The following projects were proposed to particular persons in the context of a specific situation, but they could usefully be tabled for discussion, extension, correction & implementation anywhere.
The context, which relates to my interaction with the local anti-authoritarians addressed in Why I Am Not An Anarchist, is documented in the Appendix.
The context, which relates to my interaction with the local anti-authoritarians addressed in Why I Am Not An Anarchist, is documented in the Appendix.
* * *
1) Systematic exploration of “the dissociation and recombination of elements” as applied to moments of life, for example: systematically renaming street signs (‘alienation avenue’, ‘boredom boulevard’, ‘same-shit street’, ‘false-community crescent’ etc) and then releasing a statements via pamphlets, posters and press release saying that extensive ‘public consultation’ amongst primary school children has revealed unanimous support for the changes - or simply releasing pseudo-official statements to solicit public consultation such renaming.
2) Experimentation with 'blitzes' as in France: 'In some cases whole series of more or less impromptu actions were carried out by roving bands of a few dozen people, who might, for example, go downtown to disrupt a fashion show or toss rotten tomatoes at a repossession officer; then invade a supermarket and pressure the owners into “donating” a cartful of food; then hop the subway to another part of the city to hand out leaflets or spray-paint graffiti (”You never get back the time you’ve sold!” “We don’t want part of the cake, we want the bakery!”)i
3) From mutual-aid societies to the mutual-pleasure society (the free-love anarchist that advocated setting up such societies, the sexual clinics of Reich). The practice of 'masters without slaves' applied literally - coming together to pamper one another the way servants did to the aristocracy. And so on. The possibility for the enforced idleness of the permanent underclass to become the permanent pleasure of an emancipated leisure class, and an assault on the repression of youthful sexuality by religion. As the situationists said,'liberty in love and love of liberty form an inseparable unity'. Or as a woman in the audience replied to Kenneth Rexroth on his question “Well, what would you like tonight: sex, mysticism or revolution?” – “What's the difference?” To lose our fear of laying hands on our own world (and with it, our own lives, our own history) we must begin to lose our fear of laying hands on ourselves and on each other.
And vice-versa: the advocates of polyamory are unlikely ever to make any headway as long as they separate their critique of monogamy from a critique of the society on which it is based. Some such people might be interested in participating in such a project.
4) Experimenting with systematic application of the derive at the level of occupations. At each occupation a pool of possible actions of which participants are constantly discussing, deciding on, improving, amending, and adding to. Taken from spontaneous whim, considered discussion, theatre of the oppressed exercises, historical examples, fiction and utopian tracts, among others: frequent use of “blitz” techniques of expropriation like reclaim the streets, raves, etc.
A number of salutary situations in such a movement: if the local occupation/assembly does not satisfy someone from the neighbourhood, they can have their needs met elsewhere. Better, more interesting challenges are enhanced by this movement at the expense of weaker more mundane ones, which leads to an evolution through the ‘competition’ of ‘natural selection’. Each individual convocation becomes continuously exploded from within as injections of activity and participants from the larger world impose widened horizons; an environment inimicable to parochial concerns & narrow party interests is thus created fostering greater co-operation across multiple assemblies. Individuals begin immediate and practical possession of the whole world gaining in conscious experience an awareness of their interests as members of their class-as-a-whole. Persons, practical proposals, tendencies and activities drift across space and time establishing patterns of subversion whose waves ripple through everyday life creating greater and greater disruption. Realisation that we still indeed have nothing to lose and a world to gain -- since we have created nothing our own and the danger only truly comes the moment we begin to create our new life. Conditions of fear diminish since you can’t fear losing something you never had. Yves Le Manach’s criticisms of 1968 that proles needed to take the next step of occupying the living-room of the city rather than the factory... This is the only way the inevitable emergence of practical differences can actually strengthen unity in the creation of “increasingly seductive liberations”.
Thus an occupation for its own sake is the last thing desirable. What’s the point of taking a space at night -- it’s always available during the day at least theoretically, if all you’re going to do is sleep? The only point for an encampment is to enable activity, action, creation under the stars, not the same dead-time and dead space the city always is at the cease of the business day. An occupation cannot be ‘broken’ if the people, who are always there, always meet there after the state tries to clear them off. Why wouldn’t they meet there? Where else could they meet? If nowhere, why would they stop - and what are they doing instead? This is the creation of community in struggle, this is what we have to offer that none other can as Reich calls for, this is how we sidestep competition with the spectacle, which will always leave us second best - critical sensuous participation. What can we not accomplish the moment we fully place ourselves at one another’s disposal?
5) Experimenting with detournement (modification) of counter-cultural revels such as Afrikaburn in a radical direction. The beautiful liberatory potential of a gift-economy and the removal of every-day moralist constraints, trapped in a narrow moment of space-time, begs the question: why if participants value the experience so much is ordinary life not like this, and how might it be so made? The revel itself might become a form of laboratory for exploring these questions, a la Trocchi's Sigma project.ii
6) A natural history society in which excursions into the wild provide a way to concretise the meaning of revolutionary theory.
