textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000771.txt

Anarchy: a journal of desire armed. #38, Fall 1993
ESSAYS

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
A Critique of Half-Assed Radicalism
by H=8Ame

  Author's note: This text was written during the winter of 1990-91
when=FEas stated in the first sentence=FEI was involved with the
journal Interrogations. This may seem anecdotal for those who
weren't readers of this publication, which folded several months
later (Summer '91). I mention it primarily because I have not
judged it necessary to rework the critique in order to bring it
more up-to-date. The footnotes, on the other hand, did not appear
in the original version (September 1992).


 Although I am involved with Interrogations, what follows does not
flow exclusively from how I experience this activity. Nor is it
independent of it. Rather, I would like to attempt to define what
underlies an uneasiness I have felt in the last few months while
reading texts from what, to simplify, I will call the radical
milieu.1 My intention is not to tell people what to do; it is to
outline what to me would seem the degeneration of an outlook to
which I remain attached. This would appear necessary vis-a-vis:
=10 the integrity of individuals participating in this current and of
those who might be seduced by their positions.
=10 the possibility of encouraging a renewal of critical thinking
which would eventually take the form of people in already existing
groups coming together to form other groups, or in the creation of
new ones=FEgroups which would take the critiques below into account.
=10 an opposition to doing our bit to build a new ideology based on
a desire for a ``spiritual bonus'' and a commodified New Age.


1. From a Definition of Radicalism
to Half-Assed Radicalism

  Over forty years ago, in The Root of Man, which was published in
the American journal Politics, Dwight MacDonald suggested that we
abandon the old separation between left and right (the progres-
sives) and that the category ``radical'' be contrasted to them. For
MacDonald, the word radical applies to those who ``reject the
classical notion of progress and judge things according to their
meaning and their effect in the present; they believe that
science's capacity to serve as a guide in human affairs has been
exaggerated, and that to re-establish a balance, the moral and
political side should be emphasized. They think=FEor rather, we
think=FEthat whether people's increased mastery of nature has had a
good or bad effect on human life remains an open question; we are
in favor of adapting techniques to people rather than adapting
people to technical progress, even if this means (as it may well)
a technical regression.'' In general the above project already
dovetailed with the project of those I am presently addressing.
Today, as was then the case, this project is based on a serious
critique of the progressive ideologies from which the radicals came
(Marxism, anarchism or others) or which influenced individuals who
took part in their reflections. But a critique is not as easy as
the proverb would imply. And here it is a question of rejecting the
schematization of ideologies and of analyzing debated problems with
clarity, without fudging their complexity or contradictions.


  In the past, an extreme left emerged from the left, taking up more
extreme positions but ones which were based on the same premises as
the left. In turn this favored the emergence of an ultra-left. I
won't go into similar splits in other milieus I am less familiar
with, such as the anarchist and ecology milieus. On the whole
contemporary radicals who have extricated themselves from these
milieus in the last twenty years have been able to come up with
neither a guiding concept nor a major project. Among a variety of
reasons for this are:

=10 A belief in the power of the word. Inherited from a certain
intellectual tradition incarnated in particular in situationism,
this approach tends to confuse the glitter of words with depth of
thought. The vacuousness of a slogan such as ``Take your desires
for reality'' is an example. Modern desires are such an accurate
reflection of reality that this has now become a way of life in the
kingdom of France. Following this logic, the fact of being
misunderstood is the ultimate stamp of radicalism, as is verbal
extremism. I'm not certain but it seems to me that, for some, the
language of Orwell in 19842 flows from the same logic. Writing
``War is Peace'' becomes a trademark which guarantees the purity of
the radical product, even in the absence of any kind of project to
share with others.

=10 How the eclectic nature of their influences has contributed to
the evolution of contemporary radicals. The difficulty that
currents developing a materialist critique have had in applying it
to progressivism has led to a search for elements in milieus which,
for lack of a better word, I would call dubious: spiritualists,
people marketing various types of natural lifestyles, etc. But
rummaging in garbage pails is not always without risk, and it seems
the hardly appetizing but necessary process of sorting has not been
thoroughly carried out.

