Enlightenment. Not only had Christianity been discredited, but so had traditional Western metaphysics. What distinguishes the thought of Nietzsche is that he takes things a step further and attacks the intellectual systems that grew out of the Enlightenment and had taken hold among educated people in his own era. In particular, he understood the progressive faith associated with movements like liberalism and socialism to essentially be secular derivatives of Christianity. Nietzsche regarded the intellectuals of his time as not having really abandoned faith in God, but rather as having invented new gods to believe in like progress, utopianism, equality, universalism, nationalism, racialism, anarchism, and so forth. All of these became forms of secular millenarianism in Nietzsche’s day.

Nietzsche considered all of these trends to be efforts to come to terms, or perhaps avoiding coming to terms, with the death of the foundations of traditional values. He saw these new gods as creating a cultural powder keg that would explode in grotesque warfare in the twentieth century, which is precisely what happened. He also believed it would be the twenty-first century before Western people began to really confront the crisis generated by the erosion of the foundations of their civilization and that cultural nihilism would be the greatest obstacle that the West would have to overcome. We see this today in the self-hatred and wish for cultural self-destruction that exists among Western peoples, particularly the educated elites. For instance, it is quite obviously seen in the thrill with which Western intellectuals anticipate the potential demographic overrun and cultural dispossession of the West.

What is ironic is that the leftist fundamentalism that dominates the mainstream of the anarchist milieu is perhaps the most advanced form of this nihilism. They’ve essentially absorbed the nihilism of the Western elites and amplified it several times over. In particular, they often epitomize the slave morality Nietzsche regarded as having its roots in Christianity and having been carried over into its secular derivatives on the political left.

So I think that the thought of Nietzsche, properly understood, could contribute to an awakening in the anarchist community, and provide us with the intellectual armour necessary to effectively combat our establish overlords rather than simply parroting them as so many of us do now. It does no good to simply regurgitate the values of political correctness when these are simultaneously the legitimizing values of the ruling class.

S.:  Thank you for your time. Anything you’d like to say in closing?

K.P.: Just to say that the first principal of any authentic radicalism has to be independence of mind above all other values. It’s not about how much you agree or disagree with me. Rather, it’s about your ability to apply critical analysis to every question and to every situation. It’s about being able to see every side of every question and giving due recognition where it’s merited. Any set of ideas, no matter what they are, can become menacing when they are dogmatized to the point of becoming unquestionable articles of faith, particularly when intertwined with the authority of the state. No matter how righteous a particular crusade may seem if its presumptions are not subject to regular critical scrutiny then it becomes a potential foundation for yet another tyranny.

Marginalia on Radical Thinking Series can be found hereherehereherehere, here hereherehereherehere  here, and here. 


Keith Preston

Keith Preston

Keith Preston is the chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com and holds graduate degrees in history and sociology. He was awarded the 2008 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize by the United Kingdom's Libertarian Alliance for his essay, "Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy."

mardi, 24 janvier 2012

L'insolence des anarchistes de droite

L'insolence des anarchistes de droite

Article de Dominique Venner dans Le Spectacle du Monde de décembre 2011

Ex: http://www.dominiquevenner.fr/

Les anarchistes de droite me semblent la contribution française la plus authentique et la plus talentueuse à une certaine rébellion insolente de l’esprit européen face à la « modernité », autrement dit l’hypocrisie bourgeoise de gauche et de droite. Leur saint patron pourrait être Barbey d’Aurévilly (Les Diaboliques), à moins que ce ne soit Molière (Tartuffe). Caractéristique dominante : en politique, ils n’appartiennent jamais à la droite modérée et honnissent les politiciens défenseurs du portefeuille et de la morale. C’est pourquoi l’on rencontre dans leur cohorte indocile des écrivains que l’on pourrait dire de gauche, comme Marcel Aymé, ou qu’il serait impossible d’étiqueter, comme Jean Anouilh. Ils ont en commun un talent railleur et un goût du panache dont témoignent Antoine Blondin (Monsieur Jadis), Roger Nimier (Le Hussard bleu), Jean Dutourd (Les Taxis de la Marne) ou Jean Cau (Croquis de mémoire). A la façon de Georges Bernanos, ils se sont souvent querellés avec leurs maîtres à penser. On les retrouve encore, hautins, farceurs et féroces, derrière la caméra de Georges Lautner (Les Tontons flingueurs ou Le Professionnel), avec les dialogues de Michel Audiard, qui est à lui seul un archétype.

Deux parmi ces anarchistes de la plume ont dominé en leur temps le roman noir. Sous un régime d’épais conformisme, ils firent de leurs romans sombres ou rigolards les ultimes refuges de la liberté de penser. Ces deux-là ont été dans les années 1980 les pères du nouveau polar français. On les a dit enfants de Mai 68. L’un par la main gauche, l’autre par la  main droite. Passant au crible le monde hautement immoral dans lequel il leur fallait vivre, ils ont tiré à vue sur les pantins et parfois même sur leur copains.

À quelques années de distances, tous les deux sont nés un 19 décembre. L’un s’appelait Jean-Patrick Manchette. Il avait commencé comme traducteur de polars américains. Pour l’état civil, l’autre était Alain Fournier, un nom un peu difficile à porter quand on veut faire carrière en littérature. Il choisit donc un pseudonyme qui avait le mérite de la nouveauté : ADG. Ces initiales ne voulaient strictement rien dire, mais elles étaient faciles à mémoriser.

En 1971, sans se connaître, Manchette et son cadet ADG ont publié leur premier roman dans la Série Noire. Ce fut comme une petite révolution. D’emblée, ils venaient de donner un terrible coup de vieux à tout un pan du polar à la française. Fini les truands corses et les durs de Pigalle. Fini le code de l’honneur à la Gabin. Avec eux, le roman noir se projetait dans les tortueux méandres de la nouvelle République. L’un traitait son affaire sur le mode ténébreux, et l’autre dans un registre ironique. Impossible après eux d’écrire comme avant. On dit qu’ils avaient pris des leçons chez Chandler ou Hammett. Mais ils n’avaient surtout pas oublié de lire Céline, Michel Audiard et peut-être aussi Paul Morand. Ecriture sèche, efficace comme une rafale bien expédiée. Plus riche en trouvailles et en calembours chez ADG, plus aride chez Manchette.

Né en 1942, mort en 1996, Jean-Patrick Manchette publia en 1971 L’affaire N’Gustro directement inspirée de l’affaire Ben Barka (opposant marocain enlevé et liquidé en 1965 avec la complicité active du pouvoir et des basses polices). Sa connaissance des milieux gauchistes de sa folle jeunesse accoucha d’un tableau véridique et impitoyable. Féministes freudiennes et nymphos, intellos débiles et militants paumés. Une galerie complète des laissés pour compte de Mai 68, auxquels Manchette ajoutait quelques portraits hilarants de révolutionnaires tropicaux. Le personnage le moins antipathique était le tueur, ancien de l’OAS, qui se foutait complètement des fantasmes de ses complices occasionnels. C’était un cynique plutôt fréquentable, mais il n’était pas de taille face aux grands requins qui tiraient les ficelles. Il fut donc dévoré.

Ce premier roman, comme tous ceux qu’écrivit Manchette, était d’un pessimisme intégral. Il y démontait la mécanique du monde réel. Derrière le décor, régnaient les trois divinités de l’époque : le fric, le sexe et le pouvoir.

Au fil de ses propres polars, ADG montra qu’il était lui aussi un auteur au parfum, appréciant les allusions historiques musclées. Tour cela dans un style bien identifiable, charpenté de calembours, écrivant « ouisquie » comme Jacques Perret, l’auteur inoubliable et provisoirement oublié de Bande à part.

Si l’on ne devait lire d’ADG qu’un seul roman, ce serait Pour venger Pépère (Gallimard), un petit chef d’œuvre. Sous une forme ramassée, la palette adégienne y est la plus gouailleuse. Perfection en tout, scénario rond comme un œuf, ironie décapante, brin de poésie légère, irrespect pour les « valeurs » avariées d’une époque corrompue.

L’histoire est celle d’une magnifique vengeance qui a pour cadre la Touraine, patrie de l’auteur. On y voit Maître Pascal Delcroix, jeune avocat costaud et désargenté, se lancer dans une petite guerre téméraire contre les puissants barons de la politique locale. Hormis sa belle inconscience, il a pour soutien un copain nommé « Machin », journaliste droitier d’origine russe, passablement porté sur la bouteille, et « droit comme un tirebouchon ». On s’initie au passage à la dégustation de quelques crus de Touraine, le petit blanc clair et odorant de Montlouis, ou le Turquant coulant comme velours.

Point de départ, l’assassinat fortuit du grand-père de l’avocat. Un grand-père comme on voudrait tous en avoir, ouvrier retraité et communiste à la mode de 1870, aimant le son du clairon et plus encore la pêche au gardon. Fier et pas dégonflé avec çà, ce qui lui vaut d’être tué par des malfrats dûment protégés. A partir de là on entre dans le vif du sujet, c’est à dire dans le ventre puant d’un système faisandé, face nocturne d’un pays jadis noble et galant, dont une certaine Sophie, blonde et gracieuse jeunes fille, semble comme le dernier jardin ensoleillé. Rien de lugubre pourtant, contrairement aux romans de Manchettes. Au contraire, grâce à une insolence joyeuse et un mépris libérateur.

Au lendemain de sa mort (1er novembre 2004), ADG fit un retour inattendu avec J’ai déjà donné, roman salué par toute la critique. Héritier de quelques siècles de gouaille gauloise, insolente et frondeuse, ADG avait planté entre-temps dans la panse d’une république peu recommandable les banderilles les plus jubilatoires de l’anarchisme de droite.


Alain Fournier, dit ADG (1947-2004), un pseudonyme choisi à partir des initiales de son tout premier nom de plume, Alain Dreux-Gallou. Une oeuvre jubilatoire plein d ‘irrespect contre les “valeurs” avariées d’une époque corrompue.

vendredi, 02 décembre 2011

Céline et la question de l’anarchie

Céline et la question de l’anarchie

par Charles-Louis Roseau

Ex: http://lepetitcelinien.blogspot.com/

« De droite » ou « de gauche », on a souvent qualifié Louis-Ferdinand Céline d’anarchiste. Le romancier, quant à lui, se réclamait parfois de ce mouvement. Pourtant, on sait bien qu’il est peu prudent de prendre les dires de l’auteur pour argent comptant, ce d’autant que les assertions céliniennes de la veille sont souvent démenties par les déclarations du lendemain. J’admire infiniment les auteurs qui ont la patience et la culture suffisantes pour décortiquer la pensée politique de Céline et la présenter comme un tout cohérent, systémique, comme une sorte de mécanique dans laquelle chaque rouage s’ordonne et s’ajuste aux engrenages qui précèdent et qui suivent. J’avoue, en ce qui me concerne, ne pas parvenir à m’élever suffisamment haut pour jeter sur le discours politique célinien un regard synthétique. Ce qui me rassure, en revanche, c’est que les études confirment, en les étoffant de maints exemples et arguments, une intuition qui m’assaille dès qu’il s’agit d’analyser le raisonnement célinien. Je parle évidemment de la tendance contradictoire permanente sur laquelle le romancier a bâti son discours. Céline n’est jamais tout à fait « de droite », ni « de gauche ». Jamais tout à fait « fasciste », ni complètement « anarchiste ». Souvent un peu « patriote », mais parfois absolument « antimilitariste ». Les concepts politiques forgés depuis le XVIIIe siècle à grand renfort de nuances, d’alinéas et d’exceptions qui confirment la règle, seraient-ils inaptes à qualifier une réalité terriblement complexe ? Ou, peut-être, est-ce le discours célinien, dont les échos innombrables ponctuèrent les péripéties politiques du siècle dernier, qui, trop alambiqué, refuse de rentrer dans les cases de la boîte à classification ?

J’ai été formé à l’Université française. Ma logique argumentative en a pris les plis et les défauts. Je refuse d’avouer mon incompétence. Je ne sais pas dire que je ne sais pas. Alors, plutôt que d’affronter l’énigme de face, je la contourne. Comme on dit : « je déplace le problème ». L’objectif n’est alors plus de cataloguer la pensée politique célinienne, mais plutôt d’interroger cette impossible catégorisation. À plusieurs reprises, j’ai évoqué une stratégie d’écriture établie par l’auteur afin de se conformer aux attentes versatiles de son lectorat. Ce pouvait être, selon moi, l’une des causes de la tempérance ou des revirements politiques de l’auteur. Cela pouvait aussi expliquer le plongeon soudain dans la dérive antisémite.

Qu’en est-il de l’anarchie chez Céline ? Céline est-il anarchiste ? Je l’avoue tout de suite : ce n’est pas à cette dernière question que j’entends répondre. Je me souviens d’une étude que j’ai faite en 2007 à propos des anarchistes francophones sur Internet (1). J’avais envoyé un questionnaire aux webmasters de tous les sites dignes d’intérêt répertoriés sur la toile. L’un d’entre eux m’avait répondu : « Juste un conseil, ne vous lancez pas dans les tendances de l'anarchisme, vous risqueriez d'y perdre votre tête, conservez juste les affiliations, cela suffira à votre propos, les unes ne reflétant pas les autres. Des gens de la même tendance pouvant être soit à la fois, soit séparément dans diverses organisations ou groupe ou revue ou, ou, ou… La mouvance libertaire est, comme les sables, mouvante. » J’ai gardé ce conseil dans un coin de ma tête. Encore aujourd’hui, je ne manque pas de l’appliquer ; cela m’évite de dire des bêtises. Pour se prononcer sur l’anarchisme de Céline, il faudrait donc concevoir clairement et l’homme et le concept… J’en suis malheureusement bien loin. Alors que faire ? M’arrêter ? Le lecteur qui, entamant cet article, se réjouissait d’avance à l’idée de pouvoir « ranger » Céline dans une mouvance, sera sans doute déçu. Il peut en rester là. Celui qui, au contraire, se demande pourquoi on cherche encore à savoir si Céline est anarchiste, celui-ci, qu’il n’hésite pas à me suivre.

L’anarchisme est l’un de ces courants politiques sur lesquels plus on lit, moins on en sait. Quelle que soit l’approche, chaque livre allonge la liste des complexités, des nuances et des diversités internes. Cela ne facilite vraiment pas la tâche, surtout quand il convient d’être synthétique. Historiquement, la définition moderne et politique de l’anarchie naît avec l’État-nation. C’est après la Révolution française, et, plus particulièrement, au cours du XIXe siècle, que le mouvement, ses penseurs et ses principes se sont peu à peu mis en place. Mais quels principes au juste ? Si l’on en croit les auteurs de L’Encyclopédie anarchiste : « Ce qui existe et ce qui constitue ce qu’on peut appeler la doctrine anarchiste, c’est un ensemble de principes généraux, de conceptions fondamentales et d’applications pratiques sur lesquels l’accord s’est établi entre individus qui pensent en ennemis de l’autorité et luttent isolément ou collectivement, contre toutes les disciplines et contraintes politiques, économiques, intellectuelles et morales qui découlent de celle-ci. Il peut donc y avoir et, en fait, il y a plusieurs variétés d’anarchistes, mais tous ont un trait commun qui les sépare de toutes les autres variétés humaines. Ce point commun, c’est la négation du principe d’autorité dans l’organisation sociale et la haine de toutes les contraintes qui procèdent des institutions fondées sur ce principe. (2) » Cette définition pour le moins générique qui, tout en suggérant des sous-ensembles, se garde bien de les détailler, semble englober le cas célinien. En effet, on connaît les critiques que l’auteur adresse à la morale, à la religion, au capitalisme, à la démocratie et au militarisme. L’empreinte anarchiste est d’autant plus vivace, chez Céline, qu’il en est de la littérature comme de la vie : la première impression est souvent la plus vivace. Dans cette perspective, Voyage au bout de la nuit, le roman liminaire, celui par lequel tout lecteur commence son périple célinien, n’en finit jamais d’orienter les opinions. Il est sans doute le roman le plus réaliste de Céline. L’auteur y fustige la guerre, y dénonce la marchandisation des hommes, la misère des classes populaires, les méfaits du colonialisme et du capitalisme… De ce fait, il a été et est toujours perçu comme un roman politique, à tendance populiste, dont l’auteur refusait de prendre parti. Il suffit pour s’en convaincre de consulter les échos parus dans la presse à partir de 1932 (3) : on y parle de roman révolutionnaire, de cri, de souffle nouveau, de peinture réaliste et misérabiliste… À l’époque où chaque intellectuel se devait de choisir un camp et où le communisme figurait la seule expression envisageable de la révolte, tout individu qui, bien qu’ayant des sympathies pour les idées révolutionnaires, refusait de s’encarter, se voyait dédaigneusement taxé d’anarchisme (4) . N’est pas le cas de Bardamu qui, dans les premières pages de Voyage au bout de la nuit, se voit traiter d’ « anarchiste » parce qu’il refuse de défendre la « race française » chère à Arthur Ganate ? C’est donc par défaut que Céline est devenu anarchiste, un peu comme ces étrangers que l’on traitait de « rastaquouères » à la fin du XIXe siècle. Parce qu’il convenait de lui donner une étiquette, mais qu’aucune ne lui correspondait véritablement.