7) Libertine Youth Club through which elders provide facilitation for youngsters to come together and tackle the sexual, moral, educational, and social struggles in which they are thrown. A tactical starting point might be the rolezinhos which recently swept through Brazil, as well the traditionally open sexuality of South African societies currently repressed by christian morality – the dance parties kids went to socialise, release their physical energy and explore their sexuality, and the similar, though more discrete, freedom of adults. Of course this has many commonalities with proposal #5, and of course the point would be that all these projects variously intertwine and from their mutually-reinforcing inter-actions create conditions through which an expansive revolutionary subjectivity might emerge. It's interesting to note that this very process was the reason for which Cano Ruiz said “it is obvious that in no other country in the world did anarchism have the rootedness and influence that it had in Spain…In Spain anarchism was a mass movement integrated rated in diverse manifestations, from a workers’ movement embodied in the CNT…the rationalist schools (of Francisco Ferrer)…the libertarian ateneos, the Libertarian Youth, Mujeres Libres (Free Women)...” Now we don't expect or want to recruit millions of people into syndicalist unions anymore – the historical context has rendered that neither possible nor appropriate – but there are many more positive, broadly cultural, aspects of the old movement, that remain relevent today and potentially useful.
On the educational front, the mainstream academic literature in favour of abolition of examinations could be the basis for a very popular movement in the schools, then again the minimally-invasive education of Sugata Mitra (inspiration for Slumdog Millionaire) could be the basis for an even more popular movement to abolish schooling all together: the only thing school kids hate more than exams is school itself! Further to the whole theme of inter-relation, it's interesting to note that the original institutions of education in western history, the gymnasiums, were out-door affairs, focused originally on the physical and only later incorporating the intellectual. In this regard, the modern day Ateneos might well be more suitably made in the propertyless mold of #3, #6, & #7 returning to the roots of the youth movement in South Africa when it was understood that 'the school for the oppressed is a revolution'. Then again we also lean that, further to proposal #8, 'The majority of the “Ateneos” also had a “Grupo Naturista” (a naturalist group) encouraging vegetarianism, nudism, promoting campaigns against bullfighting, tobacco and alcohol as well as organising hiking trips to the mountains.' It all goes together.
All of the above would of course be subject to continuous modification by all participants should any be forthcoming.
Siddiq Khan
January 2014
i'Countercultural revels can be a lot of fun, but they tend to contain a large element of self-satisfaction, complacently “celebrating” this or that social identity. Blitzes have a similarly playful and prankish spirit, but the participants remain focused on their grievances, without illusions about the conditions in which they find themselves. Their sudden convergence on a particular location is reminiscent of “flash mobs” (and may have been partially inspired by them); but once flash mobs have arrived at their destination their activity is generally pretty innocuous, whereas blitzes are specifically designed to attack their targets. Mass demonstrations have a greater force of numbers, but they lack the flexibility that enables blitzes to move rapidly and to disperse and regroup as appropriate. This was the main reason for the development of “black bloc” tactics in recent years. But black blocs are often caught up in silly fantasies of street fighting or urban guerrilla warfare. Blitzers strive to evade the system’s strengths and exploit its weaknesses, challenging it on the level of feelings and ideas as well as physical force. While black bloc actions tend to be impulsive, grimly self-important and purely destructive, blitzes contain a larger element of calculation, creativity and humor. Guerrilla theater has the merit of abandoning the traditional stage and taking its message out into the world, but a certain spectacle-spectator separation remains: the radical lesson is still being presented to an audience. Blitzers exemplify their “lesson” by their concrete disruption of the institution they are critiquing, thereby presenting a more direct challenge to the passivity of whatever “audience” may be on the scene. Some of their actions verge on the surrealistic. One of the most popular was to invade a business or government office and simply move all the furniture out onto the sidewalk. Ostensibly this was a sort of symbolic “eviction” intended to recall the real evictions that are constantly taking place. [Very relevant to a place like South Africa...SK] But the bizarre “rearrangement” was probably more astonishing (as well as less risky legally) than if they had simply trashed everything, and it undoubtedly had a more radically disorienting effect than the projects of conceptual artists who get official permission to make some temporary modification of the urban landscape. ' (Reflections on the Uprising in France; Ken Knabb)
ii'While a great deal of lip-service is paid to the significance of a man's environment (especially during the formative years), our societies push ahead willy-nilly boxing people into honeycomb apartment blocks to meet the immediate requirements of industry. For the moment, there is little we can do about this, but we can take care that the structural features of our sigma-centres are geared to and inspiring of the future as we imagine it can be, rather than the past and present out of which men must evolve. Our experimental sigma-centre must be in all its dimensions a model for the functions of the future rather than of the past...Here our "experimental laboratory" will locate itself, our community-as-art, and begin exploring the possible functions of a society in which leisure is a dominant fact, and universal community, in which the conventional assumptions about reality and the constraints which they imply are no longer operative, in which art and life are no longer divided.' (Sigma: a tactical blueprint, Alexander Trocchi)
Appendix on Writer's Block and Erectile Dysfunction
'Will alone does not suffice to provide oneself with courage and to to remove fear; truly, one must toil to consider the reasons, the aims and the examples which are able to convince one that danger is not overwhelming, that there always will be more safety in defence than in escape; that one will gather glory and joy as a winner, whereas in escaping one can only expect regret and shame.'