2. From Dialectical Materialism to Charlatanism

  Radical critiques of ``dialectical and historical materialist''
ideology have generally outlined well in what senses=FEfaithfully
reflecting its 19th century origins=FEthis ideology was based on a
mechanical and progress-oriented vision. This critique concerns not
only (ex)-Marxists: the same mechano-progressivism is to be found
in other revolutionary ideologies (e.g. Bakunin, and in the book La
r=82action en Allemagne), and it is also found in certain individuals
to whom it had simply contagiously spread. Seeing how this ideology
has led to justifying capitalism has not been a wasted effort for
contemporary radicals. But it remains equally necessary to grasp in
what sense 19th century ``philosophical inquiry'' corresponded to
a desire for a rigorous approach in theoretical reflection. Without
making any concessions to the gigantic historical mechanisms they
have erected, or to Russian doll games, it remains crucial to avoid
abandoning what is to be gained from a materialist approach to
problems. I fear that it is the materialist rather than the
mechanical aspect of mechanical materialism that modern radicals
are tempted to reject. I also fear that these folks will be easy
prey for various charlatanisms.3

  But what kind of charlatanisms do I mean? The act of comparing,
for any goal (serving a cause, making money), true or credible
facts on the pretext of apparent similarity=FEor simply because
everything is linked to everything else=FEand, from this, deriving
laws, predictions or anything which is said to influence people.
Let's take a few simple examples.


  Anyone who claims that the mythical heavens of the astrologers are
a representation of the reality of constellations is an ignoramus
or a joker. Anyone who asserts there is a deterministic relation-
ship between this fantasy and the future of humanity is a charla-
tan. And there will be an inhibiting effect on anyone who, instead
of looking for causal relationships between phenomena, bases his or
her critique of the world on relationships of analogy or correspon-
dence without perceiving the difference between correlation and
causality.4 In so doing, voluntarily or not, such a person tends to
become a charlatan. A radical one no doubt, but a charlatan just
the same. This radical charlatanism is all the more dangerous
because it is simultaneously seductive and reassuring. Seductive
because, on demand, exactly what one was hoping for can be
demonstrat-ed=FElike the fairy tales of our childhood which offered
to make our deepest desires come true. Reassuring because it
dispenses with having to really think about things ``according to
their meaning and their effect in the present.''

  The scientific socialism which made it possible to prove
everything (and the contrary of everything) since ``objectively,''
``in the final analysis'' material conditions forced us to be what
we have to be, is quite dead. Thanks to radical charlatanism
anything remains possible, but this time individuals' whims are in
control since ``everything is equal'' and ``everything is a part of
everything else.''

3. From the Domestication of Nature to its Deification

  In this text I will not again deal with calls to domesticate
nature and to transform non-human living species into things, calls
which are to be found in revolutionary ideologies and in progres-
sive ones more generally. Once again, a lively analysis of this has
been developed by ``our current.'' But this critique has used a
variety of sources, which at times have tended to appropriate it,
for example:

=10 neo-paganism, which all the more rapidly resurfaces since it is
deeply rooted in our popular culture (resistance to Christianiza-
tion) as well as in our intellectual culture (poetry, literature).
It is no accident that some members of Interrogations have
(re)discovered Giono. Personally I'm grateful to have done so, but
the pleasure I am able to derive from Giono the writer or pacifist
does not reconcile me to his agnosticism and his paganism.

=10 certain ethnological currents, which are the basis of primitivist
ideology. I have already gone over this point in my letter to
Michael William which appeared in Demolition Derby #2.5 The undeni-
ably attractive aspects of certain traditional (not primitive!)
communities have kept them from being considered in their globality
and, specifically, in what sense their spirituality is not only
alienating but heralds other alienations which have been developed
by today's world. This point has been fleshed out better than I
could in a series of texts which appeared in the American journal
Anarchy. All this material should undoubtedly be translated...if
someone had the time! In order to put this debate in context, I
will just give a quote from Lev Chernyi which appeared in ``Anarchy
and the Sacred: an Exchange with Fifth Estate'':

  ``For me, the continuities between religion and scientific ideolo-
gies are more meaningful than their differences. Why reject
scientific ideology only to embrace the idiocies of religion, of
spiritualism and the sacred? Isn't it clear that your critiques of
reification and worship with regard to technique in no way
diminishes the importance of a critique of reification and of
worship with regard to nature...

