A couple of favorites: Jodi Dean and Bill Krohn.
Krohn is known to cinephiles for his books Hitchock at Work and The Complete Films of Luis Bunuel as well as his articles in Cahiers du Cinema, especially his piece "Hollywood and the Holocaust." Always an insightful culture critic with a nice prose style.
Jodi Dean came up with the theory of "communicative capitalism" that she discusses in various articles, and I liked her recent book Democracy and Other Neo-Liberal Fantasies
The Marshall book certainly has strong points. It covers a lot of ground quite succintly. I'd just argue that it's not really covering anarchist ground. Instead he just writes about everybody who vaguely dislikes authority.
It's overly broad (Taoism, Buddhism, primitivism, Christian anarchism, etc.) definition of anarchism is the major problem. Thatcher was even written about! Admittedly he didn't go so far as to call her an anarchist, but still.. And any mention of class was pushed right to the back in his book. I think a more reasonable approach is that taken by the Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism, which sees anarchism as being a specific and coherent political movement arising in the 1860s or so out of the labour movement.Marshall instead he focusses on the lifestylist and individualistic elements, for example praising Hakim Bey highly. He criticises Bookchin's lifestyle/social anarchism polemic, instead calling for a more 'holistic' approach to anarchism; openly embracing the incoherence of anarchism as he sees it. He also proposes his own ecological and political ideology, which he calls 'liberation ecology' or something, which is basically let's get all spriritual and in touch with nature through returning to ancient religions, etc.
Well ya, it was about the history of anarchism... not libcom. Anarchism, by its very nature, is a broad collection of ideas and takes as its starting point that authority is not self-justifying. And that usually leads into a variety of other ideas and tendancies.
Although I do agree that he made a little faux pas when he added his own thoughts into a history book. Thats a small criticism of the book though.
Anarchism, by its very nature, is a broad collection of ideas and takes as its starting point that authority is not self-justifying. And that usually leads into a variety of other ideas and tendancies.
That's exactly what I disagree with. I don't think anarchism encompasses as broad a collection of ideas as that. As I said, I think it was a specific coherent working class ideology that emerged around the 1860s. It's not entirely homogenous, and is not just libcom either. It has differing views on what an anarchist society would look like (e.g. collectivism vs. communism), and how to get there (unions, non-union mass class struggle, insurrection, etc.). But if you, like Marshall, just say it is based on the the idea that "authority is not self-justifying" then you can take in so many contradictory ideas that the word loses all meaning. The lowest common denominator type view of anarchism, as the Black Flame book I mentioned earlier argues, arose because one book included people like Stirner, Tolstoy and Taoists in its definition, and all others have followed suit. The original book did so because anarchists (ie. class struggle anarchists - the only type in my opinion) justified their ideas by saying that it was a recurrent theme through human history and nature. They did this to make their ideas sound more reasonable.
I would say the Marshall book is a great introduction to, and history of, ideas infused with the general anti-authoritarian and libertarian spirit. And a lot of those ideas are pretty awful and/or irrelevant.
If it was Andrew Marr it was justified. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRPIiMhqV4
No, it was a "hardtalk' interview - Zizek was on an episode as well.
If it was Andrew Marr it was justified. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRPIiMhqV4No, it was a "hardtalk' interview - Zizek was on an episode as well.
the interviewer is a ballbag, giving Chomsky no time to respond or elaborate a point.
Anyone who has read Chomsky knows the interviewer is a moron.
I also saw the Zizek interview (saw it at the time of airing) and Zizek doesn't stand up any better.
As much as I like Zizek when it comes to concrete politics he is a muppet, Chomsky is much more consistent, albeit a bit too liberal for my liking (which isn't to call him a liberal per se).
I find the interviewer quite apt, whereas Chomsky simply hectors and retreats into lame argumentation presented in a pedagogical manner. He wants to give us a lesson about "elementary" principles and says "we should tell the truth". He lies several times during the course of the interview - not about substantiative matters, but simply as petty debating tools. "you say the reason the American people don't vote for my position..." - the interviewer never said any such thing -he only wants an excuse to bring in a ready-made argument. One is struck by Chomsky's retreat into himself at the expense of the interviewer and by his combative stance - Zizek by contrast is always ready to make the other man look good and speak fairly.