-- Descartes
I publish the following for the sake of clarifying certain points in my essay Why I am not an anarchist, which were abundantly confirmed in practice by the subsequent (in)action of the local anti-authoritarians, as well as to dispel any complaints on their part of 'misrepresentation'. Thankfully, there is a fairly extensive written record of our interactions. I can thus let the dialogue speak for itself.
'Deficiency of collective activity is mainly noticeable by a sort of general aversion to any critique aimed at a specific fact or at one of us. The slightest critique is felt as a total calling into question, an absolute distrust, a manifestation of hostility, etc. And this emotional reaction is not only expressed by the criticized comrade. I cannot believe that some hollow politeness is at the origin of this. It must therefore be a certain fatigue that sets in the moment questions are broached that really concern our movement: things we risk succeeding or failing in. The general feeling, expressed not so much in the responses as in the silences, is clearly: “Why make a drama out of it?” Such criticism is seen as pointless, as merely reflecting a bad mood. It goes without saying that in speaking of “criticism” I am deploring not only the sleep of the “negative” aspect of criticism, but also of its “positive” side: usefully approving, developing, striving to reuse a theory or an act of one or another comrade. Our principal reference point is ourselves, it is our own operation. The underdevelopment of internal criticism clearly reflects, at the same time that it contributes toward, the underdevelopment of our (theoretico-practical) action.'
-- Guy Debord, Some Remarks on The SI Today, 1970
I publish the following for the sake of clarifying certain points in my essay Why I am not an anarchist, which were abundantly confirmed in practice by the subsequent (in)action of the local anti-authoritarians, as well as to dispel any complaints on their part of 'misrepresentation'. Thankfully, there is a fairly extensive written record of our interactions. I can thus let the dialogue speak for itself.
Although it might seem self-important to publish in such microscopic detail the interactions of a few marginal individuals, I do so not because any of us are inherently very important but because the poverty of these sorts of relations, evasions, actions, and inactions, currently plague revolutionary efforts everywhere. I am aware there is a variety of reader who will find every such exercise extremely distasteful. Like the 'pro-situ', such an individual 'detests critical theory whenever it is blended with concrete facts -- hence, whenever it has an effective existence -- because he is always afraid that it applies to his own case.' (Debord and Sanguinetti, Theses on the SI and its Time, 1972) Unfortunately I am unable to accommodate the refined tastes of such readers in any way whatsoever. The purpose of this account is to demonstrate concretely the criticisms of the anarchist subculture made in more general terms elsewhere by way of reporting on the results of my own attempt to intervene in this subculture through the proposal of suggestions for breaking out of its self-imposed isolation. That is all.
Although I had some previous involvement with members of the Bolo'bolo collective due to my participation in the organisation of the first Cape Town anarchist book-fair some years prior, my first contact with them as a collective came in the form of a solicitation on their part for a contribution to their newspaper, the Incendiary Times. I obliged by writing the text Why I am not an anarchist. Shortly before the events of May 1968 a situationist noted how 'All kinds of recent experiences have shown the coopted confusionism of the term “anarchist,” and it seems to me that we must oppose it everywhere.' Although I had not yet read this at the time of writing my own anarchist text, all my subsequent experiences have shown both the confusionism as well as the need to oppose it are here to stay.
*
Aragorn to Siddiq
12/09/2013
Thanks for the Why I am not an anarchist piece. With all due respect though, you should do more research. While you do make some fair points, several of the assertions you make about me, the bolo'bolo collective and the newspaper (as well as anarchists in general) are plainly false to anyone familiar with either myself or the aforementioned projects.
In fact it feels like you've unnecessarily marred what is in some respects a powerful and well written critique of some anarchists with your self-indulgent calling out of people whose lives and politics you don't really seem to have an adequate grasp of. I really encourage you to research your facts better in future before casting more blanket aspersions on the characters of myself, Steffi, bolo'bolo, Incendiary Times and anarchism in general. At least Bob Black has his facts straight when he levels a critique ;-)
That all said, I'd still be happy to publish the piece, verbatim, along with one or more full responses/clarifications, in an upcoming issue of the newspaper, and will encourage the editorial collective (of several equal members, just so you know) to accept it. If you're okay with this, let me know.
I'm also keen to publish the Mandela text if that's still an option now that you're doing the novella. And, of course, I'll help circulate the press release.