Pourtant, à y regarder de plus près, de l’anarchiste, Louis-Ferdinand Céline n’a que la posture. Très vite, il se présente comme le reclus, le révolté incompris dont la parole rebelle perturbe la bienséance et l’équilibre politique établi. Tout au long de sa carrière, il alimentera cette image d’insoumis, d’abord par ses discours, puis, à la fin de sa vie, à l’aide de photos le représentant en guenilles, lui, l’homme du peuple, dans son « en-dehors » de Meudon. Il y a en effet une forme d’anarchisme ostentatoire chez Céline, mais qu’on ne s’y trompe pas, elle n’entretient aucun rapport avec le politique. Car « la vérité de ce monde, c’est la mort », et il n’y a rien à espérer, rien à construire, rien à autogérer, tant l’homme est viscéralement pourri. La seule once d’anarchisme présente chez Céline, on la doit donc, je pense, à son incroyable égoïsme. À cette indestructible conviction qui fait de l’ego la seule réalité possible, le point de départ et le critère de tout jugement. Il faut relire les lettres d’Afrique (5) pour saisir l’émergence de cette individualisme égocentrique et contestataire qui inscrit Destouches dans la droite lignée du philosophe allemand Max Stirner (6) et de certains de ses homologues français, à commencer par Georges Palante… On parlera alors d’anarchisme « littéraire », « philosophique », « apolitique », « du mépris », « de droite »… N’en reste pas moins qu’il s’agit avant tout d’une posture : d’un « être au monde » ostensible qui n’engage que soi.

L’anarchiste par défaut, c’est aussi l’individu qui « fréquente le milieu », cette nébuleuse gauchisante difficile à cerner pour celui qui la regarde de loin. Or Céline a toujours entretenu une relation ambivalente avec les anarchistes, acceptant leurs éloges sans répondre à leurs invitations, applaudissant leurs idées sans pour autant y adhérer totalement. Le 18 mars 1933, Céline adresse une lettre à Elie Faure qui, beaucoup moins radical que son oncle Elisée Reclus, s’est rangé aux côtés des socialistes. Le romancier y explique son refus de suivre l’Association des Ecrivains et des Artistes révolutionnaires, alors sous le patronage du PCF: « Je me refuse absolument à me ranger ici ou là. Je suis anarchiste jusqu’aux poils. Je l’ai toujours été et je ne serai jamais rien d’autre. Tous m’ont vomi, depuis les Inveszias jusqu’aux nazis officiels, Mr de Régnier, Comoedia, Stavinsky, le président Dullin, tous m’ont déclaré imbuvable, immonde et dans des termes à peu près identiques.» (7). Quelques mois plus tard, c’est au tour des libertaires de courtiser l’auteur de Voyage. Connu pour ses positions antimilitaristes qui lui valurent l’exil, le beau-fils du polémiste anarchiste Laurent Tailhade, Pierre Châtelain-Tailhade, s’adresse à Céline en ces termes : « Descendez dans la "rue des hommes"; allez serrer de ces mains jeunes, Céline, de ces mains qui, lorsqu'elles battront la générale pour le rassemblement des espoirs, ne la battront pas sur des tambours voilés ! » (8). Mais l’auteur de Voyage ne semble pas séduit et préfère garder ses distances. Comment, dès lors, comprendre ce curieux manège ? Pourquoi se prétendre anarchiste devant ceux qui ne le sont pas, et refuser de suivre ceux qui le sont vraiment ? C’est sans doute que le terme possède une définition très souple et qu’il renvoie une image dont le reflet brille différemment selon l’angle depuis lequel on le regarde. Ce rapport indécis se poursuit d’ailleurs après la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Dans une lettre à Albert Paraz datée du 14 novembre 1949, Céline déclare : « Vive l’Anarchie nom de Dieu Pour être un bon anarchiste il faut avoir tenu bon en tôle. (9)» Quelques jours plus tard, il modère pourtant son élan : « J’aime bien les anarchistes mais cette idolâtrie des grandes figures est niaise. C’est l’impuissance mentale. Ils remarquent ceux qui ont souffert pour la cause 2 siècles trop tard et encore tout de travers ! ou pas souffert du tout ! On est dans la connerie ». C’est aussi à cette même époque que l’on voit réapparaître les noms de fervents défenseurs de l’anarchie dans la correspondance de l’auteur. Michel Ragon, par exemple, proche de la Fédération Anarchiste, mais surtout, Louis Lecoin, théoricien de l’ « objection de conscience » et pacifiste viscéral coutumier de l’insoumission et des prisons. De ce dernier, isolé au Danemark, Céline reçoit quelques exemplaires de la revue Défense de l’Homme, dont le numéro de février 1950 a d’ailleurs proposé une étude favorable à Céline (10). Paradoxalement, la presse anarchiste fait paraître une enquête assez conciliante à l’égard de l’écrivain taxé de collaborationnisme. Publié entre le 13 et le 27 janvier 1950 sur trois numéro du Libertaire, l’organe du Front communiste libertaire, « Que pensez-vous du procès Céline ? », laisse la parole à des écrivains, des journalistes ou des peintres dont la popularité n’est nullement contestée. On recense notamment les textes de Louis Pauwels, de Marcel Aymé, de Jean Dubuffet, d’Albert Camus, de René Barjavel ou encore de Jean Paulhan. Ce dernier écrit : « Si l’anarchisme est un crime, qu’on le fusille. Sinon qu’on lui foute une fois pour toute la paix ». Prononcés par un homme de lettres et d’idées, ces propos ont sans doute déplu aux militants pragmatiques qui n’ont pas manqué de souligner la primauté de certaines réalités politiques et sociales. L’enquête se clôt notamment sur une lettre signée par cinq activistes du groupe Sacco-Vanzetti de la Fédération anarchiste. Voici ce qu’on y lit : « En admettant même que Céline ait « la meute au cul », cette meute ne nous paraît pas comparable à celle qui s’acharne contre les persécutés sociaux d’Espagne, de Bulgarie, de Bolivie, de Grèce, d’Europe orientale, des Indes, du Vietnam ou, sans aller si loin, d’Afrique du Nord et de France (voir mineurs, déserteurs, etc.) » (11).

[Photo :Louis Lecoin] L’anarchie célinienne, me semble-t-il, fonctionne comme un trompe l’œil : réaliste de loin et improbable de près. Si l’auteur aime à paraître anarchiste, il ne voit aucun intérêt, je pense, à l’être concrètement. Les anarchistes, quant à eux, n’ont pas l’air de considérer le romancier comme un porte-parole. Et, quand, touché par tel ou tel discours, l’un des leurs se tourne vers l’écrivain, la main ne reste jamais longtemps tendue. L’usage de la référence anarchiste se situe donc ailleurs que dans le champ du politique et de l’engagement solidaire. Il relève au contraire d’une stratégie personnelle, voire tout à fait intime, liée à des vertus symboliques et esthétiques. Dans son essai sur Céline (12), Michel Bounan présente l’écrivain comme un conservateur antisémite et réactionnaire qui se serait sciemment « déguisé » en anarchiste pour mieux véhiculer ses idées. Sans tomber dans les excès d’une telle démonstration, il ne me semble pas déplacé de retenir la thèse du travestissement utilitaire. Comme il le fit pour son statut d’ancien combattant, Céline se serait donc fabriqué, ou simplement contenté d’entretenir, une image d’écrivain anarchiste. Il faut bien reconnaître que la verve révolutionnaire de ses premiers romans, tout comme le récit fantasmé de son enfance populaire et son statut de clochard céleste, ont contribué à alimenter la veine populiste qui participe de la symbolique anarchiste. De même, sa position d’écrivain frondeur, ses frasques judiciaires, son exil et son passage en prison le rangent, du moins en apparence, aux côtés des réfractaires. Pour le non-initié, ou pour l’intellectuel libertaire davantage soucieux de la posture que de l’engagement pratique, Céline pouvait donc aisément passer pour un anarchiste. Mais comment expliquer ce camouflage... Dont je ne saurais même pas m’aventurer à dire s’il était conscient ou non ? À y regarder de plus près, l’idéologie libertaire, vidée de ses applications pratiques, figure l’aboutissement de la marche initiée au siècle des Lumières. Les notions de critique, d’individu et de libre-pensée, qui s’inscrivent au cœur même de la mouvance libertaire, sont également des gages de qualité qui surent s’imposer dans l’histoire politique et littéraire. Dans cette perspective, l’étiquette anarchiste possède des vertus fédératrices qui ne purent que servir les intérêts du romancier. De plus, si l’anarchie reste un concept d’autant plus nébuleux qu’on le regarde de loin, il n’en reste pas moins une pensée politique légitime, humaniste, voire romantique, que seuls les réactionnaires d’un autre temps remettent radicalement en cause. De ce point de vue, Céline avait quelques avantages médiatiques à passer pour un anarchiste : d’abord parce qu’il est inconcevable d’être simultanément libertaire et fasciste. Mais aussi, parce qu’ainsi, sa cause devenait encore plus noble et tolérable.

Il est toujours malvenu de conclure une réflexion sur une série d’hypothèses. Les certitudes, comme le meilleur, sont pour la fin. Je souhaiterais donc clore cet article sur un lien qui, sans aucun doute, rapproche Céline de l’anarchie. Cette attache d’ordre esthétique a été étudiée en détails par Yves Pagès dans son livre sur la pensée politique de l’auteur (13). Il s’agit de l’influence des anarchistes de la Belle Epoque sur l’œuvre célinienne. Plutôt que de résumer cette brillante étude, j’invite le lecteur à la parcourir. Il y découvrira combien le jeune Destouches dut être impressionné par la série d’attentats anarchistes qui ponctuèrent son enfance et sévirent souvent dans son quartier. Il y croisera les figures de Caserio, d’Emile Henry, d’Auguste Vaillant, de Liabeuf, ou encore de tous ceux qui formèrent la bande à Bonnot. Les polémistes insoumis aussi : Libertad, Zo d’Axa… Étrangement, certains de ces personnages semblent refaire surface dans l’œuvre célinienne. On pense évidemment à Bardamu, mais aussi au Borokrom de Guignol’s Band. Dès lors, on ne peut que tomber d’accord avec Yves Pagès. Le projet littéraire célinien est semblable aux combats de ces libertaires accrochés au tournant des siècles. C’est une révolte individuelle perdue d’avance.
Un cri populaire d’autant plus déchirant qu’il est conscient de sa propre fin. L’acte d’un forcené assiégé qui refuse de se rendre.

Charles-Louis ROSEAU
Le Petit Célinien, 19 novembre 2011.

1 - Charles-Louis Roseau, Les Anarchistes francophones et Internet, Mémoire de Master sous la direction de Véronique Richard, Centre d'études littéraires et scientifiques appliquées (Celsa), Paris IV – La Sorbonne, 2007.
2 - Sébastien Faure (sous la direction de), Encyclopédie anarchiste, Paris, Œuvre internationale des Éditions anarchistes, 4 Vol, 1934-1935.
3 - André Derval – textes réunis et présentés par – Voyage au bout de la nuit de Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Critiques 1932 – 1935, Paris, Ed. de l’IMEC, 1993.
4 - Le 9 décembre 1932, Paul Nizan écrit dans l’Humanité : « Céline n'est pas parmi nous : impossible d'accepter sa profonde anarchie, son mépris, sa répulsion générale qui n'acceptent point le prolétariat. Cette révolte pure peu le mener n'importe où : parmi nous, contre nous ou nulle part. Il lui manque la révolution.» Cité dans Ibid., p. 61.
5 - Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Cahiers Céline n°4Lettres et premiers écrits d’Afrique 1916 – 1917, textes réunis et présentés par Jean-Pierre Dauphin, Paris, Gallimard, 1978.
6 - Max Stirner, L’Unique et sa propriété, Lausanne, l’Âge d’homme, 1972. Paru en Allemagne en 1845, ce livre a été traduit pour la première fois en français en 1899.
7 - Cité dans Lettres, édition établie par Henri Godard et Jean-Paul Louis, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Paris, Gallimard, 2009, p. 416.
8 - Cité par Bruno Jouy dans Voyage au bout de la nuit, Etude d’une réception, Thèse de Doctorat sous la direction de Pierre Lainé, Université de Bretagne occidentale, 1992.
9 - Lettres, Op. cit., p. 1243.
10 - Jean Vita, « Céline et l’enfance », dans Défense de l’Homme, N°17, février 1950, p.25-27. Dans cet article initialement paru en 1944, l’auteur présente Céline comme un « anarchiste ».
11 - Une synthèse complète de cette étude publiée sur trois numéros est disponible sur : http://florealanar.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/un-peu-dhistoire/
12 - Michel Bounan, L’Art de Céline et son Temps, Editions Allia, Paris, 2004.
13 - Yves Pagès, Les Fictions du politique chez L.-F Céline, « L’Univers historique », Paris, Le Seuil, 1994.

vendredi, 24 décembre 2010

Die ungewöhnliche Beziehung von Ernst Jünger und Erich Mühsam


Kreuzweiser Austausch
Die ungewöhnliche Beziehung von Ernst Jünger und Erich Mühsam

Von Lars-Broder Keil (Friedrichshagen)

Ex: http://www.friedrichshagener-dichterkreis.de/

"Mühsam lernte ich bei Ernst Niekisch kennen, den ich häufig aufsuchte. Ich glaube, auch Toller war an jenem Abend dabei. Sie kannten sich aus der Zeit der Münchener Räterepublik, mit der sich die Linke eine ähnliche Absurdität wie später die Rechte mit dem Kapp-Putsch leistete. Wir kamen in ein angeregtes Gespräch, Mühsam begleitete mich auf dem Heimwege. Er war Bohemien vom Schlage Peter Hilles, weltfremder Anarchist, verworren, kindlich-gutmütig. (...) Er redete in flatterndem Mantel wild, beinahe schreiend auf mich ein, so daß sich die Passanten nach der seltsamen Erscheinung umwandten, die an einen großen unbeholfenen Vogel erinnerte. Wir tauschten einige Briefe, bis kurz vor seiner Verhaftung; schreckliche Gerüchte sickerten bald über sein Schicksal durch." (1)
Diese Schilderung seiner ersten Begegnung mit Erich Mühsam (1878-1934), die um 1930 herum stattfand, hielt Ernst Jünger (1895-1998) am 24. August 1945 in seinem Tagebuch fest. Glaubt man Jüngers Eintrag, blieb es nicht bei dieser Begegnung. Es ist eine Beziehung, die ungewöhnlich, fast unwahrscheinlich anmutet: der linke Anarchist Erich Mühsam und der bis heute umstrittene konserverative Schriftsteller und Käferforscher Ernst Jünger.