I find the interviewer quite apt, whereas Chomsky simply hectors and retreats into lame argumentation presented in a pedagogical manner. He wants to give us a lesson about "elementary" principles and says "we should tell the truth". He lies several times during the course of the interview - not about substantiative matters, but simply as petty debating tools. "you say the reason the American people don't vote for my position..." - the interviewer never said any such thing -he only wants an excuse to bring in a ready-made argument. One is struck by Chomsky's retreat into himself at the expense of the interviewer and by his combative stance - Zizek by contrast is always ready to make the other man look good and speak fairly.
I don't think many people have a more boring voice than chomskys and he strikes me as someone who does not have much charisma that someone like hitler had when he gave speeches. Zizek on the other hand captures his audiences attention so much better and he is very amusing to watch.
Quote:
Quote:Quote:
But a revolution will partly involve an attack on academia which these celebrities never attacked whatsoever, and would never have dared do so.Utter fucking bollocks, I've read essays by Chomsky were he goes on at length about the role of university is reproducing the division of labour and reproducing class society.
What does it mean to "attack" an institution, and be paid for this "attack", and yet remain a part of it? This is not the same as wage slaves attacking their place of work - they do this practically, by striking etc. It's like a priest "attacking" the church (some do), but they still remain priests. A strike subverts the function of a workplace; an intellectual "attacking" the intellect factory intellectually but without withdrawing his (intellectual) labour is like an arms dealer wringing his hands over the use his guns are put to (well, that's pushing an analogy to an extreme - but it illustrates the contradiction). In the late 60s Robin Blackburn, a New Left Review academic Leninist and another academic - a Maoist whose name i forget - were kicked out of their jobs at LSE for supporting the dismantling of a metal gate designed to undermine the students' ability to organise occupations. Regardless of their Leninism they at least risked something. I don't see the great saints - Chomsky etc; - risking anything.
On reflection, I think this is a bit of a silly ahistorical argument. I've never been on strike - I've visited other people's picket lines, but I have never attacked my own place of work through going on strike, because I've never worked in a place where a dispute escalated to the level of industrial action (the coming austerity cuts could change that, or it could just mean I'll end up back on the dole queue.) But, in the absence of that mass dispute, does the fact that I go to work every day and contribute surplus value mean I'm a part of the system and I should have a one-man strike or drop out and eat out of bins instead? I'm (vaguely) sure you'd recognise that idea as being useless, but you seem to credit intellectuals with an agency to to take individual action regards of context that no-one would attribute to workers. Robin Blackburn and them Leninists acted in the context of a mass radical movement in the universities, so they were able to attack the LSE effectively; Chomsky and Zizek aren't, so they haven't had the ability to (not entirely sure what Chompers got up to in the 60s, but I got the impression he was quite practically involved). The wave of occupations and that around around cuts should provide a good litmus test for radical academics - if they're willing to support/be involved in action on their own campuses (and, FWIW, I imagine both Chomsky and Zizek probably would) then they clearly are prepared to actually attack their institutions; if not, then your critique stands.
On a related note, what do people think of David Graeber? I've never read him, but I know he's meant to be very clever, and he certainly seems to bitten Yale's hand harder than they're comfortable with.
Barbara Ehrenreich
Yeah, I'm sure there's criticisms to be made of it, but her book on Dancing in the Streets definitely gladdened my wee Situ heart.
Although I do agree that he made a little faux pas when he added his own thoughts into a history book. Thats a small criticism of the book though.
This is probably an entirely separate discussion, but do you genuinely think it's possible to write a history book without doing that? I'd much rather historians make their biases plain and obvious so the reader can read with them in mind, rather than smuggling their biases in under the cover of a spurious objectivity.
This is probably an entirely separate discussion, but do you genuinely think it's possible to write a history book without doing that? I'd much rather historians make their biases plain and obvious so the reader can read with them in mind, rather than smuggling their biases in under the cover of a spurious objectivity.
I entirely agree with that. It's a point Robert Fisk makes very well. But with Marshall's book it's a bit different. He doesn't only lambast Bookchin and praise spiritual stuff highly. He also actually proposes his new 'anarchist' theory, as I said, called liberation ecology or something. Which is a bit arrogant, to include his own idea in the history of anarchism, especially as it's so shit...