For an honest critical debate,
A
Siddiq to Aragorn
12/09/2013
 |
| Microscopic photograph, 'Tears of ending/beginning' |
As I said, you are free to publish anything in any form you wish. To avoid a possibly repetitious exchange, I will await your written responses to the allegedly 'plainly false' assertions. Your response right now though, let me point, is a reflex one. I sent the text to you a few minutes ago, so you clearly haven't had much time to process what I've said. Maybe after some time you will find your gut-reaction calls for some reconsideration.
As far as I'm concerned, the only assertions I've made are from what I know to be true. There are a number of speculations, which are clearly labelled as such, which I also inferred from known facts. It could be argued, as you and a friend I showed this piece to have done, that I should have done further research in order to get definite clarity on those points. This would be in keeping with the image of objectivity fabricated by liberal journalism - getting comments from 'both sides' before publishing articles, etc. My intention, however, was not an ideal objectivity. What is unknown to me is also unknown to everyone on the 'outside' of your collectivity; my criticism is directed precisely against the separation -- and consequent disinformation (or lack of information: in many cases it amounts to the same thing) -- engendered by all ideological collectivities. It would not do, therefore, to adopt a 'priveledged' perspective (for example access to knowledge unavailable to those on the 'outside'), which would be the case were I to try to get 'the inside scoop'.
By all means, though, please point out where I made blanket aspersions or self-indulgent calling out of people. I may have adopted a trenchant tone at times as a way of challenging what seem to me unquestioned forms of behaviour and association, but this is undoubtedly necessary when setting out to attack something as formidable as habitual routine.
It seems strange, however that you now assert the equality of members on the editorial collective of the paper after your last message admitted to "the level to which my voice dominated the previous two issues". As the citizens of all nations know all too well, the abstract pseudo-equality of the silent majority does not count for much. If the equality of those who produce your paper is not expressed by an equality of voices; how exactly is it expressed? And how am I or anybody on the outside supposed to know?
I understand that the initial reaction to serious criticism directed at oneself is generally to go on the defensive, especially when one is not sure of the intentions of the source. My criticism, however, is made in good faith; I implore all concerned to engage with it in the spirit in which it is offered. If I have singled out specific people, it is because reality is composed of specific individuals and their actions.
In any case, I look forward to your considered responses.
Respectfully,
Siddiq
Aragorn to Siddiq
12/09/2013
To be honest, someone sent me the draft you sent around for comment a week or so back, so this is not a reflex reaction. ;-)
To clarify one thing: my written voice dominated the last two issues, i.e., many of my words were printed. That is, however, separate from the editorial voice, which is a collective one. We jointly decided to publish several pieces I wrote either alone or in tandem with other collective members due to a lack of content combined with an enthusiasm to publish. Again, you're reading too much into things, trying to find hypocrisy where there is none. Your argument that not being privy to the inner workings of the collective gives you a better position to critique as a neutral outsider is at odds with the fact that many of your assertions rely precisely on often-erroneous assumptions about these inner workings, assumptions that a truly neutral outsider wouldn't make without doing better research.
Anyway, I get the spirit of your critique (and even agree with you on the false objectivity of liberal media) even if I do balk a little at the tone. Some of it even echoes my concerns around my role in the collective. All I can say for now is that we'll have a look at it as a collective and choose how to respond.
Speak soon,
A
Siddiq ro Aragorn
12/09/2013
 |
| Microscopic photograph, 'Tears of elation' |
In any case, once you have written your response I will read it.
Take care,
S
*
Subsequent to this, Aragorn backpedalled, claiming that he would no longer publish my essay in The Incendiary Times due to 'lack of space'. Yet one of his own texts, 'Liberals, can we riot yet', was just as long, and it was published in an issue which contained more than one of his articles. Similarly feeble excuses will later be deployed to justify further inaction, on this occasion based on 'lack of time'. In subsequent discussions it emerged that Aragorn was dissatisfied with the edition of Incendiary Times in which my text was to appear, due to lack of good quality submissions. The irony of this recalls the banning of the book 'Black Beauty' (about a black horse) by the apartheid authorities due to its potential subversive effect. The contradictions of censorship know no bounds. Up till today the 29th of Octobtober 2014, the only further written response, submitted anonymously because the author was too cowardly to take responsibility for it, was the pathetic excuse for a parody included in the Appendix to my essay. When I told the publisher of the journal Modern Slavery that my critique would be published in Incendiary Times he wrote 'If it was actually published I will also be impressed with the newspaper project for publishing it. I stopped writing letters to liberal, leftist and anarchist publications years and years ago because they were almost never published, and the few times they were published they were too often changed to make them sound illiterate or to reflect what publications wanted me (or someone) to say instead of what I wanted to say.' It is in this context that one can understand the only public response to my text by a Bolo'bolo member, which took the form of a weak satire called 'Why I am not an anarchist, short version' which put idiotic words into my mouth 'to reflect what [they] wanted me (or someone) to say instead of what I wanted to say'. It seems this is what anarchists mean when they speak of 'an honest critical debate'.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. To return to the sequence of correspondence. Unsuspecting of what these anarchists understood to be an adequate revolutionary praxis, I followed up my contribution to their paper with a proposal of my own.