Schwierige Spurensuche

Erich Mühsam wurde 1878 in Berlin geboren, wuchs aber in Lübeck auf. Nachdem er dort eine Glosse über den Direktor seiner Schule in einer SPD-Zeitung veröffentlicht hatte, flog er wegen "sozialistischer Umtriebe" von der Schule und begann eine Apothekerlehre. 1900 zog er nach Berlin, fand Anschluss an die Neue Gemeinschaft der Gebrüder Heinrich und Julius Hart sowie an die Literatur-Bohemeszene und freundete sich mit Gustav Landauer an. In Friedrichshagen arbeitete er ab 1902 für die anarchistische Zeitung "Armer Teufel", bis er 1904 zu seinen Wanderjahren durch Europa aufbrach. Diese führten ihn schließlich nach München, wo sich Mühsam ab 1909 niederließ. 1918 beteiligte er sich führend an der Gründung der Münchener Räterepublik und musste nach deren Niederschlagung ins Gefängnis, wo er bis Ende 1924 einsaß. Anschließend zog Mühsam wieder nach Berlin und gab dort die Monatzeitschrift "Fanal" heraus. 1933 von der SA verhaftet, wurde er nach schweren Misshandlungen 1934 im KZ Oranienburg ermordet.
Ernst Jünger wurde 1895 in Heidelberg geboren. Wie ein Großteil seiner Generation meldete er sich 1914 als Kriegsfreiwilliger. Er wurde mehrfach verwundet und ausgezeichnet. Mehr als das prägte ihn die Materialschlacht an der Front, die er in Büchern, wie "In Stahlgewittern" (1920), verarbeitete. Auffallend dabei: zum einen die nüchternen Schilderungen des Grauens, andererseits die Begeisterung für den militärischen Kampf. Dieser Stil sowie die Mitarbeit in nationalistischen und militanten Gruppierungen wie Zeitschriften brachten ihm den Ruf des demokratiefeindlichen Reaktionärs und Kriegsverherrlichers ein. Dabei war auch der junge Jünger, wie viele seiner Generation, jemand, der sich erst durch den Krieg verändert hatte und der auch ein Suchender war: "Mein Weltbild besitzt durchaus nicht mehr jene Sicherheit, wie sollte das auch möglich sein bei der Unsicherheit, die uns seit Jahren umgibt", schrieb er über seine Kriegserlebnisse im Buch "Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis" (1922). Mitte der 20er-Jahre begann er Philosophie und Zoologie zu studieren, brach das Studium aber 1926 ab und lebte seitdem als Schriftsteller - unterbrochen durch seinen Militäreinsatz im zweiten Weltkrieg, den er unter anderem im Stab des Militärbefehlshabers in Paris verbrachte. 1944, nach dem missglückten Attentat auf Hitler, wurde Jünger aus der Armee entlassen. Der Autor zahlreicher Bücher, Tagebücher und Essays starb 1998 im Alter von 103 Jahren.
Leider sind die Briefe Mühsams an Jünger vernichtet - unter welchen Bedingungen dies geschah, soll zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt beschrieben werden. Daher lässt sich auch nichts über den Inhalt sagen. Neben dem etwas ausführlicheren Eintrag von 1945 tauchen nur wenige kurze Hinweise auf Mühsam in Jüngers Tagebüchern auf. Im Eintrag vom 10. September 1943 schrieb er über Mühsam, dass dieser "eine kindliche Neigung zu mir gefasst hatte" und dass man ihn "auf so schauerliche Weise ermordete". Am Ende findet sich die Einschätzung: "Er war einer der besten und gutmütigsten Menschen, denen ich begegnet bin." (2). Kurz erwähnte Jünger ihn noch am 20. Oktober 1972 und 20. Mai 1980 (3). Am 19. November 1989 notierte Jünger: "Hans Jürgen Frh. von der Wense (1894-1955). Ich lese in seinen Tagebüchern Notizen über die Novemberrevolution von 1918 und deren Folgen bis zur Niederschlagung der Münchner Räterepublik; sie erinnern mich an Gespräche mit Beteiligten wie Niekisch, Toller und Mühsam." (4)
Mühsam wiederum erwähnte weder in seinen Erinnerungen noch in Briefen seine Beziehung zu Jünger. Von der Bekanntschaft kündet lediglich der Eintrag im Notizkalender von 1930: "15.1. Begegnung mit Ernst Jünger bei Rudolf Schlichter" (5). Das Aussparen der Beziehung zu Jünger mag daran liegen, dass sie nur lose war und er ihr keine so große Bedeutung beigemesssen hat - was angesichts der verschiedenen Weltbilder der beiden nicht verwunderlich sein dürfte. Doch offenbar hinderte sie das nicht, Gespräche zu führen. Mehr Aufschluss könnte Mühsams Nachlass geben, doch der ist zu einem großen Teil zerstört. Chris Hirte, ein Mühsam-Biograf und -kenner, wundert sich über die Beziehung nicht. Zum einen habe sich Mühsam in seiner Zeitschrift "Fanal" ausführlich mit Kriegsliteratur befasst, und Jünger war einer der wichtigsten Vertreter. Zum anderen habe Mühsam viel Wert auf Kontakte quer durch alle Gruppierungen gelegt und mit diesen ausführlich kommuniziert, besonders gern mit prominenten Zeitgenossen, zu denen Jünger damals schon gehörte. Unter Mühsams Bekannten stammten laut Hirte viele aus dem bürgerlichen Lager. Ideologische Barriere gab es für den Anarchisten Mühsam hier offenbar nicht.
Auffallend an Jüngers knappen Überlieferungen der Kontakte ist der wohlwollende Ton, mit dem er über den "Friedrichshagener" Mühsam spricht. Daher scheint es interessant, das Klima zu beschreiben, das damals Treffen zwischen linken und rechten Intellektuellen möglich machte. Verzichtet wird, vor allem aus Platzgründen, auf eine Analyse der relevanten Werke Jüngers, die aber genannt werden sowie auf eine tiefere Analyse der nationalistischen Strömungen, die in der Beziehung eine Rolle spielen. Zu diesen gibt es eine erschöpfende Literatur.

Niekisch als Bindeglied der Beziehung

Wie in Jüngers Tagebuch angedeutet, war Ernst Niekisch (1889-1967) das Bindeglied in dieser ungewöhnlichen Beziehung. Niekisch, Sohn eines Feilenhauermeisters und in Schlesien geboren, las in seiner Jugendzeit neben Klassikern auch die Werke der Moderne von Gerhart Hauptmann, Henrik Ibsen, Frank Wedekind und Max Halbe, die zum Teil prägend für die "Friedrichshagener" waren. Er lernte Erich Mühsam zusammen mit Gustav Landauer 1918 während der Zeit der Räterepublik in München kennen, an der sich alle drei aktiv mitwirkten. Niekisch beschreibt Mühsam in dieser Zeit als sprudelnden, witzigen Geist, "ein guter Mensch, aber so ausgesprochen literarischer Bohemien, daß sich niemand ihn in einer würdigen Amtsposition vorstellen konnte" (6). Letztere Bemerkung zielt auf einen Versuch von Mühsam, sich selber als Volksbeauftragter für das Auswärtige im Kabinett der Räterepublik vorzuschlagen. Landauer war für Niekisch eine "geistig überlegene Persönlichkeit" (7), ein außerordentlicher und gedankenvoller Redner (8).
Die Zusammenarbeit lockerte sich mit dem Rücktritt von Niekisch vom Posten des Präsidenten des Zentralrats der Arbeiter-, Bauern- und Soldatenräte Bayerns. Trotzdem unterzeichnete er einen Aufruf zugunsten des seit 1919 inhaftierten Mühsam, der ärztliche Hilfe brauchte. Kurze Zeit später trafen sich beide wieder - in der Festungshaft. Dort zettelte Mühsam unter den Häftlingen einen Streik an, bei dem Essenreste auf die Gänge geworfen wurden. Niekisch, der angesichts der Lebensmittelknappheit dieser Zeit eine "schlechte Presse" für diese Aktion befürchtete, brach den Streik und säuberte am dritten Tag mit Hilfe anderer Häftlinge die Flure (9). Mühsam zeigte sich verbittert über die Streikbrecher und nannte Niekisch und dessen Umfeld in seinen Tagebüchern verächtlich die "Intellektuellen" (10).

Niekisch trat nach seiner Entlassung in den Schuldienst ein, war Landtagsabgeordneter der USPD und folgte im November 1922 dem Ruf in den Hauptvorstand des Deutschen Textilarbeiterverbandes nach Berlin, schied aber 1926 im Streit mit der SPD aus dem gewerkschaftlichen Verband aus und ging nach Dresden. Dort schloss er sich der Alten Sozialdemokratischen Partei (ASP) an und gab die Zeitschrift "Widerstand. Blätter für sozialistische und nationalrevolutionäre Politik" heraus.
Über diese Herausgeberschaft und die ASP bekam er zunehmend Kontakt zu bündischen Kreisen, zu reaktionären Gruppierungen, beispielsweise zum Jungdeutschen Orden, zu Konservativen, wie den ehemaligen Korpsstudenten Friedrich Hielscher, der zum Thema "Nietzsche und der Rechtsgedanke" promoviert hatte und sich später diffusen sozialrevolutionär-nationalistischen Tendenzen näherte, sowie zu bürgerlichen Intellektuellen, etwa zu Friedrich Georg Jünger, ein Bruder von Ernst Jünger (11).
Auf die Jünger-Brüder war Niekisch durch den Philosophen Alfred Baeumler gestoßen, der zugleich Mitglied des Kampfbundes für deutsche Kultur von Alfred Rosenberg war. Baeumler lobte Ernst Jünger als einen Mann, "der die technischen Tendenzen der Zeit in vollem Umfange begriffen habe" und nicht mehr in rückständiger Bürgerlichkeit stecke (12). Dies war wohl der Anlass, Jünger 1926 zur Mitarbeit am "Widerstand" aufzufordern, wie aus einem Brief Ernst Jüngers an seinen Bruder hervorgeht (13). 1927 erschien der erste Artikel.
Im Herbst des gleichen Jahres, so berichtet Niekisch in seinen Erinnerungen, sei er mit Baeumler nach Berlin gereist, der dann einen Besuch bei Jünger angeregt habe. Jünger habe beide freundlich in seiner Wohnung in der Nähe der Warschauer Brücke empfangen. "Wir tranken Kaffee und unterhielten uns über politische Vorgänge jener Tage", erinnert sich Niekisch (14).

Allerdings scheint er sich im Jahr geirrt zu haben, da Baeumler die Jüngers erst 1928 kennenlernte und auch die Briefe erst aus diesem Jahr stammen (15). Ob nun 1927 oder 1928, nach dem ersten Treffen entwickelte sich jedenfalls ein, laut Niekisch, freundschaftlicher Verkehr, gelegentlich schrieb Jünger für den "Widerstand" Aufsätze, und als Niekisch wieder nach Berlin zog, trafen sich beide, etwa bei einer Besprechung des Kreises "Neuer Nationalisten" mit dem Verleger Ernst Rowohlt oder bei Niekisch zu Hause. Bei einem dieser Besuche kam es dann zum Kontakt zwischen Mühsam und Jünger.
Jünger in Berlin

Rund sechs Jahre, von 1927 bis 1933, lebte Ernst Jünger in Berlin. Nach seinen Büchern über den Ersten Weltkrieg war er zum Hoffnungsträger und Wortführer der Gegner der Weimarer Republik im rechten Spektrum geworden.
Die unter dem Begriff "Neuer Nationalismus" zusammengefassten Gruppierungen bekannten sich einmütig zur Nation und einem wehrhaften Staat. Doch Jünger begann schnell, sich von den radikal-militanten Kreisen zu lösen. Wie schon die jungen Intellektuellen zur Jahrhundertwende zog Jünger das Geschehen der pulsierenden Hauptstadt an. Jünger versuchte sich in bohemhaftem Lebensstil, wohnte in möblierten Zimmern, wanderte nachts durch die Straßen, hielt seine Beobachtungen fest, nahm gelegentlich an Trinkfesten teil. Er suchte Kontakt zu Vertretern aller Couleur, zu Nationalisten und Rechten, beispielsweise zu Friedrich Hielscher und Otto Strasser, zu Linken, wie Bertolt Brecht, Erich Mühsam, Ernst Toller und zu Rudolf Schlichter, der Jünger 1929 und noch einmal 1937 porträtierte (16).
Der Maler, Zeichner und Schriftsteller Rudolf Schlichter (1890-1955), bei dem Mühsam laut seinem Notizkalender auch Jünger traf, erregte Anfang der 20er-Jahre mit seiner Plastik des an der Decke schwebenden "Preußischen Erzengels" in Uniform und Schweinskopf Aufsehen. Etwa 1927 wurde der kommunistische Künstler als genauer Zeichner der Berliner Halbwelt bekannt, war unter anderem mit George Grosz und Bert Brecht befreundet. Durch die Begegnung mit seiner späteren Frau Speedy wandte sich Schlichter jedoch dem Katholizismus und Nationalismus zu. In dieser Phase lernte er auch Ernst Jünger kennen, der den Maler sehr schätzte. Die erste Begegnung fand wahrscheinlich beim Verleger Rowohlt statt, der, wie Jünger notierte, "sich ein Vergnügen daraus machte, pyrotechnische Mischungen auszutüfteln, besonders an seinen Geburtstagen" (17).


