Anarchism in the Academy: What Does Everyone Think?

I think I don't care much for that pov, but heyho. There's another thread here:
https://libcom.org/forums/general/academia-harmful-revolutionary-cause-25042015

His, if social anarchism is his politics then it's not very in keeping with it. I don't want to personalise it though, i don't have time for beefs imao.

Many a soul have been lured into the ivy tower where heavy tomes and musty smells overtook their desire... anarchy is alive, and not dead, but it dares not pass the threshold where life has grown in shadows, given to the dusty pleasures of the brain, all joyful stirring of the heart long aslumber.

IF I could get paid to write bollocks about anarchism I would. But I wouldn't consider it revolutionary in any way.

If you find academic discourse inaccessible, the problem may lie on your end.

In general, if you take a given word and reformulate it as a relativistic critique of Marxism, as for instance the word 'narrative,' then that would about suffice. Of course, relativism was merely a populist pseudo-doctrine. So, for instance, 'pretty dress' could refer to the way in which views such as Marxism or anarchism are simply attempts to make sense of a discordant reality that allegedly does not fit their ideals or something. Most girls in academia do actually dress as if it meant that.

In any case, though, it is true that they come off as a bit weird. If anarchism were to have an intellectual strain, this would be tied to the people discussing this, not of course to the academies, as if before they could be an anarchist they had to join the Tories. Perhaps it was merely a grammatical error on their part, with little to compensate for this. In any case, it does seem likely that they are one whom as those Christ condemned sought to serve 'two masters.'

For a minute there I wasn't sure that that was a joke, bloody internet.

Yeah but the joke only works because you do get real instances of that kind of language. Thankfully, it's rare though... or maybe I don't try to read that kind of stuff anymore... or maybe I've acclimatised. I say this because when I was a young libertarian communist and attending various anarchist, left and council communist meetings, I probably understood about 2% of what was said. Thirty odd years later and I've soaked up so much political drivel that I can proudly say I now understand about 5% of what I read.

5 percenter W.A.S.P.

"If anarchism were to have an intellectual strain, this would be tied to the people discussing this, not of course to the academies" 100% agree! If the theory is so dense and complex that marginalised social groups need intellectual interpreters to guide them, it would form an elite.

Well, an intellectual elite, but that's always likely to exist anyway. Otherwise, even basic Marxism is a bit far for some people, but obviously this would not necessarily get in the way of a communist movement. Evidently, people who understand the movement and the general historical movement are inevitably going to be able to steer the rest, being closer to a motive force, and will hence be the first targets - and hence for instance socialists in academia were often forced out or unwilling -, and the first stigmatised, but also the least likely to be swayed. Whether this forms an 'elite' in a movement is an open question, as it were, but it goes without saying that a movement will require a bulwark against assimilation, on a structural level. Otherwise, people are merely groping in the dark and cannot from there condescend to the others. Obviously, some people can understand a text better than others, and guide others who care about such things in that, but this only makes them an elite in - guiding people to understand a text. In which case, yes, this is fairly obvious, if that is such a concern.

Maybe I might transfer to education hahaha.

It might be a bit harsh, as you might question what exactly you're supposed to be teaching people and be fine with doing this. If you're still caught up on the words, it might be an option, though.

Hi,

Historically all of the theory for anarchism has been written in pamphlets, not in academia. These pamphlets are actually targeted at the anarchist community as a whole, not academics. This pamphlet tradition still exists; you can still find new pamphlets being written today.

Academia is far from a neutral place. If they write about anarchism or revolution, it is not for the activists. Rather, it would be for informing the ruling class; regardless of the the academic’s personal beliefs.[This topic is discussed further in ‘Theory for activists’, posted below].

I highly recommend looking at Brian Martin’s writings. Brian Martin is an academic, with an entire body of work on academics and experts; which is all very accessible. All of Brian Martin’s works are available at his website: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/index.html

Take a look at the ‘The politics of research’ chapter of ‘Information Liberation’

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/98il/il07.html

Here is a quick quote to whet your appetite:

If the members of the discipline claim that they alone are qualified and knowledgeable to make decisions about the discipline, then it is helpful if it is difficult for outsiders to understand what is going on. Jargon fits in here. The specialised language and concepts of the discipline are convenient for those in the know. They also are convenient for ensuring that outsiders can't quickly see through to the essence of the issues.

I also recommend looking al “Theory for activists”.

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/10sa.html

5 percenter W.A.S.P.

Well he quite liked Proudhon and a lot of what he said about him in relation to Anarchism kinda echoed the concept of the "Great Man Theory."

I'm not sure why that would be an issue -- I quite like Proudhon and recognise the contributions he (and others) made to anarchism. Indeed, Proudhon laid down most of what we consider to be the basics of anarchism -- anti-state, anti-property, federalism, self-management, etc. -- and, of course, the name (see, for example, my "Laying the foundations: Proudhon’s contribution to anarchist economics" or my introduction to Property is Theft!).

As for Proudhon, he was working class -- a printer by trade -- and so refutes the whole intellectual/activist/worker division. I do not think that we need a academic/activist divide -- but I recognise some activists do end up being academics. How that works out very mush depends on the individuals involves -- some make good contributions (Dave Berry is an obvious example).

But, yes, some times (and in some circles) academics get prioritised over actual anarchists -- but academics (particularly non-anarchist ones) make mistakes and end up contributing to a false picture of anarchism (see, for example, Paul Avrich whose ground-breaking research sadly reflected his liberal, middle-class position as an Academic). That needs to be combated.

In terms of the "Great Men" position, that needs to be avoided (particularly if the people in question had no influence on anarchism at all, like Godwin). However, we cannot deny that some individuals made significant contributions to anarchism -- anyways, my thoughts on this can be found in my Anarchist Studies article "Sages and Movements: An Incomplete Peter Kropotkin Bibliography"