On a related note, what do people think of David Graeber? I've never read him, but I know he's meant to be very clever, and he certainly seems to bitten Yale's hand harder than they're comfortable with.
I've held my tongue on this issue for a while now, and I wanna be comradely, cos this is someone I have cooperated with, but I think Graeber's an excellent case in point on the issue of the problem with anarchist academics. He appears to have carved himself out a niche within academia in which he has become the "anarchist" spokesman. Not only is this problematic cos it leaves one questioning if he really wants social revolution (after all, he has a cushy position talking about it, would he really wanna lose his position in the hierarchy?), but he has also used his authority as an anarchist spokesman to attack practical organisation. From my conversations with him, his idea of anarchism has more to do Beyism and whatnot, cos y'know, like in northern Madagascar, there's no effective government, yet noone dies (as if there were no poverty, inequality, etc, etc). I understand he used to be in the IWW, which is weird given the positions he takes. I'd essentially class him as an anarcho-liberal.
He also signed the infamous letter which criticised Libcom.
Farce wrote:
On a related note, what do people think of David Graeber? I've never read him, but I know he's meant to be very clever, and he certainly seems to bitten Yale's hand harder than they're comfortable with.I've held my tongue on this issue for a while now, and I wanna be comradely, cos this is someone I have cooperated with, but I think Graeber's an excellent case in point on the issue of the problem with anarchist academics. He appears to have carved himself out a niche within academia in which he has become the "anarchist" spokesman. Not only is this problematic cos it leaves one questioning if he really wants social revolution (after all, he has a cushy position talking about it, would he really wanna lose his position in the hierarchy?), but he has also used his authority as an anarchist spokesman to attack practical organisation. From my conversations with him, his idea of anarchism has more to do Beyism and whatnot, cos y'know, like in northern Madagascar, there's no effective government, yet noone dies (as if there were no poverty, inequality, etc, etc). I understand he used to be in the IWW, which is weird given the positions he takes. I'd essentially class him as an anarcho-liberal.
He also signed the infamous letter which criticised Libcom.
Is there a link to this letter?
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
Farce wrote:
On a related note, what do people think of David Graeber? I've never read him, but I know he's meant to be very clever, and he certainly seems to bitten Yale's hand harder than they're comfortable with.I've held my tongue on this issue for a while now, and I wanna be comradely, cos this is someone I have cooperated with, but I think Graeber's an excellent case in point on the issue of the problem with anarchist academics. He appears to have carved himself out a niche within academia in which he has become the "anarchist" spokesman. Not only is this problematic cos it leaves one questioning if he really wants social revolution (after all, he has a cushy position talking about it, would he really wanna lose his position in the hierarchy?), but he has also used his authority as an anarchist spokesman to attack practical organisation. From my conversations with him, his idea of anarchism has more to do Beyism and whatnot, cos y'know, like in northern Madagascar, there's no effective government, yet noone dies (as if there were no poverty, inequality, etc, etc). I understand he used to be in the IWW, which is weird given the positions he takes. I'd essentially class him as an anarcho-liberal.
He also signed the infamous letter which criticised Libcom.
Is there a link to this letter?
Like wellclose I would like to see the letter. 
here it is with loadsa famous intellectuals-
We, the undersigned, are writing to express our serious concern about the defamatory attacks and outright threats made against our friend Andrej Grubacic, as well as against the anarchist students publishing Z Magazine for the Balkans, and the workers who are financing this valuable project.
One of the beautiful things about the anarchist tradition is that in itsdevotion to absolute liberty or expression, it has always left room for lively, even passionate, arguments and polemics. We fully support this tradition, and every form of substantive discussion and debate. But physical threats, insults, and intentional deception are another matter entirely.
This is simply unacceptable within our movement. There is no factual basis to any of the accusations made in these attacks and there appears to be no reason to think that even the author believes there to be any; this is nothing more than an attempt to smear another activist using any means that seems like it might work; to intimidate those doing successful work; to destroy a promising new project by any means possible. Such a campaign of defamation and threats is especially serious as they can inflict real damage to the very brave working people who are making the publication of Z Magazine possible, even as they struggling to survive and defend their workplace.