Für die Weimarer Jahre war ein Wirrwarr von rechten und linken Gruppen, Bünden, intellektuellen Zirkeln und Sammlungsbewegungen kennzeichnend, die weniger in festen Organisationsformen oder gar Ortsverbänden agierten. Meist handelte es sich um Mitarbeiter einer Zeitschrift, die sich um den Herausgebe scharrten. Die Akteure waren oft junge, unzufriedene Kriegsteilnehmer, die nach einer Neuorientierung, einem "neuen politischen Leitbild eines nationalen Selbstbewusstseins" suchten - und zwar jenseits vom Parteiengezänk. (18). Die Frontgeneration der 1890-1905 Geborenen kritisierte und bekämpfte die Ideen des Liberalismus und des Parteiensystems. Sie stellten die Bindung an eine fast mystisch anmutende Nation in den Mittelpunkt, grenzten sich aber vom Nationenbegriff patriotischer Prägung ab.
Was bewegte die "rechten" Strömungen, die unter Begriffen wie Nationalrevolutionäre zusammengefasst wurden, zum gemeinsamen Vorgehen? Jürgen Danyel nannte auf einer Tagung der Evangelischen Akademie Berlin 1990 über den so genannten "Gegner"-Kreis drei wesentliche Handlungsanreize: Zum einen werden die Aktivitäten als Reaktion auf die Modernisierungprozesse der 20er-Jahre verstanden und auf die Erkenntnis, Anschluss an politische Massenbewegungen gewinnnen zu müssen. Allerdings waren die Vertreter des Nationalismus zumeist Einzelgänger und stolz auf ihre Isolierung. Geradezu mit Verachtung wiesen sie die Möglichkeit ab, sich von den großen politischen Strömungen tragen zu lassen. Sie sahen sich in Opposition, als Individualisten und auf dem Weg, für sich den Begriff Konservatismus neu zu definieren. Zweitens prägten die Strömungen das "Gemeinschaftserlebnis Krieg" und die revolutionären Nachkriegsauseinandersetzungen sowie das "Unvermögen zur sozialen Integration in eine ihnen fremde bürgerliche Welt". Drittens schließlich führte die nationale und soziale Problemlage Deutschlands nach 1918 zu einer Politisierung, verbunden mit dem Aufbegehren gegen die eigene bürgerliche Herkunft - gerade im letzten Punkt finden sich verblüffende Parallelen zu den "Friedrichshagener Dichtern" und den Motiven ihres Handelns um die Jahrhundertwende.
Die nationale Problematik bildete das Dach der oft gegensätzlichen Strömungen. Betont wurde der Charakter der "Bewegung", favorisiert eine "Verbindung von Nationalismus und Sozialismus", in der die Arbeiterschaft eine historische Trumpfkarte im Rahmen einer umfassenden Gesellschaftsveränderung werden sollte. "Rechte" wie "Linke" fanden auch eine gemeiname Basis in der Ablehnung des westlichen Imperialismus, dessen Hauptsymbol für sie der Versailler Vertrag war (19). Im Unterschied zum Marxismus bekannten sich die Nationalrevolutionäre, und besonders deren nationalbolschewistische Strömung, zu Nation und Staat (20).
In der außenpolitischen Betrachtung sympathisierten die Strömungen mit der nicht am Versailler Vertragswerk beteiligten Sowjetunion - mit einer häufig diffusen Zuneigung und Verklärung. So nutzte auch Jünger die Einladungen der "Gesellschaft zum Studium der russischen Planwirtschaft". Im Ergebnis entstand seine 1932 erscheinende theoretische Schrift "Der Arbeiter", die Unverständnis im rechten Lager und heftige Kontroversen auslöste.
Wechsel zwischen den Lagern und Kontakte waren nicht selten. In Gesprächszirkeln aller Art trafen sich offizielle und oppositionelle Kommunisten, sozialistische und konservative Intellektuelle, parteitreue bis parteifeindliche Nationalsozialisten. Bei allen Unterschieden, ja Hass zwischen den Flügeln, zog die gemeinsame Radikalität des Gefühls und des Denkens an.
Vor diesem Hintergrund sind auch die Kontakte zwischen Jünger und Mühsam zu sehen. Nach Ansicht des Jünger-Biographen Heimo Schwilk fühlte sich der nationalrevolutionäre Autor zu Personen hingezogen, die die herrschende Verhältnisse in Frage stellten, zu einem Radikalismus der Tat neigten, um aus der beengten Sphäre des Bürgerlichen auszubrechen. Auch Jünger verspürte früh diesen Drang, meldete sich als Jugendlicher in der Fremdenlegion, "ein früher, instiktiver Protest gegen die Mechanik der Zeit", nannte er diesen Schritt später. Eine mehr selbst-analytische Verarbeitung des ersten Ausbrechens lag jahrelang als unveröffentlichtes Manuskript in seinem Schreibtisch. Es trug den bezeichnenden Titel "Die letzte sentimentale Reise oder die Schule der Anarchie" (21) und wurde 1936 als "Afrikanische Spiele" veröffentlicht.
Mühsam wiederum suchte in seiner Vorstellung, die Regierung durch eine Revolution abzulösen, nach tatbereiten Leuten, um sie gegen die Weimarer Republik zu mobilisieren. Die meinte er offenbar auch unter den Vertretern der Nationalrevolutionäre zu finden, deren Wille zu Aktionen ihm näher lag, als das abwartende Verhalten der Funktionäre von SPD und KPD, die auf Parlamentarismus setzten, schätzt Mühsam-Forscher Hirte ein. Jünger zählte sich selbst zu den Nationalrevolutionären, bezeichnete sich öffentlich aber erst Anfang der 80er-Jahre so.
Das mag daran liegen, dass Jünger, der sich auf besondere Weise als elitärer Einzelkämpfer verstand, Distanz zu den Gruppen gewahrt hatte, weil er Zuordnung als Vereinnahmung verstand. Bereits als der "Arbeiter" erschien, hatte er sich aus dem aktiven Geschehen zurückgezogen, "in die Innerlichkeit", wie Niekisch das bezeichnete.
Trotzdem hielt er weiter Kontakt. Als das NS-Regime an die Macht kam, nahm Jünger beispielsweise Niekisch kurzzeitig bei sich auf und kümmerte sich nach dessen Verhaftung um die Niekisch-Familie.

Vernichtung der Mühsam-Briefe

Die Beschreibung der Kontakte zwischen Ernst Jünger und Ernst Niekisch hätte ergiebiger ausfallen können, wenn Jünger nicht so vorsichtig gewesen wäre. Als die Nationalsozialisten die Macht in Deutschland ergriffen und ihre Gegner zu verhaften begannen, vernichtete er in einer hektischen Aktion einen Teil seiner umfangreichen Briefsammlung und Tagebuchaufzeichnungen. Darunter auch die wenigen Briefe von Mühsam, die laut Jünger "harmlos waren wie der Mann selbst" und später die Briefe von Ernst Niekisch, bei dem Jünger Mühsam kennengelernt hatte. Mehrfach bedauerte er die Lücken, "die vor allem dadurch entstanden sind, daß ich in Anfällen von Nervosität Papiere verbrannt habe". Aber Jünger wusste um die Sprengwirkung, wenn sie bei ihm gefunden worden wären. "Wenn meine Bekannten durch mich Schwierigkeiten hatten, so galt das auch umgekehrt, es fand kreuzweis ein Austausch statt. Der Umgang mit Niekisch, Mühsam, Otto Strasser, Hofacker, Schulenburg, Heinrich von Stülpnagel und anderen warf ein ungünstiges Licht auf mich", schrieb er rückblickend in seinem Tagebuch am 24. August 1945. Wie recht er mit dieser Annahme hatte, musste Jünger kurze Zeit nach dem Vernichten der Briefe erfahren. Eines Abends, er saß in seiner Steglitzer Wohnung und las Beardsleys "Venus und Tannhäuser", klingelte es an der Tür. Zwei Gestapo-Beamte traten ein, überhörten Jüngers Frage nach den Ausweisen und begannen in den Zimmern nach Waffen und verbotenen Papieren zu wühlen. Jüngers Buch "Der Arbeiter" im Regal schien ihr Misstrauen zu fördern. Dann kamen sie zu ihrem Anliegen und fragten nach den Briefen von Erich Mühsam. Jünger reichte ihnen seine Briefmappe "H-M", in denen die Briefe Mühsams fehlten, aber nicht die von Hitler und Hess, und hielt die Reaktion der Beamten in seinem Tagebuch fest: "Sie begannen zu blättern, stießen dabei gleich auf einige Namen, die hoch im Kurs standen, und brachen ihr Unternehmen ab." (22)

Im nächsten Heft: Jünger und der Individualanarchismus von John Henry Mackay und Max Stirner


  1. Ernst Jünger: Die Hütte im Weinberg, Jahre der Okkupation, In: Strahlungen II., Verlag Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1979, S. 516 f.)
  2. Ernst Jünger: Das zweite Pariser Tagebuch, In: Strahlungen II..., S. 146
  3. Ernst Jünger: Siebzig verweht II, Verlag Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1981, S. 97 und S. 610ff.
  4. Ernst Jünger: Siebzig Verweht IV, Verlag, Stuttgart, 1981, S. 383
  5. Chris Hirte: "Erich Mühsam", Verlag Neues Leben Berlin, 1985, S. 419
  6. Ernst Niekisch: Gewagtes Leben, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln-Berlin, S. 43
  7. ebenda, S.68
  8. ebenda, S.78
  9. ebenda, S.96
  10. Erich Mühsam: Tagebücher 1910-1924, Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, München, 1994, S.240f.
  11. Ernst Jünger in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten, Rowohlt Verlag, S.41
  12. Ernst Niekisch: Gewagtes Leben, S. 187
  13. Friedrich Georg Jünger: Briefwechsel mit Rudolf Schlichter, Ernst Niekisch und Gerhard Nebel, Klett-Cotta Verlag, Stuttgart, 2001, S. 59
  14. Ernst Niekisch: Gewagtes Leben..., S.187
  15. F.G. Jünger, S.59f.
  16. Horst Mühleisen: Ernst Jünger in Berlin, Frankfurter Buntbücher 20, S. 5
  17. Ernst Jünger und Rudolf Schlichter, Briefe 1935-1955, Klett-Cotta Verlag, Stuttgart, 1997, S. 307f.
  18. Jürgen Danyel: Alternativen nationalen Denkens vor 1933, In: Der "Gegner"-Kreis im Jahre 1992/33, Evangelische Akademie Berlin, 1990, S. 76
  19. ebenda, S.69
  20. Das Projekt Ernst Jünger, In: Forum Wissenschaft, I/95, S. I ff.
  21. Ernst Jünger in Selbstzeugnissen..., S. 12
  22. Ernst Jünger: Die Hütte im Weinberg..., S. 516 f.


vendredi, 24 septembre 2010

Interview: Anarcho-Primitivist Thinker and Activist John Zerzan

Interview: Anarcho-Primitivist Thinker and Activist John Zerzan


Ex: http://www.corrupt.org/

Anarcho-Primitivist Thinker and Activist John ZerzanJohn Zerzan is one of the leading advocates of the anti-civilization movement, communicating through speech, literature and action that modern society is unsustainable and harmful to our psychology and freedom. Following in the footsteps of Theodore Kaczynski, Zerzan is a radical anarcho-primitivist and believes that we must get rid of civilization itself, returning to a very simple lifestyle close to nature. His ideas confront commonly held beliefs about primitive people and about our path towards progress.

When was the first time you seriously began to question modern civilization?

I began to question civilization by the early '80s. Began the route to this in the '70s when I was looking at the beginnings of industrialism in England, which led to certain conclusions about the nature of technology (that's it's always about values, never neutral). This went on to thinking about division of labor and soon I was confronted by the nature of civilization. About when Fredy Perlman was making similar conclusions.

Most people today would agree that we live in troubled times, but few would dare to claim the system is fundamentally flawed. What makes you defend the radical viewpoint that we cannot reform civilization to better meet our needs and the future health of our planet?

Freud saw civ [Editor's note: civilization] as the cause of neurosis (Civ and its Discontents), Jared Diamond called domestication (the basis of civ) "the worst mistake humans ever made." It isn't so hard to come to a radical conclusion about it; what is harder is to project an alternative.

A big part of your criticism against civilization is that it gives birth to hierarchies and inequalities. Is it possible for humans to completely get rid of social power structures?

I think it's possible to get rid of the structures; afterall. Homo didn't seem to need them for more than two million years. Power structures emerge quite recently really. That is with domestication, followed swiftly by civ.

Kaczynski arrestedGerman anthropologist Hans-Peter Dürr made a study during the 80’s, which described primitive tribes in modern time displaying extreme social guilt over nakedness and sexuality. Aren’t there other countless examples of primitive tribes where social and cultural norms uphold power and gender structures as part of everyday life?

Primitive is a fairly useless term. The watershed is whether or not people practice some domestication. This sounds simplistic but it holds true universally. Think of a behavior or attitude that we might call negative. Did it exist before domestication? No is the simple answer.

Theodore Kaczynski rejected leftism, because he believed it would inevitably support collectivism, and thus, the growth of large-scale societies. Do you agree with him or have you chosen a different ideological path?

I do agree with that. I am anti-leftist. ('Post-leftist' is a phoney term signifying about nothing.)

Kaczynski also famously claimed that technology creates incentive for its own continued growth. Is technology a necessary evil, or is primitive technology in small-scale communities acceptable, as long as it doesn’t develop into industrial forms?

Tools are fine, that which has little or no division of labor/specialization. Systems of technology are a 'necessary evil' if you want eco-disaster and barren techno-cultures (like this one).

Let’s say we had the possibility of returning to local, self-sustaining communities tomorrow. Would we be able to regulate or prevent communities to unite and begin developing better technology and more advanced lifestyles?

Given what we know about the bad results of political and technological development I would think that people would not want to replicate that path.

IndustrialismYou’ve said that the “symbolic thinking” of modern man, including language, mathematics and time, limits and oppresses our freedom. What do you believe led up to the development of these things—why did humanity choose civilization culture and not primitive culture? Do we have a choice at all?

My guess is that the very, very slow movement of division of labor crept up on humans and set the stage for domestication. All of society moves along together so that it is hard to reverse things - which is a big reason technology never goes backward. The whole question of the symbolic is connected, I think, to the movement of alienation. Unless it's just a coincidence that both seemed to have come along together.

Kaczynski argues that we need to destroy key elements of industrial society in order to return to a pre-industrial order. Do you believe this is realistically possible, and if so, are there ethical limits to radical activism against the current order?

I think the elements need to be destroyed but if the population wants technology it will likely, I'm afraid, simply be re-installed. So the challenge is deeper than just physically destroying the stuff. The limits of militancy would seem to be determined in terms of how serious the situation is in one's estimation. That is people who are shocked by radical acts are basically those who feel that the dominant order is mainly sound and healthy.

Do you believe green anarchists are organized enough to be able to overthrow the current system and replace it with your ideal vision, or do anarcho-primitivists need to align themselves with other anti-globalist groups in order to grow more powerful?

What other 'anti-globalist' groups, is one question. Where are leftist groups, for instance, anti-globalization? They want to reform it not get rid of it - because industrial existence, mass society, is fine with them. But a-p folks [Editor's note: anarcho-primitivists] are nowhere potent enough yet to be decisive against it.

Tribal communityWhat changes do you want to see being implemented as a part of reducing the negative impacts of globalization?

Abolition of globalization ,in favor of radically decentralized, face-to-face community somewhat along the lines of band society, which obtained for thousands of generations.

Some people might compare your views with that of Rousseau. Isn’t there a danger in romanticizing “the wild man” against “the modern man,” imposing a romantic picture of what’s it like to live a primitive lifestyle?

Romantizing or idealizing life outside of domestication/civlization is not a good idea and the road there is not likely to be a picnic. But what are the choices? Continuing on a path of suicide, genocide, ecocide?

The current ecological crisis is beginning to scare many. Is humanity by nature an irresponsible species, or what motivates us to value profit and greed over long-term health for the environment and ourselves?

No, not by nature. Again, consider that war, hierarchy, eco-destruction, the systematic objectification of women, religion, work, etc etc. are products of domestication/civ and that people - who were cooking with fire 2 million years ago -did fine without that exalted development.

John ZerzanDo you believe a collapse of the globalist order is inevitable, or is there a possibility for humanity to unite its best of minds and choose a different path?

I am actually hopeful that as reality continues to present itself unmistakably that there could be a conscious choice in favor of a sane existence. That of course is what I am working toward.

Visit John Zerzan's site at http://www.johnzerzan.net/ for more information.

vendredi, 27 août 2010

Right-Wing Anarchism

Right-Wing Anarchism

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

d-Louis-Ferdinand-Celine.jpgThe concept of right-wing anarchism seems paradoxical, indeed oxymoronic, starting from the assumption that all “right-wing” political viewpoints include a particularly high evaluation of the principle of order. . . . In fact right-wing anarchism occurs only in exceptional circumstances, when the hitherto veiled affinity between anarchism and conservatism may become apparent.

Ernst Jünger has characterised this peculiar connection in his book Der Weltstaat (1960): “The anarchist in his purest form is he, whose memory goes back the farthest: to pre-historical, even pre-mythical times; and who believes, that man at that time fulfilled his true purpose . . . In this sense the anarchist is the Ur-conservative, who traces the health and the disease of society back to the root.” Jünger later called this kind of “Prussian” . . . or “conservative anarchist” the “Anarch,” and referred his own “désinvolture” as agreeing therewith: an extreme aloofness, which nourishes itself and risks itself in the borderline situations, but only stands in an observational relationship to the world, as all instances of true order are dissolving and an “organic construction” is not yet, or no longer, possible.

Even though Jünger himself was immediately influenced by the reading of Max Stirner, the affinity of such a thought-complex to dandyism is particularly clear. In the dandy, the culture of decadence at the end of the 19th century brought forth a character, which on the one hand was nihilistic and ennuyé, on the other hand offered the cult of the heroic and vitalism as an alternative to progressive ideals.