*
Siddiq to 'Bolo'bolo collective'
02/07/2014
Revolutionists tend to talk mostly to themselves. In places such as S.A. & India, where simple survival remains a major struggle for so many, most radicals tend to get bullied by the slander of their leftist peers into proving their working-class credentials, which generally means keeping your revolution to yourselves and remaining at the level of survival when interacting with everyone else -- and especially with those 'underprivileged' in comparison with yourself. Nevermind that it is the upside-down logic of the economist that puts importance on the comparison and competition of human beings, as if it were a competition where the most oppressed win; nevermind that it is the strategy of the politician that says one thing to the constituents and another to fellow officials; those supposedly engaged in a radical critique of political-economy generally submit to its dictates with the alarming eagerness. But this is a story with which you are all too familiar, and I am concerned here with something altogether new.
If you feel prepared to experiment with such a step, I propose we take our relationship a step further. As I said to Aragorn, and noted in a supplementary text "Letters From Afar", which should be done soon, the publication of "Why I am not an anarchist" was not meant to initiate an internecine exchange of verbal polemics -- of which there is already an oversupply in the radical press. While I welcome any written response you may care to make, it is always useful to keep in front of us the question "what is the point?" For my part, considering I am in no position to judge anyone, I don't expect you to have to defend yourselves, or see the point in such an exercise. From the initial response of Aragorn, however, I suspect this may be the case. Let me re-iterate then, that my criticism was more by way of clarifying things for myself and throwing down the gauntlet for others to do the same, not a means to condemn people of with whom I am at present not even remotely involved. The attitude that "I haven't done my research properly" would in this case be more an evasion than a response -- especially considering that everything I said was either supported by written evidence or inferred therefrom, and whenever any inferences/speculations were made they were explicitly stated as such. I also recall a conversation with Aragorn about Hienrich Bohmke and local social movements like Abahlali baseMjondolo where he was perfectly prepared to make similar inferences regarding this organisation based on exactly same the criteria I used. But as I say, none of that is particularly important. What matters is, since the challenge has been made, what (if anything) are you prepared to do with it? If you were offended by the tone in which I offered it, I ask you to keep in mind that everybody tends to get annoyed by the buzzing of a gadfly. Under the circumstances, this seemed like the right course of action for me to take, and the right manner in which to take it.
"Habit is a great deadener", and under the stifling conditions in which we find ourselves I feel it essential to question the nature of what we are doing with our days. Is it in accordance with our desires? How so? How does it fall short? Can it be reformed so as to better accommodate our passions, or would it be better to embark on an entirely new adventure altogether? How did we get where we are, and what have we learned from the journey? These are questions all too difficult to ask oneself in isolation, but I've found it even more difficult in a collectivity, and looking around at how such these function, it seems I'm not the only one. This is why it appears necessary for such self-conscious practices to be put very explicitly on the agenda whenever people come together for a particular project. Without it, the inertia of collective unconscioussness weighs even more heavily than when one is alone; when such a practice is in place, however, it can definitely be better to do things together. This is precisely what I find so vital and exciting about the situationist project, and it is precisely what all those who appropriate their now fashionable rhetoric diligently avoid. In 1963 it was possible for Alexander Trocchi to write: "My associates and I during the past decade have been amazed at the possibilities arising out of the spontaneous interplay of ideas within a group in constructed situations." How many revolutionists since then could claim the same? How many have taken up and further developed the project? And if they haven't, what have they done? It is true that over time the centrality of this project -- as a living reality at the core of their collective life, rather than a mere ideology -- was lost to the situationists themselves; this was to be their downfall. But that is a subject for another time and place, and this message is getting long enough already!
What I propose, then, is an attempt to reconstitute the basis of this project, taking into account the advances and retreats, potentials and challenges of the moment, some of which have been outlined above. Practically speaking, I suggest a beginning be made this way:
If we reach an accord amongst ourselves about the scope and purpose of the project, we open it up to the public through a "launch party" involving the screening of "Many straws make a nest" -- a documentary on the activity of the Faridabad comrades -- periodically interrupted by recitation of certain of their texts as well as of extracts of my own above-mentioned texts, followed by free discussion for however long things stay interesting, followed by resumption of the film, and so on as long as things stay productive. When this cycle starts to get played out, we cut it out and make a start on the way forward. As a contribution towards that discussion, to keep things focused on practical matters, I can bring posters of the Mandela posters written by Samotnaf and myself, and we can organize how best to distribute them on the streets as well as on the inter-webs (more practical possibilities in this regard will be mentioned in the "Letters" text mentioned earlier). It may be that nobody else from this event actually ends up involved in the long run, but it should nevertheless be a fun way to start making trouble.