  ``...The concept of the sacred is the foundation of all religion,
spiritualism, ideology, cult, faith, belief. It implies logically
(and inevitably) the existence of the profane. Despite the fact
that it can be transformed into many other dualities ...good or
evil, spirit and matter, god and devil...which all fulfil the same
insidious role of dividing all the experience that we have
naturally of our world into two conceptual and arbitrary spheres.''

  Ultimately, this radical deification of nature boils down to the
assertion that all living beings are equal. But if, for most of us,
our reflections have led to certain changes of attitude (with
respect to food, for example), it is necessary to remain wary of
scams=FEwhich thrive particularly well on this terrain. Although some
may well find it shocking, as a human being I deny that a vegeta-
ble, a bacterium and an animal are equal; or an animal without an
evolved nervous system and a vertebrate with a brain; or an HIV
virus and a rough-coated fox terrier. Horror of horrors, I would
like to state that if I like to view and approach trees, it is not
because we are playing a part in a cosmos6 or something or other;
it is because, for one, I find them attractive on a sensual level,
and because, as well, I am aware of their importance in the
ecological equilibrium which allows our survival. I admit to having
repeatedly used weed killer to combat weeds I did not feel in
communion with; and even occasionally insecticide against our
little winged brothers. And for those who can fathom it, I adore
rabbits (which doesn't keep me from eating them on occasion), but
I detest pigeons (even with green peas).

  To remedy the frustrations that this world imposes on me, I am in
no way interested in attempting to believe in a spiritual ``grand
totality''=FEnature, life, god, etc.=FEwhich would transcend our so-
called little human problems.
  ``Religion is the sigh of the creature overwhelmed by unhappiness;
it is the soul of a heartless world, the spirit of a spiritless
epoch.'' (a 19th century German philosopher)
  Translated by Alison Gross (Paris) and Michael William (Montr=82al)
from Le Point d'Interrogations, Autumn, 1992. To correspond with
the journal, write to the following address without mentioning Le
Point d'Interrogations: H=8Ame, c/o I.S., B.P. 243, 75564 Paris Cedex
12, France.

Notes
1. This is a simplification in appearance only, since the ``radical
current'' in question is hard to define. In this respect see Dwight
MacDonald's definition which is quoted in the first part of the
text, as well as a longer version in Le Point d'Interrogations
1991/2. One could attempt to define it as all the groups and
individuals which are attempting to use a critique of capitalism
which attacks its roots, and not just its most blatant injustices.
Although they do not share a program of defined positions,
``radicals'' generally reject electoralism and syndicalism and
challenge wage labor, money and modern society.
2. This is a reference to George Orwell's novel 1984, in which the
key slogans of the state and the party are: ``War is Peace'';
``Freedom is Slavery'' and ``Ignorance is Strength.'' Numerous
texts and tracts adopted these slogans as titles or subtitles,
particularly around the year 1984, and then during the Gulf War.
3. For some of these folks, I more than fear it! Modern radicals
are into everything, from believing in horoscopes to Oriental
esoteric practices! This inclination toward charlatanism is not
always easy to discern because generally it does not manifest
itself openly. This is not to say that we should become thought
police, but simply that we should remember that fighting for a free
and critical way of thinking has always implied fighting against
superstition and religiosity as well. Just because it would appear
that politicians and statesmen are the title-laden clients of
sorcerers and fortune tellers is no reason to mimic them! An entire
critical reflection should undoubtedly be undertaken in this area.
Today the critique of religion has essentially been abandoned to
P.C. rationalists, and the critique of parallel beliefs maintains
autonomy from scientism only with difficulty. A certain reappropri-
ation of the best aspects of these critiques, however, should not
be overlooked. Of interest on this subject are works which appeared
in the Collection Z=82t=82tiques (L'Horizon Chim=82rique, 7, rue
Leytaire, 33000 Bordeaux), and in particular Incroyable...mais faux
(essai critique sur l'obscurantisme moderne) by A. Cuniot, and
M=82decines parall=8Ales et cancer (modes d'emploi et de non-emploi),
by O.Jallut.