The refusal of current ethical hierarchies, the readiness to be “unfit, in the deepest sense of the word, to live” (Flaubert), reveal the dandy’s common points of reference with anarchism; his studied emotional coldness, his pride, and his appreciation of fine tailoring and manners, as well as the claim to constitute “a new kind of aristocracy” (Charles Baudelaire), represent the proximity of the dandy to the political right. To this add the tendency of politically inclined dandies to declare a partiality to the Conservative Revolution or to its forerunners, as for instance Maurice Barrès in France, Gabriele d’Annunzio in Italy, Stefan George or Arthur Moeller van den Bruck in Germany. The Japanese author Yukio Mishima belongs to the later followers of this tendency.

Besides this tradition of right-wing anarchism, there has existed another, older and largely independent tendency, connected with specifically French circumstances. Here, at the end of the 18th century, in the later stages of the ancien régime, formed an anarchisme de droite, whose protagonists claimed for themselves a position “beyond good and evil,” a will to live “like the gods,” and who recognized no moral values beyond personal honor and courage. The world-view of these libertines was intimately connected with an aggressive atheism and a pessimistic philosophy of history. Men like Brantôme, Montluc, Béroalde de Verville, and Vauquelin de La Fresnaye held absolutism to be a commodity that regrettably opposed the principles of the old feudal system, and that only served the people’s desire for welfare. Attitudes, which in the 19th century were again to be found with Arthur de Gobineau and Léon Bloy, and also in the 20th century with Georges Bernanos, Henry de Montherlant, and Louis-Ferdinand Céline. This position also appeared in a specifically “traditionalist” version with Julius Evola, whose thinking revolved around the “absolute individual.”

In whichever form right-wing anarchism appears, it is always driven by a feeling of decadence, by a distaste for the age of masses and for intellectual conformism. The relation to the political is not uniform; however, not rarely does the aloofness revolve into activism. Any further unity is negated already by the highly desired individualism of right-wing anarchists. Nota bene, the term is sometimes adopted by men–for instance George Orwell (Tory anarchist) or Philippe Ariès–who do not exhibit relevant signs of a right-wing anarchist ideology; while others, who objectively exhibit these criteria–for instance Nicolás Gómez Dávila or Günter Maschke–do not make use of the concept.


Gruenter, Rainer. “Formen des Dandysmus: Eine problemgeschichtliche Studie über Ernst Jünger.” Euphorion 46 (1952) 3, pp. 170-201.
Kaltenbrunner, Gerd-Klaus, ed. Antichristliche Konservative: Religionskritik von rechts. Freiburg: Herder, 1982.
Kunnas, Tarmo. “Literatur und Faschismus.” Criticón 3 (1972) 14, pp. 269-74.
Mann, Otto. “Dandysmus als konservative Lebensform.” In Gerd-Klaus Kaltenbrunner, ed., Konservatismus international, Stuttgart, 1973, pp. 156-70.
Mohler, Armin. “Autorenporträt in memoriam: Henry de Montherlant und Lucien Rebatet.” Criticón 3 (1972) 14, pp. 240-42.
Richard, François. L’anarchisme de droite dans la littérature contemporaine. Paris: PUF, 1988.
______. Les anarchistes de droite. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1997.
Schwarz, Hans Peter. Der konservative Anarchist: Politik und Zeitkritik Ernst Jüngers. Freiburg im Breisgan, 1962.
Sydow, Eckart von. Die Kultur der Dekadenz. Dresden, 1921.

Karlheinz Weißman, “Anarchismus von rechts,” Lexikon des Konservatismus, ed. Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing (Graz and Stuttgart: Leopold Stocker Verlag, 1996). Translator anonymous. From Attack the System, June 6, 2010, http://attackthesystem.com/2010/06/right-wing-anarchism/

mardi, 02 mars 2010

Les Cosaques de la liberté: l'expérience de l'anarchisme de Nestor Makhno en Ukraine

makhno_seul.jpgArchives de SYNERGIES EUROPENNES - 1987

Les Cosaques de la liberté : l'expérience de l'anarchisme de Nestor Makhno en Ukraine

par Ange Sampieru


Présenter en 475 pages la vie et l'action de Nestor lvanovitch Makhno (1889/1934), inspirateur et réalisateur de la seule expérience de communisme libertaire pendant la période de la révolution russe (entre 1917 et 1921) est un pari réussi par A. Skirda. Spécialiste de la Russie Soviétique, l'auteur exprime sans aucun doute sa sympathie politique pour l'anarchisme makhnoviste au travers d'une étude aussi complète que variée.


Un travail d'apologie


En dépit de tout l'intérêt des analyses  historiques de l'expérience originale accomplie par Makhno et ses partisans, le plan choisi par Skirda nous apparaît peu significatif. Après avoir étudié  son sujet d'un point de vue chronologique et événementiel (de l'enfance de Makhno à sa mort en exil à Paris en 1934), il revient sur une recherche plus psycho-historique dans un second temps, achevant son ouvrage par une revue très critique des livres consacrés à l'anarchisme ukrainien et à son fondateur. On suit alors assez péniblement ces mouvements assez "anarchiques". Au fond, on lit ici trois ouvrages différents : l'un est un livre d'histoire, fort brillant au demeurant, consacré à l'histoire de l'expérience anarchiste en Ukraine dans ses rapports avec le phénomène global de la Révolution russe. Le second est une monographie de N. Makhno, fondateur et "Batko" ("petit père" en quelque sorte) de ce mouvement de "communisme libertaire". Le troisième enfin est une recension critique des textes (brochures, articles de presse, romans, etc.), ayant pour thème principal ou quelquefois secondaire l'expérience makhnoviste. C'est cet "éclatement" qui. sans remettre en cause la richesse et le sérieux de ce travail historique, rend peut-être mal à l'aise le lecteur que je suis. Un dernier point de forme enfin : la sympathie presque "religieuse" de l'auteur pour son héros et ses idées l'amènent, dans tous les cas,  à une défense quasi militante de ses décisions et de ses choix politiques et militaires. Ainsi l'exécution, aussi barbare qu'inutile, d'émissaires des "gardes blancs" de Dénikine lui proposant une alliance face aux divisions de l'armée rouge n'appelle de sa part aucun commentaire. Commentaires qui, tout au contraire, abondent quand il s'agit d'actes de trahison commis par les responsables politiques ou militaires léninistes. Où fut alors la grandeur d'âme du héros qui fit pendre, le long d'un chemin, des porteurs de missives protégés par leur statut d'émissaires. Par ailleurs, dans ce que nous avons convenu de nommer le "second livre" il n'y a, chez Skirda, aucun aspect critique dans son analyse du personnage de Makhno. Nous regrettons cette vision toute théorique, l'auteur réservant ses critiques, souvent fondées, aux adversaires de Makhno et à ceux de ses partisans ou amis qui ont eu le malheur de ne pas le suivre en tous points dans son existence mouvementée.



Les deux visages du makhnovisme : identitaire ukrainien et anarchiste



Ceci étant, il nous apparaît que le mouvement anarchiste, fondé en Ukraine par Nestor Makhno, connait deux visages. L'un est celui du discours anarchiste, que nous comprenons comme idéologie cohérente, inscrit dans une filiation intellectuelle proprement occidentale. L'anarchie est ici une forme assez radicale de contestation du pouvoir d'État et, au-delà même, de toute structure politique et administrative centrale de direction. L'État confisquant à son profit le pouvoir politique, il confisque aussi la démocratie comprise comme forme autonome et locale de représentation et de gestion. On trouve ces critiques tant dans le mutualisme proudhonien, inquiet des empiétements grandissants de l'État post-révolutionnaire en France, que dans l'anarcho-syndicalisme sorélien, partisan d'une révolution spontanée prolétarienne contre la conception républicaine et bourgeoise du pouvoir politique. Dans tous les cas, on assiste à une renaissance de l'idéologie ancienne et traditionnelle des "libertés communautaires" qui structurent la démocratie européenne. Chez Makhno, l'anarchie inscrit ses références dans une même problématique. Une problématique nationale et sociale, puisque apparaissent en filigrane la revendication "nationale" ukrainienne, face au pouvoir central moscovite russe, et la revendication sociale paysanne, face à l'administration politique urbaine. L'anarchie répond alors à cette double revendication. Réponse "voilée" puisqu'aussi bien dominée par les "grands thèmes" occidentaux de l'idéologie moderne. Ainsi ni la revendication nationale (comprise comme désir explicite d identité culturelle et linguistique traduit en termes de pouvoir politique) ni la revendication paysanne (l'autonomie maximale face à la philosophie occidentale de la ville) ne sont reconnues à part entière. Ce  refus résulte d'une présence souveraine des valeurs de l'anarchie comprise comme idéologie sociale occidentale.

Plus proche encore d'une revendication ethno-culturelle, l'auteur souligne la présence majoritaire au sein des troupes makhnovistes des descendants des cosaques zaporogues. Il est indubitable, à la lecture de ce livre, que le mouvement anarchiste dans les steppes de l'Ukraine résulte beaucoup plus d'un sentiment culturel, plus ou moins enfoui dans sa mémoire des paysans cosaques, que dans l'adhésion aux valeurs globales de la révolution anarchiste, au sens des intellectuels de l'anarchie formés à l'école citadine et théorique de Bakounine et Kropotkine.

Et les explications de Skirda sur cette adhésion toute théorique aux réflexions et aux valeurs de l'Anarchie (avec un grand A) sont non seulement peu convaincantes mais aussi et surtout constamment démenties par les descriptions du premier livre. Les paysans et les quelques ouvriers qui suivirent Makhno sont-ils des militants anarchistes ou plus simplement des Ukrainiens opposés non seulement à la restauration de l'ancien régime social des grands propriétaires (régime fondé sur un mélange détonnant de féodalisme et de valeurs socio-économiques bourgeoises) mais aussi à la perpétuation du pouvoir moscovite, que celui-ci se présente sous une couleur blanche ou rouge. L'Anarchie serait alors une "béquille théorique", une superstructure dans le langage marxiste, qui serait bien loin du concret historique. Le véritable ressort résiderait dans la volonté consciente, chez la masse paysanne de descendance zaporogue ou non (bien que les premiers aient été les inspirateurs et les vrais décideurs du mouvement), de restaurer une communauté sociale et politique en accord avec leur propre vue du monde. Skirda, militant anarchiste formé à l'école occidentale, refuse de souligner cette présence. C'est une erreur et elle révèle un point de vue très théorique que l'on regrettera.


Les raisons de l'hostilité des makhnovistes à l'égard des bolchéviques


makh.jpgA contrario, nous découvrons avec beaucoup d'intérêt, chez Skirda, les rapports conflictuels  entretenus par cette armée libertaire et paysanne avec les autorités léninistes-bolchéviques. Lénine et Trotsky, intellectuels et citadins, n'avaient que mépris et incompréhension, quelquefois mués en haine, à l'égard des masses paysannes. D'autant plus si ces dernières étaient opposées à leur autorité et non-russes ! La politique de répression, la NEP, la lutte contre les moyens propriétaires (les fameux Koulaks), bref la guerre civile à outrance menée contre les ruraux non russes et russes, résulte de ces sentiments développés et théorisés dans l'idéologie prolétarienne ouvrière des émules de Marx (bourgeois finalement conservateur et citadin). La misère des sociétés industrielles de l'Ouest fut élevée au rang de péché suprême que la Révolution devait effacer. Dans ce cadre, le paysannat était aussi, même si des nuances étaient introduites, complice et soutien du système bourgeois. Ce qui était un raccourci fulgurant dans la pensée et l'analyse chez Marx, devenait un dogme idéologique d'État chez Lénine. Dans ce schéma, l'anarchisme makhnovien, appuyé sur la multiplication des "soviets libres" en Ukraine, pouvait structurer les réactions spontanées d'autodéfense des paysans locaux.


Le prélèvement autoritaire et violent de la production paysanne au profit des villes, la substitution  du marché d'État à l'ancien marché des propriétaires féodaux, enfin le statisme des lieux (Moscou reste le centre du pouvoir) et des méthodes de pouvoir (utilisation normale de la force policière et militaire dans les opérations de prélèvement) confirmait les sentiments latents des producteurs locaux. En fait, il y eut politique de pillage des productions rurales ­au profit des centres urbains, politique justifiée par un discours révolutionnaire et appliquée par des forces répressives similaires aux forces de l'ancien régime tsariste (Tchéka au lieu de l'Okhrana). Les anarchistes eurent alors beau jeu d'identifier la politique autoritaire de Lénine avec l'ancienne pratique tsariste. Après la première révolution (renversement du tsarisme et création d'un État constitutionnel de type occidental) et la seconde révolution (coup d'État bolchévique), la "troisième révolution" consistait à établir un communisme social égalitaire sans autorité d'en haut. C'était du moins le programme de militants anarchistes. Le spontanéisme plus ou moins dirigé des révoltes populaires en Ukraine face à la politique de l'autorité moscovite-bolchévique se brise pourtant contre la puissance de l'armée rouge et des méthodes de répression de masse utilisées. Cet échec constitue une leçon historique. L'État bolchévique, en dépit de sa rhétorique communiste (atteindre l'utopie vivante de la société sans état et sans classes), appliqua les règles strictes du pouvoir moderne, issues de l'expérience révolutionnaire française (notamment en Vendée).


Un modèle applicable au monde entier


La seule issue aurait peut-être été de réaliser la synthèse entre les deux forces motrices de toute l'histoire : celle qui unit la force de la volonté d'existence identitaire (qui est une force nationale mais non nationaliste) et la construction d'une communauté démocratique et sociale, basée sur les valeurs de justice et d'égalité civique. C'est cette fusion, modifiée par les circonstances locales, qui assura la puissance révolutionnaire dans diverses régions du monde : révolution nassérienne, idéologie de la nation arabe chez le chef de l'État libyen, révolution populaire vietnamienne, sandinisme nicaraguayen, révolution du capitaine Sankara au Burkina-Faso. etc. Mais il eut fallu pour cela que l'anarchie ne fut pas une des nombreuses facettes de l'idéologie dominante moderne, mais l'expression réelle et locale de la volonté d'indépendance d'un peuple. À ce titre, l'auteur reste dans un schéma idéologique bien éloigné de la véritable voie de l'indépendance, qui pourrait tout aussi bien se nommer "anarchie" que trouver une autre étiquette.




Alexandre SKIRDA, Les Cosaques de la liberté, Jean-Claude Lattès, Paris, 1986, 475 p.

lundi, 30 novembre 2009

Edward Abbey, Conservative Anarchist

edward-abbey.jpgEdward Abbey, Conservative Anarchist

By Bill Croke / http://newrightamerica.blogspot.com/ 


Cactus Ed (a nickname he liked) is dead, lo these twenty years (March 14, 1989). He was a less controversial figure in his time than he is today, and certainly has more readers. I recently attended a lecture/book discussion on the author's Desert Solitaire at my local public library, and wasn't surprised by what I heard. Small town book clubs tend to be the pet projects of liberals bent on "promoting literacy," and attract likeminded people. The discussion was moderated by a local Abbey fan, a woman of some academic credentials, and roughly twenty people took part. I've read Desert Solitaire twice, but went to the lecture on a whim, only flipping through my paperback copy shortly beforehand, intending to just listen. The group chewed over the book for 90 minutes, and the takeaway for me was that most people there thought Abbey to be a larger-than-life iconic character, the life transcending the work. And they mostly agreed with his severe critique of the management of the public lands, his ambiguous views on the national parks, and his anarchic thoughts concerning humankind's history and place on the planet, in general. An amusing evening.

Edward Abbey's posthumous fame lies mostly with the Green Left, especially in the West. He's attained that iconic cult status as a man who embodied equal parts Henry David Thoreau (Larry McMurtry once called him "The Thoreau of the American West") and John Muir, with an added dash of Mikhail Bakunin. Somebody who thought and wrote, but also acted, and influenced others to act, however indirectly. All this begs an old question: Does a writer pushing an agenda in his work compromise the artistic integrity of that work? In Abbey's case the answer is both yes and no, because he was much more a polemicist than an artist.