If anyone of you feels they have anything to say in response to all this, let's arrange to meet at a convenient point to discuss our affinities & differences and determine how -- as well as whether or not -- to take things forward. When I finish my "Letters" text you'll be able to get a much more definite idea about the sort of possibilities and activities I've determined to explore, and so will be in a better position to determine your own response. It should be coming soon. If, after that, you have nothing to add, it will at least be clear where each of us stands. For now let me conclude as the Faridabad comrades have in one of their their beautiful articles:
If we reach an accord amongst ourselves about the scope and purpose of the project, we open it up to the public through a "launch party" involving the screening of "Many straws make a nest" -- a documentary on the activity of the Faridabad comrades -- periodically interrupted by recitation of certain of their texts as well as of extracts of my own above-mentioned texts, followed by free discussion for however long things stay interesting, followed by resumption of the film, and so on as long as things stay productive. When this cycle starts to get played out, we cut it out and make a start on the way forward. As a contribution towards that discussion, to keep things focused on practical matters, I can bring posters of the Mandela posters written by Samotnaf and myself, and we can organize how best to distribute them on the streets as well as on the inter-webs (more practical possibilities in this regard will be mentioned in the "Letters" text mentioned earlier). It may be that nobody else from this event actually ends up involved in the long run, but it should nevertheless be a fun way to start making trouble.
If anyone of you feels they have anything to say in response to all this, let's arrange to meet at a convenient point to discuss our affinities & differences and determine how -- as well as whether or not -- to take things forward. When I finish my "Letters" text you'll be able to get a much more definite idea about the sort of possibilities and activities I've determined to explore, and so will be in a better position to determine your own response. It should be coming soon. If, after that, you have nothing to add, it will at least be clear where each of us stands. For now let me conclude as the Faridabad comrades have in one of their their beautiful articles:
Apart from the old forms, new beginnings, new methods, new paths and efforts to bury the present social system and create a new society are also continuing, are also increasing. It seems necessary to bring in new scales of measurement to recognize and understand the effect or importance of the steps persons are taking both separately and collectively. Then in the place of 'nothing is happening', all that is taking place will become visible to us...
With respect and good cheer
For the coming adventure
Siddiq
*
Subsequently, we arranged to meet in person to discuss my proposals. I was informed of a date at which collective members supposedly come together to meet informally, and agreed to address them there. When I arrived there was one person around. I was informed that others 'might' show up a few hours later. Not wanting to hang around all day for the vague possibility of meeting people I thought (mistakenly: a former member of the collective revealed that he had recieved neither my text 'Why I am not an anarchist' nor the proposals I had emailed, because Aragorn controls the collective email account and despite his promises to pass them on to the others, failed to do so) I had already contacted, I left copies of the above proposals, explained them to the one member who was there who agreed to discuss them with the others if they arrived, and await response from any interested parties.
*
Siddiq to 'Bolo'bolo collective'
02/20/2014
Further to our previous discussions, attached is one of the promised texts following up my Anarchism article. It specifies certain points which remained in the previous text rather general. The Letters text, dealing with the historical and theoretical perspective from which I drew those practical proposals, will be forthcoming, although, considering that I've heard nothing from anyone concerning them, it seems clear already where each of us stands.
Aragorn to Siddiq
02/20/2014
Thanks for this new contribution. I'm unsure what it is intended for as at 38 pages it is far too long for the newspaper, so please advise. Is it intended as a pamphlet/zine? Perhaps this was discussed with another collective member?
Perhaps it is unnecessary, but I would like to address the tone of your email, which suggests that you assume we're all waiting around with bated breath to reply to your missives post-haste. In reality, we're busy with a million different tasks related to bolo'bolo, not least of which include raising funds, renewing a lease, upgrading the space (the bookshop is moving out in a week) and so forth, and that's beyond the fact that all of us have numerous other obligations beyond the infoshop. If, therefore, we haven't yet found time to draft a perfectly worded twelve page reply to your practical proposals - which we did find stimulating, if somewhat vague and ambitious - then it's because humouring what at this point constitutes little more than a flight of fancy, albeit a well written one, is not a core priority for us right now.
Again, your presumptions are unnecessary and ill-directed. You may be clear about where you stand, but we have adopted no rigid stance in relation to you. In this regard, your article has been published in the latest Incendiary Times - you're welcome to come grab a free copy from the infoshop. Perhaps it would also be a good time to discuss concrete plans about any of the practical proposals you intend to lift off of the written page and put into practice.
I do enjoy your writing and look forward to publishing it wherever possible, but please, to reiterate yet again, don't assume that we have some sort of collective position towards you or your work ;-)
Aragorn
02/20/2014
Apologies for the miscommunications. Firstly, the new contribution was not to the newspaper but to what I had hoped would be an ongoing discussion initiated by my first essay. As such it was simply intended for circulation among the members of the collective and anyone else that might be interested, to read or ignore as they see fit. If it seems long this is merely an indication that publication of one essay, and one written response, or the repetition of the cycle twice over, or more, is besides the point. But in any case it seemed useful to include material that was not limited to Zabalaza and Bolo'bolo in this discussion of contemporary anarchism, and as the text evolved it became useful to include material that was not limited to contemporary anarchism at all, but broadened to a far more popular anti-authoritarian perspective that shares with anarchism many of the same limitations, in my opinion.
