Anarchy

[Sterling Clover]

Ok I'm getting kinda frustrated here with all this talk of abstract  
anarchy. Let's be clear: Pynchon is talking about an actual loosely  
defined "movement(s)" that actually labeled itself "anarchist" and  
actually existed in ways not-so-shockingly-similar to what he  
actually describes in the time period he's actually talking about.  
This is to be distinguished from food not bombs today or folks at  
Seattle even and also from some timeless poli-sci concept and what- 
have-you. Turn of the century anarchism was generally related to  
specific struggles of peasants and workers, riven by ideological  
debates but generally was what we'd loosely call "radical leftist"  
and did not advocate violence for its own sake or even generally  
symbolic reasons but, e.g., was related to the sabotage and bombing  
of industrial facilities (railroads, mines, etc.) in the American  
west in the course of strikes, organizing of unions and demands for  
higher wages/greater safety, etc. or in Mexico to, say, the  
repatriation of land to the peasantry., in Italy the abolition of the  
monarchy, etc.             Whatever we may imagine the word to mean,  
it generally wasn't about total structurelessness in practice, but at  
times local (rural) control or simply democratic councils as opposed  
to monarchy and plutocracy or the abolition of large-scale industrial  
ownership by individuals, or etc. It could also be described as  
radical democracy, often tho not always. Anarchists of the time would  
have advocated collective decision-making (tho differed as to its  
mechanisms widely) but objected to, say, police and military forces  
above and apart from society (as opposed to, say, a "militia of the  
people" or whatever). Also anarchists at times, and they would say  
"tactically" ended up supporting governmental forces as e.g., Magon  
did in Mexcio or the Spanish anarchists were later to do, or even as  
IWWers in the U.S. would often vote for the SP candidates in  
elections, or etc.

There's obv. a whole lot more to be said about this, plus and minus  
and whatever, and also the point that "anarchist" and "socialist"  
were generally tho not everywhere more permeable terms at times  
(bakunin was in the workingman's international with marx, subscribers  
to both's views led the paris commune, etc.) How much any particular  
anarchist thought this was a good or bad thing was obv. another huge  
bone of contention, as was, as it turned out how much any particular  
anarchist ended up actually opposing the war that swept europe as  
opposed to coming to side with one or another govt. on a particular  
basis that the other side was somehow worse and less democratic, etc.  
(cf. the section with Kit in Italy near the end).

In any case, Webb was pretty obviously an anarchist by any reasonable  
use of the language of the time.

--Sterl


On Dec 23, 2006, at 12:36 PM, bekah wrote:
> At 8:42 AM -0500 12/23/06, belimah at neomailbox.net wrote:
>> Wouldn't this depend on point of view?  As Bekah mentioned - "the  
>> eye of the targeted"?  Or would it depend on something as simple  
>> (but contained) as the blast range and those to be found within  
>> it? (For those anarchists who do throw bombs . . .)
>
> What I meant was that the capitalists call Webb an anarchist (who  
> else does?)  but that doesn't necessarily mean he is one.   I  
> thought anarchy was to be against any kind of official (ie  
> governmental) type coercion.   Easy for the power structure to  
> label all who oppose its legitimacy as being anarchists (which they  
> may or may not be).
>
> Bekah