Edward Paul Abbey was born on January 29, 1927, in Indiana, Pennsylvania, the son of a farmer and logger. After a 1944 hitchhiking trip west at 17, he served in the U.S. Army late in World War II and afterwards, then enrolled at the University of New Mexico in 1948 on the G.I. Bill, eventually earning a Master's Degree in philosophy. During this time Abbey started to write as he began concurrently to explore the backcountry of the Southwest in his spare time, specifically the Four Corners area (where Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico meet), otherwise known as the Colorado Plateau because it's drained by that great river.

It was among the last of Western regions to be surveyed and mapped. In 1869, John Wesley Powell was its primary explorer when he led a party in dories down the rapids-ravaged canyons of the Green and Colorado Rivers from Green River, Wyoming, all the way through the Grand Canyon. It's an unforgiving region of deserts and mountains, much of it federal land, and home to a half dozen national parks. Here Abbey found the subject that was the focus of his four decades as a writer.

Abbey started as a novelist with a run into the 1960s with series of competently executed but forgettable books such as Jonathan Troy (1954), The Brave Cowboy (1956), and Fire on the Mountain (1962). The Brave Cowboy was made into Lonely Are the Brave (1962), a film starring Kirk Douglas, thus earning Abbey some much-needed Hollywood money. During this time he also churned out essays and journalism about his wanderings in "the back of beyond."

Money was tight, though, and Abbey also worked odd jobs through the 1950s and '60s. His most noteworthy employment was as a seasonal ranger at Arches National Monument (now Arches National Park) near Moab, Utah, in 1959. This experience (along with others) culminated in the 1968 publication of Desert Solitaire, the book that made his reputation. After that, Cactus Ed became the Thoreau of the West.

Edward-Abbey_000.jpgThe book is in some ways an episodic pastiche. Abbey alternates vividly written chapters describing the multi-hued landscapes of Arches and elsewhere with others featuring cranky polemics about Bureau of Reclamation river dams and "Industrial Tourism." But those sharp landscape renderings are some of the finest writing extant about the desert Southwest. Here he is in Glen Canyon before the eponymous dam was built (1963) that created Lake Powell:

The sandstone walls rise higher than ever before, rounding off on top as half-domes and capitols, golden and glowing in the sunlight, a deep radiant red in the shade.

And this from the same trip:

Beyond the side canyon the walls rise again, slick and monolithic, in color a blend of pink, buff, yellow, orange, overlaid in part with a glaze of "desert varnish" (iron oxide) or streaked in certain places with vertical draperies of black organic stains, the residue from plant life beyond the rim and from the hanging gardens that flourish in the deep grottoes high on the walls. Some of those alcoves are like great amphitheatres, large as the Hollywood Bowl, big enough for God's own symphony orchestra.

Companions to Desert Solitaire are the essays found in such collections as The Journey Home (1977), Abbey's Road (1979), Down the River (1982), Beyond the Wall (1984), and One Life at a Time, Please (1988). The subjects of the essays (the form being possibly Abbey's greatest strength as a writer) vary from detailed accounts of his wanderings -- rafting the Colorado, exploring such landscape oddities as the San Rafael Swell or Big Bend National Park -- to passionate polemics against national park infrastructure development or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policies on leasing grazing land to ranchers. The latter type showed that Abbey would have done well as an 18th-century pamphleteer. In an essay entitled "Eco-Defense," he writes: "Eco-defense is risky but sporting; unauthorized but fun; illegal but ethically imperative…Spike those trees; you won't hurt them; they'll be grateful for the protection; and you may save the forest. Loggers hate nails."

Abbey's most controversial role was only obliquely related to his work. In 1975 he published his novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, a book that alongside Desert Solitaire enhanced his reputation as an environmentalist, but unlike the latter tome it has prose as purple as an Arizona sunset. The plot involves four anarchic enviros who conspire to blow up Glen Canyon Dam. In a case of life imitates art, the book inspired the establishment of a notorious radical green group in 1980 known as Earth First!, with Abbey as a charter member. Other noteworthy members were activist/writer Doug Peacock, and Dave Foreman, an ex-Goldwater Republican. Earth First! "membership" was and remains (to the extent that it even exists today) anonymous and shadowy, as it's known for acts of "monkey wrenching" of earthmoving and logging equipment, spiking trees, stealing survey stakes, cutting wire fences, and so on. "Earth First!" has spawned ancillary groups such as the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which before its downfall at the hands of the FBI in 2006 burned down a Colorado ski lodge, and destroyed a number of vehicles at an SUV dealership in Eugene, Oregon, among other acts of domestic terrorism.

Cactus Ed was a prickly sort; a conservative anarchist, if you will, who on one hand could support eco-terrorism (a favorite motto was: "Keep America Beautiful -- Burn a Billboard!"), and on the other supported the National Rifle Association (NRA), and restrictions on immigration. When he died of natural causes, some of his Earth First! compatriots famously and illegally absconded with his body, and buried it in a secret place in remote desert outside of Tucson. And there he lies to this day, pushing up cactus.

dimanche, 25 octobre 2009

Basic Bakunin



Basic Bakunin

Republished from the (British) Anarchist Communist Federation’s original pamphlet in 1993 by P.A.C. (Paterson Anarchist Collective) Publications. This electronic version has the extra ACF text added to the PAC version, for more completeness.


“The star of revolution will rise high above the streets of Moscow, from a sea of blood and fire, and turn into a lodestar to lead a liberated humanity”
-Mikhail Bakunin


The aim of this pamphlet is to do nothing more than present an outline of what the author thinks are the key features of Mikhail Bakunin’s anarchist ideas.

Bakunin was extremely influential in the 19th century socialist movement, yet his ideas for decades have been reviled, distorted or ignored. On reading this pamphlet, it will become apparent that Bakunin has a lot to offer and that his ideas are not at all confused (as some writers would have us think) but make up a full coherent and well argued body of thought. For a detailed but difficult analysis of Bakunin’s revolutionary ideas, Richard B. Saltman’s book, “The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin” is strongly recommended. Ask your local library to obtain a copy.


Bakunin saw revolution in terms of the overthrow of one oppressing class by another oppressed class and the destruction of political power as expressed as the state and social hierarchy. According to Bakunin, society is divided into two main classes which are fundamentally opposed to each other. The oppressed class, he variously described as commoners, the people, the masses or the workers, makes up a great majority of the population. It is in ‘normal’ time not conscious of itself as a class, though it has an ‘instinct’ for revolt and whilst unorganized, is full of vitality. The numerically much smaller oppressing class, however is conscious of its role and maintains its ascendancy by acting in a purposeful, concerted and united manner. The basic differences between the two classes, Bakunin maintained, rests upon the ownership and control of property, which is disproportionately in the hands of the minority class of capitalists. The masses, on the other hand, have little to call their own beyond their ability to work.

Bakunin was astute enough to understand that the differences between the two main classes is not always clear cut. He pointed out that it is not possible to draw a hard line between the two classes, though as in most things, the differences are most apparent at the extremes. Between these extremes of wealth and power there is a hierarchy of social strata which can be assessed according to the degree to which they exploit each other or are exploited themselves. The further away a given group is from the workers, the more likely it is to be part of the exploiting category and the less it suffers from exploitation. Between the two major classes there is a middle class or middle classes which are both exploiting and exploited, depending on their position of social hierarchy.

The masses who are the most exploited form, in Bakunin’s view, the great revolutionary class which alone can sweep away the present economic system. Unfortunately, the fact of exploitation and its resultant poverty are in themselves no guarantee of revolution. Extreme poverty is, Bakunin thought, likely to lead to resignation if the people can see no possible alternative to the existing order. Perhaps, if driven to great depths of despair, the poor will rise up in revolt. Revolts however tend to be local and therefore, easy to put down. In Bakunin’s view, three conditions are necessary to bring about popular revolution.

They are:

  • sheer hatred for the conditions in which the masses find themselves
  • the belief the change is a possible alternative
  • a clear vision of the society that has to be made to bring about human emancipation


Without these three factors being present, plus a united and efficient self organization, no liberatory revolution can possibly succeed.

Bakunin had no doubts that revolution must necessarily involve destruction to create the basis of the new society. He stated that, quite simply, revolution means nothing less than war, that is the physical destruction of people and property. Spontaneous revolutions involve, often, the vast destruction of property. Bakunin noted that when circumstances demanded it, the workers will destroy even their own houses, which more often than not, do not belong to them. The negative, destructive urge is absolutely necessary, he argued, to sweep away the past. Destruction is closely linked with construction, since the “more vividly the future is visualized, the more powerful is the force of destruction.”

Given the close relationship between the concentration of wealth and power in capitalist societies, it is not surprising that Bakunin considered economic questions to be of paramount importance. It is in the context of the struggle between labor and capital that Bakunin gave great significance of strikes by workers. Strikes, he believed, have a number of important functions in the struggle against capitalism. Firstly they are necessary as catalysts to wrench the workers away from their ready acceptance of capitalism, they jolt them out of their condition of resignation. Strikes, as a form of economic and political warfare, require unity to succeed, thus welding the workers together. During strikes, there is a polarization between employers and workers. This makes the latter more receptive to the revolutionary propaganda and destroys the urge to compromise and seek deals. Bakunin thought that as the struggle between labor and capital increases, so will the intensity and number of strikes. The ultimate strike is the general strike. A revolutionary general strike, in which class conscious workers are infused with anarchist ideas will lead, thought Bakunin, to the final explosion which will bring about anarchist society.

Bakunin’s ideas are revolutionary in a very full sense, being concerned with the destruction of economic exploitation and social/political domination and their replacement by a system of social organization which is in harmony with human nature. Bakunin offered a critique of capitalism, in which authority and economic inequality went hand in hand, and state socialism, (e.g. Marxism) which is one sided in its concentration on economic factors whilst, grossly underestimating the dangers of social authority.


Bakunin based his consistent and unified theory upon three interdependent platforms, namely:

  • human beings are naturally social (and therefore they desire social solidarity)
  • are more or less equal and,
  • want to be free


His anarchism is consequently concerned with the problem of creating a society of freedom within the context of an egalitarian system of mutual interaction. The problem with existing societies, he argued, is that they are dominated by states that are necessarily violent, anti-social, and artificial constructs which deny the fulfillment of humanity.

Whilst there are, in Bakunin’s view, many objectionable features within capitalism, apart from the state, (e.g. the oppression of women, wage slavery), it is the state which nurtures, maintains and protects the oppressive system as a whole. The state is defined as an anti-social machine which controls society for the benefit of an oppressing class or elite. It is essentially an institution based upon violence and is concerned with its maintenance of inequality through political repression. In addition the state relies upon a permanent bureaucracy to help carry out its aims. The bureaucratic element, incidentally, is not simply a tool which it promotes. All states, Bakunin believed, have internal tendencies toward self perpetuation, whether they be capitalist or socialist and are thus to be opposed as obstacles to human freedom.

It might be objected that states are not primarily concerned with political repression and violence and indeed that liberal democratic states, in particular, are much interested in social welfare. Bakunin argues that such aspects are only a disguise, and that when threatened, all states reveal their essentially violent natures. In Britain and Northern Ireland this repressive feature of state activity has come increasingly to the fore, when the state has been challenged to any significant degree, it has responded with brutal firmness.

And developments within Britain over the last couple decades tend to substantiate another feature of the state which Bakunin drew attention to, their tendency toward over increasing authoritarianism and absolutism. He believed that there were strong pressures in all states whether they are liberal, socialist, capitalist, or whatever, toward military dictatorship but that the rate of such development will vary, however according to factors such as demography, culture and politics.

Finally, Bakunin noted that states tend toward warfare against other states. Since there is no internationally accepted moral code between states, then rivalries between them will be expressed in terms of military conflict. “So long as there’s government, there will be no peace. There will only be more or less prolonged respites, armistices concluded by the perpetually belligerent states; but as soon as a state feels sufficiently strong to destroy this equilibrium to its advantage, it will never fail to do so.”

bakunin.jpgBourgeois Democracy

Political commentators and the media are constantly singing the praises of the system of representative democracy in which every few years or so the electorate is asked to put a cross on a piece of paper to determine who will control them. This system works good insofar as the capitalist system has found a way of gaining legitimacy through the illusion that some how the voters are in charge of running the system. Bakunin’s writings on the issue are of representative democracy were made at the time when it barely existed in the world. Yet he could see on the basis of a couple of examples (the United States and Switzerland) that the widening of the franchise does little to improve the lot of the great mass of the population. True, as Bakunin noted, middle class politicians are prepared to humble themselves before the electorate issuing all sorts of promises. But this leveling of candidates before the populace disappears the day after the election, once they are transformed into members of the Parliament. The workers continue to go to work and the bourgeoisie takes up once again the problems of business and political intrigue.

Today, in the United States and Western Europe, the predominant political system is that of liberal democracy. In Britain the electoral system is patently unfair in its distribution of parliamentary seats, insofar as some parties with substantial support get negligible representation. However, even where strict proportional representation applies, the Bakuninist critique remains scathing. For the representative system requires that only a small section of the population concern itself directly with legislation and governing (in Britain a majority out of 650 MP’s (Members of Parliament)).

Bakunin’s objections to representative democracy rests basically on the fact that it is an expression of the inequality of power which exists in society. Despite constitutions guaranteeing the rights of citizens and equality before the law, the reality is that the capitalist class is in permanent control. So long as the great mass of the population has to sell its labor power in order to survive, there can not be democratic government. So long as people are economically exploited by capitalism and there are gross inequalities of wealth, there can not be real democracy. As Bakunin made clear, economic facts are much stronger than political rights. So long as there is economic privilege there will be political domination by the rich over the poor. The result of this relationship is that representatives of capitalism (bourgeois democracy) “posses in fact, if not by right, the exclusive privilege of governing.”

A common fiction that is expounded in liberal democracies is that the people rule. However the reality is that minorities necessarily do the governing. A privileged few who have access to wealth, education and leisure time, clearly are better equipped to govern than ordinary working people, who generally have little free time and only a basic education.

But as Bakunin made clear, if by some quirk, a socialist government be elected, in real terms, things would not improve much. When people gain power and place themselves ‘above’ society, he argued, their way of looking at the world changes. From their exalted position of high office the perspective on life becomes distorted and seems very different to those on the bottom. The history of socialist representation in parliament is primarily that of reneging on promises and becoming absorbed into the manners, morality and attitudes of the ruling class. Bakunin suggests that such backsliding from socialist ideas is not due to treachery, but because participation in parliament makes representatives see the world through a distorted mirror. A workers parliament, engaged in the tasks of governing would, said Bakunin, end up a chamber of “determined aristocrats, bold or timid worshipers of the principle of authority who will also become exploiters and oppressors.”

The point that Bakunin makes time and time again in his writings is that no one can govern for the people in their interests. Only personal and direct control over our lives will ensure that justice and freedom will prevail. To abdicate direct control is to deny freedom. To grant political sovereignty to others, whether under the mantle of democracy, republicanism, the people’s state, or whatever, is to give others control and therefore domination over our lives.

It might be thought that the referendum, in which people directly make laws, would be an advance upon the idea of representative democracy. This is not the case according to Bakunin, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the people are not in a position to make decisions on the basis of full knowledge of all the issues involved. Also, laws may be a complex, abstract, and specialized nature and that in order to vote for them in a serious way, the people need to be fully educated and have available the time and facilities to reflect upon and discuss the implications involved. The reality of referenda is that they are used by full-time politicians to gain legitimacy for essentially bourgeois issues. It is no coincidence that Switzerland, which has used the referendum frequently, remains one of the most conservative countries in Europe. With referenda, the people are guided by politicians, who set the terms of the debate. Thus despite popular input, the people still remain under bourgeois control.