As for the assumptions of my email, I was not expecting any written response at all, as the proposals were meant to be discussed, but when I arrived on Friday there was only one person with which to discuss it, which I did, expecting the rest of you to talk it over among yourselves and at least communicate somehow that you were doing so, had done so, or planned to do so, and decided that you were not interested in anything, or that you had no intention of working with an arsehole, or that two people would like to discuss one of the things, or that all of you would like to speak about two of them, or something. I thought at least there would be some sort of feedback about the launch-party, considering the paper has already been printed. But not one word.
That's not anybody's fault, simply a matter of different expectations, which does tend to happen much easier, as I've said before, when people with different perspectives limit their communication to the written word. And this has been a primary indication to me about where we stand. If you as a collective, or as individuals, couldn't be bothered to discuss these things with me in person, or indicate definitely that you want to do so at such and such a point (rather than making vague arrangements such as Friday) then this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with the fact that you have other priorities, but these priorities do indicate something positive about what your relationship is to a person you might or might not 'humour' at some indefinite point in the future, if the mood strikes you, severally or singly. Why pretend that priorities mean nothing? Are they god-given? Are they not one of the few things in which we have some margin of personal choice in this regimented existence?
So that was what I meant by the content of what I said... As for the tone, if there was something perfunctory in it, that's because I did not, to be honest, expect anyone to respond to the opening gambit of a game which has everywhere gone quite out of style. Maybe you could call it a defense mechanism to gaurd against disappointment. I wouldn't, but admit there might well be something in it. Call it what you like. No presumption or disrespect was intended.
That's not anybody's fault, simply a matter of different expectations, which does tend to happen much easier, as I've said before, when people with different perspectives limit their communication to the written word. And this has been a primary indication to me about where we stand. If you as a collective, or as individuals, couldn't be bothered to discuss these things with me in person, or indicate definitely that you want to do so at such and such a point (rather than making vague arrangements such as Friday) then this is completely fine. There is nothing wrong with the fact that you have other priorities, but these priorities do indicate something positive about what your relationship is to a person you might or might not 'humour' at some indefinite point in the future, if the mood strikes you, severally or singly. Why pretend that priorities mean nothing? Are they god-given? Are they not one of the few things in which we have some margin of personal choice in this regimented existence?
So that was what I meant by the content of what I said... As for the tone, if there was something perfunctory in it, that's because I did not, to be honest, expect anyone to respond to the opening gambit of a game which has everywhere gone quite out of style. Maybe you could call it a defense mechanism to gaurd against disappointment. I wouldn't, but admit there might well be something in it. Call it what you like. No presumption or disrespect was intended.
Of course these things take time, and I'm the last one to rush
anybody else. But they must be, eventually, at some definite
point, taken, and if I get not even the slightest
indication that others have interest in such a move, it only seems
sensible to make the appropriate inferences therefrom.
So.
I might come round some time to take a look at the paper, and maybe even talk about a few flights of fancy with whoever happens to be there. Or I might not...
Until I hear of anything more definite, or decide on it myself.
Cordially,
Siddiq
PS
Did you decide to put up the posters? If so what has the response been? If not, why not?
Aragorn to Siddiq
02/20/2014
Several collective members have read the document you dropped off six days ago and some - including myself - enjoyed it, but that is all. If you'd like to come around and engage various members of the collective individually, then feel free to do so. That's really all I can suggest right now.
Just a note that we do collaborate with a number of different people and groups successfully. Perhaps it is the combined vagueness and excessive wordiness of your approach that prevents this from being the case in this instance? Why not start with a single modest, clear, brief proposal for a concrete event / similar that bolo'bolo as a space can facilitate and see where it goes from there.
We put the posters up in the window for a day but were unfortunately quickly bullied into taking them down by the landlady. I am not aware of any responses to them...