We extend our support and our solidarity to our friend, as well as to the Balkan edition of the Z Magazine, and the workers and students participating in this project. We also ask any of our comrades who might have encountered these defamatory statements to understand the real political motives of the authors and not to allow them to do any further damage to those engaged in building something exciting, important and new.
Michael Albert, ZNet
Irina Ceric, Global Balkans
Noam Chomsky, author
John J Cronan Jr, Students for a Democratic Society, IWW Food and
Allied Workers Union
Mary Dearborn, New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists
David Graeber, author of Fragments of Anarchist Anthropology
Daniel Gross, IWW Starbucks Workers Union
Edward Herman, social critic
Brian Kelly, Students for a Democratic Society
Tom Keefer, Upping the Antti
Eric Laursen, New York Metro Alliance of Anarchists; Member, National
Writers Union.
Brooke Lehman, Institute for Social Ecology, Bluestockings books
Staughton Lynd, labor historian
Alex van Schaick, IWW Starbucks Campaign
Marina Sitrin, author of Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in
Argentina
Chris Spannos, ZNet
Ziga Vodovnik, author of Ya Basta!
Tamara Vukov, Globalbalkans
Howard Zinn, radical historian
Hmmm... thanks, Ally. Next question... any links to detail the context of the 'defamatory attacks' and 'outright threats'?
Hmmm... thanks, Ally. Next question... any links to detail the context of the 'defamatory attacks' and 'outright threats'?
here you go comrade- http://libcom.org/forums/libcom-wobblies/interview-w-iww-barista-alex-van-schaick-andrej-grubacic-z-magazine?page=2
Wellclose Square wrote:
Hmmm... thanks, Ally. Next question... any links to detail the context of the 'defamatory attacks' and 'outright threats'?here you go comrade- http://libcom.org/forums/libcom-wobblies/interview-w-iww-barista-alex-van-schaick-andrej-grubacic-z-magazine?page=2
Oh my good gawd...
Wallerstein (he is still alive right?)
My favorite living intellectuals are THE OUTLAW and Herpes Gun Show. Otherwise, I'm excited about some historians of slavery like Marcus Rediker and Walter Johnson, people thinking about slavery and capitalism, I think Badiou is interesting. That's all kind of removed a bit from activity, though. In terms of present actual politics, I've not read anyone famous who I'm particularly excited by. Nonfamous folk, I think what Don Hamerquist is writing these days is worth taking really seriously. Also, I've only read a bit of his stuff but Loren Goldner seems really impressive. I think people in SolFed and in this group Gathering Forces are writing stuff worth taking seriously. I'm curious if there are groups or not so famous individuals doing stuff that people are fired up about?
Quote:
This is probably an entirely separate discussion, but do you genuinely think it's possible to write a history book without doing that? I'd much rather historians make their biases plain and obvious so the reader can read with them in mind, rather than smuggling their biases in under the cover of a spurious objectivity.I entirely agree with that. It's a point Robert Fisk makes very well. But with Marshall's book it's a bit different. He doesn't only lambast Bookchin and praise spiritual stuff highly. He also actually proposes his new 'anarchist' theory, as I said, called liberation ecology or something. Which is a bit arrogant, to include his own idea in the history of anarchism, especially as it's so shit...
Ya, thats basically what I was getting at.
I would say the Marshall book is a great introduction to, and history of, ideas infused with the general anti-authoritarian and libertarian spirit. And a lot of those ideas are pretty awful and/or irrelevant.
Well put, basically what I was getting at as well.
Putting it into prospective, I think I'll retract my nomination of Peter Marshall, although I still think Demanding the Impossible is worth a read and has some valuable info in it (despite some of the nonsense material).
I just read that letter with all the signatories who are semi-important then read the thread. The thread is over the top for sure but the letter is ridiculous. I get that the internets can be mean and suck a lot, but the letter seems to me like a major over-reaction. Minus two points for all involved.
The "Joseph KKK" line is classic. Hope THEOUTLAW begins to use it.
Now I know that you aren't serious or at least shouldn't be taken seriously. What's wrong with just having dead favorite intellectuals anyway? I think our 'need' for intellectuals (i.e. specialists in theoretical knowledge or investigation) is far less today than it was, say, 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. It is declining continually, especially with the advent of the internet, and the increasingly widespread access to theoretical resources and discussion fora.