4. There is nothing very revolutionary about ``reasoning'' by
analogy or coincidence, since this is the way the occult has
functioned from the very beginning. This type of thinking would
have us believe that individuals born the same day will have
similar character traits and destinies (!) and, more generally,
that if two events take place at the same time, one flows from the
other (and vice versa). There are numerous examples of these types
of hardly rigorous deductions. One will suffice=FEa text on AIDS that
has been brought to our attention which attempts to be ultra-
radical (and winds up ultra-pitiful). Follow closely! (a) One of
the immediate consequences of May '68 was the liberation and avail-
ability of means of contraception and abortion. (b) The first cases
of AIDS appeared in New York in the spring of 1979. Conclusion of
(a) plus (b): The HIV virus was perfected by the American army to
put morality back into social customs=FEconclusion of the conclusion:
therefore, to protect themselves, they must have created an
antidote or a counter-poison. Thus a vaccination or anti-AIDS
medicine exists. End of story!

5. The label ``primitivist'' has been primarily used in North
America to describe a current of thought which has critiqued the
logic of progress, civilization and modernity. This milieu is any-
thing but monolithic: some people posit a pre-language golden age,
while others accentuate community and defend past and present
indigenous groups. Still others want something new, something
which, to our knowledge, has never existed.
It was this group as a whole (with nuances)
that I was referring to above when I was
speaking of ``our current.'' The Fifth
Estate is this outlook's most typical
journal. In recent years it has influenced
a number of other journals: Anarchy in the
U.S., Demolition Derby in Canada, and
Interrogations in France.

  My letter to Michael William, which was
published following ``Petite analyse de la
diff=82rence'' (in the publication section),
was an attempt to distance myself from this
label, which I considered and continue to
consider harmful to our thinking and its
clarity. My letter concluded in the follow-
ing manner:

  ``Our vision is often deformed and idealized ...everything is
  grist for the imagination's mill. If, on the other hand, the
  imagination chooses a model, a reference, a whole world of
  possibilities is closed off; it even becomes difficult to
  understand those who imagine another kind of life in a different
  manner.''

  ``It is no easy task to radically criticize this world while
  living in it at the same time, to conceive of the possibility of
  another life which has no model one can attach oneself to and at
  times no words to express it; to feel a sense of affinity with
  others who are sometimes thousands of kilometers away=FEwithout
  being able to put a label on it which could help us to recognize
  each other and be recognized by others. The only weapons we
  presently possess are a confidence among those who compose our
  small `community of thought' and an absence of compromises in
  our critique. These few remarks should therefore in no way be
  considered an attempt to distance myself or to search for
  differences between us, but as an element of our common reflec-
  tion.''

This idea was completed in a letter I sent to a friend from the
Fifth Estate in January 1990:

  ``I did not want to go back over the question of primitivism,
  which I don't consider a major one, but I have the impression
  that a few misunderstandings persist:

  =10 I am not critiquing `primitivists'(?). In fact I don't believe
  any primitivists exist, and simply regret that some people
  accept this label, which only masks their true aspirations and
  refusals. In short, I feel that the label primitivist is the
  enemy of the so-called primitivists, who, luckily, are something
  else entirely. I was not, therefore, attacking these
  individuals.

  =10 I think it is as ridiculous to label certain contemporary non-
  industrial societies primitive as it is to label them savage or
  pre-capitalist. All these terms express the same West-
  centeredness.

  =10 I was not attacking being interested in falsely labelled
  primitive societies (I don't believe they can be called ancient
  ones either). From these societies I think that we can learn
  that the mentality and customs of contemporary people in the
  West are not inevitable. But we must preserve the same critical
  attitude toward these societies as we do toward the milieu we
  are living in. This is why I stressed the question of Africa,
  which doesn't appear to be the same as the native American
  example (I reiterate that there is nothing which demonstrates
  that primitive tribes exist in Africa). This reminds me of a
  letter I received from a friend who has been living in Africa
  for many years. He writes: `I believe that the Bantu philosophy
  is hell for thousands of blacks who are stuck in it with no
  chance to escape. It is hell in the literal sense of the word.
  In the Congo, for example, I saw people who were mentally and
  even physically suffering from it...'

  Much could also be said about traditional Asiatic societies.''

6. In radical spiritual language, one does not often speak of the
cosmos (the world, the universe). Instead it is the Cosmos with a
capital C, a term all the more esoteric since it refers to nothing
precise. A propos, it is worth citing R=82flections sur
l'individualisme (1910), by the anarchist Manuel Devald=8As: ``By
capitalizing the article and noun in this text we express the
sanctity of ideas, according to the spirit of mystical or positive
religions.'' Right on, and let's keep it in mind with respect to
every discourse on Nature, the Earth, Science and Progress.