A
*
Some 8 months later and there has still been not a single response to any of the proposals. Readers can determine themselves whether they think this was due to the 'vagueness and excessive wordiness' of the above practical proposals or the modest desire of the collective members to do nothing other than maintain a safe space for the reproduction of their preferred subculture. In any case, I have subsequently made use of the space for my own purposes, hosting a 'concrete event' which was unfortunately, as is typical with this space, without any practical consequence to the continuous collective invention of an ambitious revolutionary praxis. Latter still, I sent 'a single modest, clear, brief ' request to use the space for an ongoing project to be executed by myself, but at the time of writing, this request has gone without any response whatsoever for a full month. If there are times when action and inaction speak louder than words, there are also times when silence does the same. 'Now. . . the story . . . does not disperse indefinitely like the banal actuality; rather it organizes itself. The principle of organization is the something that was secret in the actuality. Previously the actuality was indefinite and wandering because the organizing figure was unnoticed; now that it is allowed to claim attention, the rest falls into place. . . . By telling the story, the author frees himself from a certain phase of his life. . . . Obviously the malfunction of the flexible interplay of imagination and actuality has a general importance far beyond cases of a specific inhibition of writing.' (Paul Goodman, On a Writer’s Block, 1952) Those unwilling and unable to deal candidly with the concrete implications of their own action and inaction must always, necessarily, suppress -- through silence and lies, calumny and subtle dissimulation, sarcasm and belittlement, self-righteous indignation and moralistic accusation -- attempts to bring the causes and significance of such inaction into serious discussion. 'The choice of repression, of resignation, does not appear as such to the individual's consciousness; to be able to tolerate it in himself, to flee his shame, he justifies it by an objective, exterior constraint stronger than he. During the previous phase of class society, authority and hierarchy constituted this at once objective and subjective internalised constraint which, when accepted, justified resignation. Today, when the old forms of hierarchization are breaking down before the obstinacy of proletarians in struggle, the resigned individual tends to replace those forms with affective ties, a new excuse for his complicity with the existing world. But clearly such ties have only a subjective reality' (Nadine Bloch, All Things Considered, 1976) Those who busy themselves with the maintenance of comforting spaces, subcultures, routines and ideologies must necessarily justify failure to address challenges that threaten such pleasant possessions with some pseudo-objective excuse in order to hide, from themselves and others, the real reasons for their failure. In the case of my own interventions with the local anarchists this excuse takes the form of a 'lack of time'. With the lapse of days and months, such feeble excuses obviously can no longer hold water, which is why repression functions primarily through amnesia: ignore the problem and hope it goes away, pretend that nothing happens and hope that everyone else forgets. If those who are not in favour of such repression display a disturbing tendency to remember such uncomfortable contradictions, the friends of what exists seldom have any scruples with changing their tune entirely, in our case by pretending that my criticisms 'put them to sleep' and to such unworthy intellectual masturbation they will quite justifiably not condescend to make any reply. Objectivist determinism transforms into subjectivist caprice in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately the contortions of those determined to evade practical truth consistently rely on the same contradictions, and must count on everyone else failing to remember that this supposed 'lack of interest' was by no means always the case; that people who undertook to seriously address 'a powerful and well written critique of some anarchists' only to abandon this task when it proved too difficult have a material interest in now representing such criticism as a 'narcissistic echo chamber'; that an uncomfortable silence blankets a comfortable practice that sweeps any disturbing challenges into the safe womb of the unconscious; that the failure to speak is symptomatic of a failure to erect anything more dangerous than a spectacle of revolution, a failure to function on any other level than the tranquil, the predicable, the habitual, the well-known, the flaccid.
'In a society which proclaims itself revolutionary, the hollow pretensions and silence of revolutionaries has become anachronistic.' (Jean Peres, On The Side of The Subject, 1976) Sooner or later revolutionists everywhere will have to confront the importance of impotence, the significance of this erectile dysfunction, and recognise it for what it is: one more senile symptom of decrepit Leftism, that infantile disorder of a global revolutionary movement whose arrested development has condemned it to a permanent minority in which all the defects of old age exacerbate the prodigious shortcomings of immaturity, whose swaddling clothes have long ago assumed the role of a straight-jacket, whose play-pen has long ago become a prison, whose spectacular bed-time stories have by now acquired the hollow ring and stultifying authority of scripture. Revolution has been kept in its place -- the domain of passivity and unconscousness, sleep and nightmare, silence and lies -- not only due to the efforts of its benevolent minders, but by the comforts this familiar crib offers to revolutionaries (whether they be partisans of an ideology or ambiguous proletarians) themselves. The impotence of the infantile disorder confronts the sterility of the senile order and decides, quite understandably, to reject the compulsion join the efficient regimented ranks of the grow-ups. What is missing is the will and the practiced skill to confront this contradiction head on, refusing the seductions and poverties of both roles point blank. It is necessary to declare, as Shulamaith Firestone did in The Dialectic of Sex, 'Down with childhood!' but just as necessary to declare 'Down with adulthood!'. Abstract declarations in favour of achieving some desirable supersession are a necessary preliminary step in the right direction; they indicate that a certain definite level of understanding regarding the rotten results of a particular ensemble of constraints has been reached. Necessary, but insufficient. What remains, dear companions, is to do it.
The needs of a new life, kept so long in suspended-animation by the accumulated failures of the dead generations, must now find themselves -- beyond the screen of unreal conceptions that cannot translate themselves into forces or even into sentences -- the deeds and precise facts that the current revolutionary struggles must appropriate, verify, and supersede.
The needs of a new life, kept so long in suspended-animation by the accumulated failures of the dead generations, must now find themselves -- beyond the screen of unreal conceptions that cannot translate themselves into forces or even into sentences -- the deeds and precise facts that the current revolutionary struggles must appropriate, verify, and supersede.
Old Left, New Left,
Post-Left, Neo-Left,
Drop everything!
There’s nothing left!
Away with sheep
In wolves’ clothing!
Siddiq Khan
October-November 2014