And kudos on the new user-name, as you really do come across as a (radical) liberal rather than a communist, and there is a deep line in the sand separating the two, whether you recognize it or not. That is not "revolutionary-one-upmanship" by any means. Btw, that is the lamest possible response one can make to a criticism saying 'no, what you're proposing is not really revolutionary (or not inline with a revolutionary approach/strategy)'.
Probably the intellectual furthest from my politics, but Christopher Hitchens.
If anything, he's really good at telling people to fuck themselves.
Now I know that you aren't serious or at least shouldn't be taken seriously. What's wrong with just having dead favorite intellectuals anyway? I think our 'need' for intellectuals (i.e. specialists in theoretical knowledge or investigation) is far less today than it was, say, 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. It is declining continually, especially with the advent of the internet, and the increasingly widespread access to theoretical resources and discussion fora.And kudos on the new user-name, as you really do come across as a (radical) liberal rather than a communist, and there is a deep line in the sand separating the two, whether you recognize it or not. That is not "revolutionary-one-upmanship" by any means. Btw, that is the lamest possible response one can make to a criticism saying 'no, what you're proposing is not really revolutionary (or not inline with a revolutionary approach/strategy)'.
It wasn't me.
Knowing I'm so unwelcome here, I should probably just leave. That said, I don't know of many other socialist forums where the conversation is as intelligent as it is here, and I'd miss that. So I'm reluctant.
I for one think the person who made the Hughes the Liberal account is an unfunny idiot.
While I disagree with Hughes' politics, it's totally uncalled for and just horrible. I hope the person who made the account is banned, or at least exposed, and Hughes stays. And people stop being dicks.
I've banned Hughes_The_Liberal.
waslax wrote:
Now I know that you aren't serious or at least shouldn't be taken seriously. What's wrong with just having dead favorite intellectuals anyway? I think our 'need' for intellectuals (i.e. specialists in theoretical knowledge or investigation) is far less today than it was, say, 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. It is declining continually, especially with the advent of the internet, and the increasingly widespread access to theoretical resources and discussion fora.And kudos on the new user-name, as you really do come across as a (radical) liberal rather than a communist, and there is a deep line in the sand separating the two, whether you recognize it or not. That is not "revolutionary-one-upmanship" by any means. Btw, that is the lamest possible response one can make to a criticism saying 'no, what you're proposing is not really revolutionary (or not inline with a revolutionary approach/strategy)'.
It wasn't me.
Knowing I'm so unwelcome here, I should probably just leave. That said, I don't know of many other socialist forums where the conversation is as intelligent as it is here, and I'd miss that. So I'm reluctant.
Don't go. Someone has went to alot of bother to troll you, I guess you could take it as a compliment. Pretty pathetic behaviour but don't be put off most of us are decent folk here.
Knowing I'm so unwelcome here, I should probably just leave. That said, I don't know of many other socialist forums where the conversation is as intelligent as it is here, and I'd miss that. So I'm reluctant.
don't be daft, don't pay any attention to shite like that
Hughes, if a jerk ever gets you feeling down, re-read the gun show herpes thread and you will feel better -
http://libcom.org/forums/organise/iww-unemployed-17042009?page=1
Edit: I just read it again. Good times. Weeler, Choccy, and should form a comedy troupe, that thread's one of the funniest things the internet has ever seen.
They don't make threads like that anymore 
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short biography of Séraphine Pajaud, French anarchist and champion of atheism, anti-militarism and women's liberation
An article by Staughton Lynd reinterprets the concept of union democracy to include workers of all kinds (unionized workers, nonunion workers, and farmers); protection of the rights to strike,...
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
Having a section dedicated to Tolstoy in a history of anarchism isn't a specific criticism?
It's nearly ten years since I read it so other specifics are failing me a bit, and I don't have it to hand, but given tobias' summary it's even worse than I remember - anyone who doesn't like authority is an 'anarchist', anarchism's relationship to actual historical movements and class struggle largely brushed over. It's a bit like if you had an uncle who vaguely liked anarchism then got a book deal.