Finally, Bakunin on the whole concept of the possibility of the democratic state: For him the democratic state is a contradiction in terms since the state is essentially about force, authority and domination and is necessarily based upon an inequality of wealth and power. Democracy, in the sense of self rule for all, means that no one is ruled. If no one rules, there can be no state. If there is a state, there can be no self rule.


Bakunin’s opposition to Marxism involves several separate but related criticisms. Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin believed that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily lead to the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state socialist).

Firstly, Bakunin opposed what he considered to be the economic determinist element in Marx’s thought, most simply stated that “Being determines consciousness.” Put in another way, Bakunin was against the idea that the whole range of ’super structural’ factors of society, its laws, moralities, science, religion, etc. were “but the necessary after effects of the development of economic facts.” Rather than history or science being primarily determined by economic factors (e.g. the ‘mode of production’), Bakunin allowed much more for the active intervention of human beings in the realization of their destiny.

More fundamental was Bakunin’s opposition to the Marxist idea of dictatorship of the proletariat which was, in effect, a transitional state on the way to stateless communism. Marx and Engles, in the Communist Manifesto of 1848, had written of the need for labor armies under state supervision, the backwardness of the rural workers, the need for centralized and directed economy, and for wide spread nationalization. Later, Marx also made clear that a workers’ government could come into being through universal franchise. Bakunin questioned each of these propositions.

The state, whatever its basis, whether it be proletarian or bourgeois, inevitably contains several objectionable features. States are based upon coercion and domination. This domination would, Bakunin stated, very soon cease to be that of the proletariat over its enemies but would become a state over the proletariat. This would arise, Bakunin believed, because of the impossibility of a whole class, numbering millions of people, governing on its own behalf. Necessarily, the workers would have to wield power by proxy by entrusting the tasks of government to a small group of politicians.

Once the role of government was taken out of the hands of the masses, a new class of experts, scientists and professional politicians would arise. This new elite would, Bakunin believed, be far more secure in its domination over the workers by means of the mystification and legitimacy granted by the claim to acting in accordance with scientific laws (a major claim by Marxists). Furthermore, given that the new state could masquerade as the true expression of the people’s will. The institutionalizing of political power gives rise to a new group of governors with the same self seeking interests and the same cover-ups of its dubious dealings.

Another problem posed by the statist system, that of centralized statist government would, argued Bakunin, further strengthen the process of domination. The state as owner, organizer, director, financier, and distributor of labor and economy would necessarily have to act in an authoritarian manner in its operations. As can be seen by the Soviet system, a command economy must act with decision flowing from top to bottom; it cannot meet the complex and various needs of individuals and, in the final analysis, is a hopeless, inefficient giant. Marx believed that centralism, from whatever quarter, was a move toward the final, statist solution of revolution. Bakunin, in contrast opposed centralism by federalism.

Bakunin’s predictions as to the operation of Marxist states has been borne out of reality. The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, talked incessantly of proletarian dictatorship and soviet power, yet inevitably, with or without wanting to, created a vast bureaucratic police state.


Most of the left in Britain view the present structures of trade unions in a positive light. This is true for members of the Labor Party, both left and right, the Communist Party, the Militant Tendency and many other Marxist organizations. These bodies wish to capture or retain control of the unions, pretty much as they stand, in order to use them for their own purposes. As a result, there are frequently bitter conflicts and maneuverings within the unions for control. This trend is most apparent in the C.P.S.A. where a vicious anti-communist right wing group alternates with the Militant Tendency and its supporters for control of the union executive and full time posts. The major exception to this is the Socialist Workers Party which advocates rank and file organization, so long as the S.W.P. can control it.

Bakunin laid the foundations of the anarchist approach to union organization and the general tendency of non-anarchist unions to decay into personal fiefdoms and bureaucracy over a century ago. Arguing in the context of union organization within the International Working Mens Association, he gave examples of how unions can be stolen from the membership whose will they are supposed to be an expression of. He identified several interrelated features which lead to the usurpation of power by union leaders.

Firstly, he indicated a psychological factor which plays a key part. Honest, hardworking, intelligent and well meaning militants win through hard work the respect and admiration of their fellow members and are elected to union office. They display self sacrifice, initiative and ability. Unfortunately, once in positions of leadership, these people soon imagine themselves to be indispensable and their focus of attention centers more and more on the machinations within the various union committees.

The one time militant thus becomes removed from the every day problems of the rank and file members and assumes the self delusion which afflicts all leaders, namely a sense of superiority.

Given the existence of union bureaucracies and secret debating chambers in which leaders decide union actions and policies, a ‘governmental aristocracy’ arises within the union structures, no matter how democratic those structures may formally be. With the growing authority of the union committees etc., the workers become indifferent to union affairs, with the exception Bakunin asserts, of issues which directly affect them e.g. dues payment, strikes etc. Unions have always had great problems in getting subscriptions from alienated memberships, a solution which has been found in the ‘check off’ system by which unions and employers collaborate to remove the required sum at source, i.e. from the pay packet.

Where workers do not directly control their union and delegate authority to committees and full-time agents, several things happen. Firstly, so long as union subscriptions are not too high, and back dues are not pressed too hard for, the substituting bodies can act with virtual impunity. This is good for the committees but brings almost to an end the democratic life of the union. Power gravitates increasingly to the committees and these bodies, like all governments substitute their will for that of the membership. This in turn allows expression for personal intrigues, vanity, ambition and self-interest. Many intra-union battles, which are ostensibly fought on ideological grounds, are in fact merely struggles for control by ambitious self seekers who have chosen the union for their career structure. This careerism occasionally surfaces in battles between rival leftists, for example where no political reasons for conflict exist. In the past the Communist Party offered a union career route within certain unions and such conflicts constantly arose.

Presumably, within the Militant Tendency, which also wishes to capture unions, the same problem exists.

Within the various union committees, which are arranged on a hierarchical basis (mirroring capitalism), one or two individuals come to dominate on the basis of superior intelligence or aggressiveness. Ultimately, the unions become dominated by bosses who hold great power in their organizations, despite the safeguards of democratic procedures and constitutions. Over the last few decades, many such union bosses have become national figures, especially in periods of Labor government.

Bakunin was aware that such union degeneration was inevitable but only arises in the absence of rank and file control, lack of opposition to undemocratic trends and the accession to union power to those who allow themselves to be corrupted. Those individuals who genuinely wish to safeguard their personal integrity should, Bakunin argued, not stay in office too long and should encourage strong rank and file opposition. Union militants have a duty to remain faithful to their revolutionary ideals.

Personal integrity, however, is an insufficient safeguard. Other, institutional and organizational factors must also be brought into play. These include regular reporting to the proposals made by the officials and how they voted, in other words frequent and direct accountability. Secondly, such union delegates must draw their mandates from the membership being subject to rank and file instructions. Thirdly, Bakunin suggests the instant recall of unsatisfactory delegates. Finally, and most importantly, he urged the calling of mass meetings and other expressions of grass roots activity to circumvent those leaders who acted in undemocratic ways. Mass meetings inspire passive members to action, creating a camaraderie which would tend to repudiate the so called leaders.

(Electronic Ed- From this, one can conclude that Bakunin was a major inspiration for the anarcho-syndicalist movement.)

Revolutionary Organization

Above all else, Bakunin the revolutionary, believed in the necessity of collective action to achieve anarchy. After his death there was a strong tendency within the anarchist movement towards the abandonment of organization in favor of small group and individual activity. This development, which culminated in individual acts of terror in the late nineteenth century France, isolating anarchism from the very source of the revolution, namely the workers.

Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw organization not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though he thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of decentralized federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their energies through mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary, Bakunin argued, to have a coordinated revolutionary movement for a number of reasons. Firstly, is anarchists acted alone, without direction they would inevitably end up moving in different directions and would, as a result, tend to neutralize each other. Organization is not necessary for its own sake, but is necessary to maximize strength of the revolutionary classes, in the face of the great resources commanded by the capitalist state.

However, from Bakunin’s standpoint, it was the spontaneous revolt against authority by the people which is of the greatest importance. The nature of purely spontaneous uprisings is that they are uneven and vary in intensity from time to time and place to place. The anarchist revolutionary organization must not attempt to take over and lead the uprising but has the responsibility of clarifying goals, putting forward revolutionary propaganda, and working out ideas in correspondence with the revolutionary instincts of the masses. To go beyond this would undermine the whole self-liberatory purpose of the revolution. Putchism has no place in Bakunin’s thought.

Bakunin then, saw revolutionary organization in terms of offering assistance to the revolution, not as a substitute. It is in this context that we should interpret Bakunin’s call for a “secret revolutionary vanguard” and “invisible dictatorship” of that vanguard. The vanguard it should be said, has nothing in common with that of the Leninist model which seeks actual, direct leadership over the working class. Bakunin was strongly opposed to such approaches and informed his followers that “no member… is permitted, even in the midst of full revolution, to take public office of any kind, nor is the (revolutionary) organization permitted to do so… it will at all times be on the alert, making it impossible for authorities, governments and states to be established.” The vanguard was, however, to influence the revolutionary movement on an informal basis, relying on the talents of it’s members to achieve results. Bakunin thought that it was the institutionalization of authority, not natural inequalities, that posed a threat to the revolution. The vanguard would act as a catalyst to the working classes’ own revolutionary activity and was expected to fully immerse itself in the movement. Bakunin’s vanguard then, was concerned with education and propaganda, and unlike the Leninist vanguard party, was not to be a body separate from the class, but an active agent within it.

The other major task of the Bakuninist organization was that it would act as the watchdog for the working class. Then, as now, authoritarian groupings posed as leaders of the revolution and supplied their own members as “governments in waiting.” The anarchist vanguard has to expose such movements in order that the revolution should not replace one representative state by another ‘revolutionary’ one. After the initial victory, the political revolutionaries, those advocates of so-called workers’ governments and the dictatorship of the proletariat, would according to Bakunin try “to squelch the popular passions. They appeal for order, for trust in, for submission to those who, in the course and the name of the revolution, seized and legalized their own dictatorial powers; this is how such political revolutionaries reconstitute the state. We on the other hand, must awaken and foment all the dynamic passions of the people.”



Throughout Bakunin’s criticisms of capitalism and state socialism he constantly argues for freedom. It is not surprising, then, to find that in his sketches of future anarchist society that the principle of freedom takes precedence. In a number of revolutionary programs he outlined which he considered to be the essential features of societies which would promote the maximum possible individual and collective freedom. The societies envisioned in Bakunin’s programs are not Utopias, the sense of being detailed fictional communities, free of troubles, but rather suggest the basic minimum skeletal structures which would guarantee freedom. The character of future anarchist societies will vary, said Bakunin depending on a whole range of historical, cultural, economic and geographical factors.

The basic problem was to lay down the minimum necessary conditions which would bring about a society based upon justice and social welfare for all and would also generate freedom. The negative, that is, destructive features of the programs are all concerned with the abolition of those institutions which lead to domination and exploitation. The state, including the established church, the judiciary, state banks and bureaucracy, the armed forces and the police are all to be swept away. Also, all ranks, privileges, classes and the monarchy are to be abolished.

The positive, constructive features of the new society all interlink to promote freedom and justice. For a society to be free, Bakunin argued, it is not sufficient to simply impose equality. No, freedom can only be achieved and maintained through the full participation in society of a highly educated and healthy population, free from social and economic worries. Such an enlightened population, can then be truly free and able to act rationally on the basis of a popularly controlled science and a thorough knowledge of the issues involved.

Bakunin advocated complete freedom of movement, opinion, morality where people would not be accountable to anyone for their beliefs and acts. This must be, he argued, complete and unlimited freedom of speech, press and assembly. Freedom, he believed, must be defended by freedom, for to “advocate the restriction of freedom on the pretext that it is being defended is a dangerous delusion.” A truly free and enlightened society, Bakunin said, would adequately preserve liberty. An ordered society, he thought, stems not from suppression of ideas, which only breeds opposition and factionalism, but from the fullest freedom for all.

This is not to say that Bakunin did not think that a society has the right to protect itself. He firmly believed that freedom was to be found within society, not through its destruction. Those people who acted in ways that lessen freedom for others have no place; These include all parasites who live off the labor of others. Work, the contribution of one’s labor for the creation of wealth, forms the basis of political rights in the proposed anarchist society. Those who live by exploiting others do not deserve political rights. Others, who steal, violate voluntary agreements within and by society, inflict bodily harm etc. can expect to be punished by the laws which have been created by that society. The condemned criminal, on the other hand, can escape punishment by society by removing himself/herself from society and the benefits it confers. Society can also expel the criminal if it so wishes. Basically thought, Bakunin set great store on the power of enlightened public opinion to minimize anti-social activity.

Bakunin proposed the equalization of wealth, though natural inequalities which are reflected in different levels of skill, energy and thrift, should he argued be tolerated. The purpose of equality is to allow individuals to find full expression of their humanity within society. Bakunin was strongly opposed to the idea of hired labor which if introduced into an anarchist society, would lead to the reintroduction of inequality and wage slavery. He proposed instead collective effort because it would, he thought, tend to be more efficient. However, so long as individuals did not employ others, he had no objection to them working alone.

Through the creation of associations of labor which could coordinate worker’s activities, Bakunin proposed the setting up of an industrial assembly in order to harmonize production with the demand for products. Such an assembly would be necessary in the absence of the market. Supplied with statistical information from the various voluntary organization who would be federated, production could be specialized on an international basis so that those countries with inbuilt economic advantages would produce most efficiently for the general good. Then, according to Bakunin, waste, economic crisis and stagnation “will no longer plague mankind; the emancipation of human labor will regenerate the world.”

Turning to the question of the political organization of society, Bakunin stressed that they should all be built in such a way as to achieve order through the realization of freedom on the basis of the federation of voluntary organizations. In all such political bodies power is to flow “from the base to the summit” and from “the circumference to the center/” In other words, such organizations should be the expressions of individual and group opinions, not directing centers which control people.

On the basis of federalism, Bakunin proposed a multi-tier system of responsibility for decision making which would be binding on all participants, so long as they supported the system. Those individuals, groups or political institutions which made up the total structure would have the right to secede. Each participating unit would have an absolute right to self-determination, to associate with the larger bodies, or not. Starting at the local level, Bakunin suggested as the basic political unit, the completely autonomous commune. The commune, on the basis of universal suffrage, would elect all of its functionaries, law makers, judges, and administrators of communal property.

The commune would decide its own affairs but, if voluntarily federated to the next tier of administration, the provincial assembly, its constitution must conform to the provincial assembly. Similarly, the constitution of the province must be accepted by the participating communes. The provincial assembly would define the rights and obligations existing between communes and pass laws affecting the province as a whole. The composition of the provincial assembly would be decided on the basis of universal suffrage.

Further levels of political organization would be the national body, and, ultimately, the international assembly. As regards international organization, Bakunin proposed that there should be no permanent armed forces, preferring instead, the creation of local citizens’ defense militias. Disputes between nations and their provinces would be settled by an international assembly. This assembly, if required, could wage war against outside aggressors but should a member nation of the international federation attack another member, then it faces expulsion and the opposition of the federation as a whole.

Thus, from root to branch, Bakunin’s outline for anarchy is based upon the free federation of participants in order to maximize individual and collective well being.

Bakunin’s Relevance Today

Throughout most of this pamphlet Bakunin has been allowed to speak for himself and any views by the writer of the pamphlet are obvious. In this final section it might be valuable to make an assessment of Bakunin’s ideas and actions.

With the dominance of Marxism in the world labor and revolutionary movements in the twentieth century, it became the norm to dismiss Bakunin as muddle-headed or irrelevant. However, during his lifetime he was a major figure who gained much serious support. Marx was so pressured by Bakunin and his supporters that he had to destroy the First International by dispatching it to New York. In order that it should not succumb to Anarchism, Marx killed it off through a bureaucratic maneuver.

Now that Marxism has been seriously weakened following the collapse of the USSR and the ever increasingly obvious corruption in China, Bakunin’s ideas and revolutionary Anarchism have new possibilities. If authoritarian, state socialism has proved to be a child devouring monster, then libertarian communist ideas once again offer a credible alternative.

The enduring qualities of Bakunin and his successors are many, but serious commitment to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the state must rank high. Bakunin was much more of a doer than a writer, he threw himself into actual insurrections, much to the trepidation of European heads of state. This militant tradition was continued by Malatesta, Makhno, Durruti, and many other anonymous militants. Those so-called anarchists who adopt a gradualist approach are an insult to Anarchism. Either we are revolutionaries or we degenerate into ineffective passivism.

Bakunin forecast the dangers of statist socialism. His predictions of a militarized, enslaved society dominated by a Marxist ruling class came to pass in a way that even Bakunin could not have fully envisaged. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin outstripped even the Tsars in their arrogance and brutality. And, after decades of reformist socialism which have frequently formed governments, Bakunin’s evaluations have been proved correct. In Britain we have the ultimate insult to working people in the form of “socialist Lords”. For services to capitalism, Labor MP’s are ultimately granted promotion to the aristocracy.

Bakunin fought for a society based upon justice, equality and freedom. Unlike political leaders of the left he had great faith in the spontaneous, creative and revolutionary potential of working people. His beliefs and actions reflect this approach. So, revolutionaries can learn much of value from his federalism, his militancy and his contempt for the state, which, in the twentieth century, has assumed gigantic and dangerous proportions, Bakunin has much to teach us but we too must develop our ideas in the face of new challenges and opportunities. We must retain the revolutionary core of his thought yet move forward. Such is the legacy of Bakunin.

With this in mind, the Anarchist Communist Federation is developing a revolutionary anarchist doctrine, which whilst being ultimately based on Bakunin’s ideas, goes much further to suit the demands of present-day capitalism. Ecological issues, questions of imperialist domination of the world, the massive oppression of women, the automation of industry, computerized technology etc. are all issues that have to be tackled. We welcome the challenge!



There are two main compilations of Bakunin’s works which are quite readily available through public libraries. They are “Bakunin on Anarchy” edited by Sam Dolgoff and “The Political Philosophy of Bakunin” edited by G.P. Maximoff. Also worth looking at, if you can get hold of them are “The Basic Bakunin – Writings 1869-1871″ edited by Robert M. Cutler and “Mikhail Bakunin – From Out of the Dustbin”, edited by the same person.

For an understanding of the full profundity of Bakunin’s ideas, there is nothing to match “The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin” by Richard B Saltman. This American publication should be available through your local library.

Bakunin’s works currently available:

  • “God and the State”
  • “Marxism, Freedom and the State” (edited by K.J. Kenafik)
  • “The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State”
  • “Statism and Anarchy” (heavy going) ed. Marshall Shatz.

samedi, 17 octobre 2009

Why We Are National-Anarchists!

hand-roots.jpgWhy We Are National-Anarchists

categoryfrom Western Australian National-Anarchists (WANA)


To many people, on all sides of the political spectrum, the question would be asked when they hear of our new philosophy, “why?”.  Why would you choose to be a National-Anarchist, which is universally hated by the majority of the dogmatic left and right wings? Why would we choose to be ostracised from the mainstream like this? I will attempt to give as good an answer as i am able.

“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils” – Francis Bacon

For decades, both the left-wing and the right-wing have not developed their world-view. Anarchists are the same as they were 40 years as ago, along with the socialists, communists, nationalists, conservatives, liberals etc. Most people cling to 20th century beliefs and ideologies in the 21st century. To use 20th century beliefs in the 21st seems to be almost stupid, does it not?

“Smash all political dogma’s!” – slogan of the Australian New Right/ National Anarchists

For a small, but growing group of people, it does. Tired of the repeated failures of the reactionary right-wing, a small group of people split with those Nationalist groups and adopted Third Positionism, providing a Third Way alternative to the dual Communist and Capitalist dominated world of the time. However, as the Soviet Union fell, and Communism became relatively obsolete, and Capitalism marched onwards to world hegemony, a more revolutionary approach to the emerging NWO of global government, exploitation of the worlds workers, and submissiveness to the Elite, was needed.

Thus, National-Anarchism was born. With the Orwellian-like State oppression of dissidents, with the farce of so-called “Democracy”, party-politics has been discarded as a pipe-dream. The State and its vast apparatus of bureaucratic leeches (”politicians”) have become the only enemy of all freedom loving peoples the world over. But we do not advocate armed struggle against the State, as it is too powerful, instead we advocate living outside of the System, as far as is legal and we are able, and establishing (eventually) our own communities, according to our own customs and beliefs. (As Troy Southgate would say, “destroying from within, building from without”).

So why are we National-Anarchists? Well, we recognise there is a fundamental sickness in the heart of our current “civilisation”, and that our world-view offers the only real genuine alternative to this sickness. National-Anarchism is the synthesis to the Left-wing and the Right-wing, (and it must be pointed out that those labels only serve to make us conform to the Government labels, and originated centuries ago, so should surely be obsolete in the 21st century), providing the only real true revolutionary alternative to the radical youth of today.

Everyone has an option, either sit back and watch the world march on passed them, or live a life with more meaning, more value (not in the economic sense) by making positive changes in your community, and help preparing your community (which should be considered your extended family) for the inevitable collapse of Western Capitalism. For surely it will one day collapse, and then our people will need leaders to guide them out of the troubles to follow. Are you a leader? If you are – we want you!

mardi, 23 juin 2009

Aristocratismo libertario

Aristocratismo libertário

Ex: http://ofogodavontade.wordpress.com/


Os Anarquistas de Direita (Fonte)

O anarquismo não é, contrariamente ao que poderíamos pensar, um movimento de sentido unívoco. Podemos identificar três tendências dominantes: à partida um anarquismo bruto, cujo genitor é Max Stirner, que rejeita os dados humanistas tradicionalmente admitidos e que valoriza um individualismo exclusivo. Depois um anarquismo de esquerda saído da filosofia «iluminista», que visa a emancipação dos povos e o exercício do poder político por todos, mesmo a custo de acções violentas e radicais. Por fim um anarquismo de direita, ou aristocratismo libertário, que coloca radicalmente em causa os princípios de 1978, não numa perspectiva contra-revolucionária, mas em nome de uma revolta individual contra todos os poderes instituídos. A definição dada de anarquismo de direita é a de uma revolta individual, em nome de princípios aristocráticos, que pode ir até à recusa de toda a autoridade instituída. Mas o anarquismo de direita não é um simples individualismo. Recusa a democracia, as normas rígidas dos pensamentos e dos comportamentos nascidos com a revolução industrial e defende os valores aristocráticos tradicionais da nação. É importante precisar relativamente a esta corrente cultural, que a conotação indecisa que se liga à expressão «anarquismo de direita», tem mais a ver com o descrédito e a ocultação que sofreu durante muito tempo no mundo das ideias dominado pela ideologia democrática do que com a aparência paradoxal do anarquismo de direita.

1-A recusa da Democracia

É o próprio fundamento do anarquismo de direita, toda a sua ideologia se constrói efectivamente em oposição ao postulado igualitário de 1789. O que choca os anarquistas de direita na ideologia democrática é a sua referência constante aos critérios quantitativos. Esta afirmação é particularmente significativa, não só porque os anarquistas de direita não reconhecem de todo a proeminência do número como consideram a dimensão colectiva nefasta ao homem. Portanto, situar toda a ambição político-filosófica numa perspectiva quantitativa, como fazem os democratas, conduz necessariamente a um nivelamento intelectual e moral que coloca em perigo «a inteligência, a capacidade criativa e a singularidade», segundo Michel-Georges Micberth. Pretender falar em nome do povo, das massas e dos homens é um golpe muito duro contra a verdadeira lei da espécie que é que a maioria viva em uníssono com a elite, isto é, com os homens raros, competentes e moralizados, que concebem, decidem e aceitam sozinhos os verdadeiros riscos. «Foi ao ser capaz de morrer por algo incompreensível para as maiorias, que uma pequena raça de homens conseguiu durante séculos fazer-se respeitar pela turba (Anouilh). Escreve Céline:« apenas há exploradores e explorados, e cada explorado apenas pretende tornar-se explorador. Não compreende outra coisa. O proletariado heróico igualitário não existe». Daí a aversão profunda sentida pelos anarco-direitistas face à «divisão da humanidade em duas facções mais ou menos iguais: os carrascos e as vítimas» (Darien), e neste contexto de democratismo crescente, em relação a tudo o que é multidão, mistura indiferenciada, movimento de massas, predominância quantitativa. Definir a liberdade como um principio colectivo parece incoerente. A liberdade escolhe-se e constrói-se graças à vontade e à energia, e apenas pode ser escolhida por um pequeno número. A recusa da democracia aparece então como um princípio filosófico. O anarquista de direita recusa, por isso, a República. Esta simboliza a decadência à vez moral e política. Considera o sistema politica instável, corrompido e ineficaz. Segundo ele, a burguesia detém efectivamente o poder e disfarça a sua dominação sob um semblante democrático que conduz a uma tirania colectiva. Os anarquistas de direita não encontram o seu universo moral e político nos princípios e realidades democráticas.

2-O ódio aos intelectuais

Os anarquistas de direita odeiam os intelectuais não somente porque estes são os inventores da democracia mas também porque representam a reclusão de certos pensadores no mundo das ideias. Os anarquistas de direita denunciam uma teimosia específica, acrescida de impotência, criticam uma submissão ao espírito dos tempos e realçam sobretudo um divórcio entre o pensamento e a realidade que constitui, na perspectiva anarco-direitista, um pecado capital. A hostilidade não está vinculada por opões partidárias, ela visa tudo o que é de natureza estritamente teórica, todos aqueles que colocam o seu gosto pela hipótese e pela metáfora antes da experimentação e das duras lições dos factos. Os intelectuais não são somente criadores literários ou construtores de sistemas filosóficos; têm por ambição determinar novas e grandes orientações políticas que acabam por intervir no domínio da acção, portanto a sua confusão e irresponsabilidade representam para os anarquistas de direita um perigo real. Porque para os anarco-direitistas os intelectuais pensam contra o homem, contra o seu presente e o seu porvir, indo no sentido das suas fraquezas, e popularizando um gosto pela abstracção e a irrealidade que apenas pode alienar o homem duma interpretação correcta dos factos.

3-Uma revolta constitutiva para um ideal libertário e aristocrático

Pouco preocupados com agradar ou desagradar, ainda que propensos (por vezes) aos gestos de bravura literários, os anarquistas de direita não limitam a sua busca pela verdade a uma crítica radical da realidade e dos princípios democráticos assim como à expressão de uma hostilidade dirigida contra os intelectuais, manifestam uma oposição igualmente violenta em relação às instituições que estruturam a sociedade e que, emanações directas ou indirectas do poder republicano, não se apoiam, segundo eles, sobre qualquer legitimidade real. De qualquer forma, esta crítica da validade ideológica de todos estes poderes instituídos não explica por si só a violência da sua rejeição, há outras razões que os levam a rejeitar sem nuances as estruturas dominantes: Logo à partida a convicção de que estas prolongam as imemoriais relações de força destinadas a escravizar os indivíduos e a refrear o normal exercício da inteligência, depois o desprezo que sentem pelo apetite de honrarias e de poder que existe na maior parte dos homens e que permite a imutabilidade das relações sociais desnaturados, enfim essa certeza segundo a qual os grandes corpos institucionais ameaçam gravemente o bem mais precioso do homem: a liberdade. A revolta é, para os anarquistas de direita, um dever intelectual e moral, à vez um acto de (legítima) defesa da inteligência e um teste infalível da qualidade dos homens. Compreendemos face a esta revolta profunda que a sua preocupação foi sempre demarcar-se definitivamente, não só da moral comum, da dos “bem-pensantes”, mas de toda a recuperação ideológica, correndo o risco de se tornarem para sempre escritores malditos, verdugos dos outros, e deles mesmos, não por uma qualquer perversão do pensamento, mas por amor à verdade, dita, escrita e procurada, até à exaustão. O anarquista acredita que é preciso responsabilizar os homens. O anarquista de direita propõe uma filosofia do “eu”. Este “eu” deve ser violento, exigente, lúcido e criador.

O anarquista defende o aristocratismo, que é para ele a procura perpétua da excelência, através dos valores da Honra e da Fidelidade. Em conclusão, o anarquismo de direita, movimento libertário que nasceu no século XIX e cujas raízes se encontram na filosofia barroca e libertina não é a denominação vaga e ambígua de uma revolta egocêntrica que encontraria os seus alimentos literários num sobressalto de individualismo. O anarquismo de direita é uma busca insistente da verdade, por vezes enraivecida e exacerbada, e resulta num novo modo de ser e pensar para a consciência humana. Nesta perspectiva, a recusa da democracia não surge como um combate inesperado contra um fim inelutável. Mas antes como um dos últimos bastiões onde ainda se podem esconder a inteligência e a singularidade humanas. É de notar que as aspirações libertárias que são aqui preconizadas são indissociáveis das exigências morais mais rigorosas e que o interesse da proposta anarco-direitista reside no esforço para criar uma síntese entre o anarquismo, a expressão da liberdade mais total, e o aristocratismo, o reconhecimento de valores superiores ao indivíduo.


- François Richard, Les anarchistes de droite, Collection Que sais-je, PUF, 1991. Este livro é uma síntese de todo o pensamento anarco-direitista e permite uma visão global do que representa o movimento. É completo e não é um manifesto para o anarquismo de direita. O autor faz prova de rigor tornando-o o mais objectivo possível.

– Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Voyage au bout de la nuit, Collection Folio, Gallimard, 1952. Esta obra permite apreender o anarquismo de direita na literatura.

– http://www.19e.org/articles/anarchistededroite.htm. Este site permite compreender o que pode ser o anarquismo de direita, permite familiarizar-se com as noções desta corrente de pensamento.

– http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L’anarchisme_de_droite. Este site permite, como o anterior, descobrir o pensamento anarco-direitista mas também encontrar todos os autores referenciados nesta corrente.

– http://www.micberth.com. Site integralmente dedicado a Michel-Georges Micberth.

mardi, 24 février 2009

Proudhon: Etre gouverné...


Être gouverné

“Être gouverné, c’est être gardé à vue, inspecté, espionné, dirigé, légiféré, réglementé, parqué, endoctriné, prêché, contrôlé, estimé, apprécié, censuré, commandé, par des êtres qui n’ont ni titre, ni la science, ni la vertu…

Être gouverné, c’est être à chaque transaction, à chaque mouvement, noté, enregistré, recensé, tarifé, timbré, toisé, coté, cotisé, patenté, licencié, autorisé, admonesté, empêché, réformé, redressé, corrigé.
C’est sous prétexte d’utilité publique et au nom de l’intérêt général être mis à contribution, exercé, rançonné, exploité, monopolisé, concussionné, pressuré, mystifié, volé ; puis, à la moindre réclamation, au premier mot de plainte, réprimé, amendé, vilipendé, vexé, traqué, houspillé, assommé, désarmé, garrotté, emprisonné, fusillé, mitraillé, jugé, condamné, déporté, sacrifié, vendu, trahi, et pour comble, joué, berné, outragé, déshonoré.

Voilà le gouvernement, voilà sa justice, voilà sa morale ! Et qu’il y a parmi nous des démocrates qui prétendent que le gouvernement a du bon ; des socialistes qui soutiennent, au nom de la liberté, de l’égalité et de la fraternité, cette ignominie ; des prolétaires qui posent leur candidature à la présidence la République !”

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, “Idée générale de la révolution au XIXe siècle”