Anarchists: Who are they?

Here's where:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1573234.php

that was lovely dan.

--- Anarchism revolves around five basic principles: 1) equality; 2) democracy; 3) free association; 4) mutual aid; 5) diversity.

You see im not sure about this "mutual aid" one
how does that work?

and is equality meant in the comunist sense?
If so -- I thought anarchy was at least a little bit of a contradiction of the extreemly orderd state of equality (somthing I though had to be inforced)

" Anarchism revolves around five basic principles: 1) equality; 2) democracy; 3) free association; 4) mutual aid; 5) diversity. "

No, that's communalism and its variants. Anarchism is "without government" and its principles are independence and responsibility for one's actions. There's no force exerted upon others -- no government.

Indirectly, independent rights & responsibilites do lead to mutual aid, free association, diversity and the rest, but you can't mandate those by-products. The first step is to realize that each individual is sovereign unto themselves and can make their own decisions. Ironically cooperation flows from this, where it fails when "cooperation" is forced.

Anarchists would be against taxpayer-funded daycare, or mandatory unionization, or gun control laws, or a lot of the other things socialists force upon others.

"The anarchist is a very fierce creature. It is first cousin to the gorilla. It kills presidents, princes, executives, likewise sabotages their summits and summer holidays. It has long, unkempt hair on its head and all over its face. Instead of fingernails it has long, sharp claws. The anarchist has many pockets in which it carries rocks, knives, guns, and bombs. It is a night animal. After dark, it gathers in groups, large and small and plans raids, murders, plagues. Lots are drawn to select who must carry out the work.
The anarchist does not like water. It never washes or changes its clothes. It is always thirsty and drinks only salt water. The home of the anarchist is in Europe, especially Italy. Some few have been exported to North America, where they are feared and hated by all decent folks and hunted wherever they show themselves.
Papa does not like anarchists a bit. They give him bad dreams, he says. He has given orders to have them caught and put in cages, and he will not allow any more to come into this country if he can help it. If any sneak in, he will have them shot like rabid dogs, Mexicans, mountain lions, and such animals. I practice every day with my rifle so I can shoot these wild beasts when I grow up."

-A White House nursery composition, 1904

This is probably inspired by the death of McKinley

the propaganda of the deed is a long tradition of anarchists. looking at the environment today, in light of the so-called "war on terrorism," we have a very good example with regard to the islamic anarchists.

others, of course, mainly the pro-israelis and such, refer to them as fascists; however, truth be known, today's middle east anarchists are living in a much more violent environment involving brutalization by the west's imperial reign and must adust accordingly.

tariq ali, the great pakistani intellectual, for one, ascribes to this idea.

the geographic split between the types of anarchists is really related to racism and mirrors, for example, the brutal caste system of israel vs. the more humane western style anarchism (in general).

personally, the thing i like about anarchism is the grass roots thing with which i totally agree. instead of the traditional rule by the wealthy minority (fortune magainze's top 400 wealthiest americans calling all the shots), many anarchists call for a rule not just by the majority, which has never been the case in america, but a rule by colaboration - meaning no rule can be set that is not accepted by all, thus assuring that no one is harmed as is constantly the case in rule by the majority or the minority.

for example, if 5 people comprise a community, then all 5 must agree on any rules or decisions that govern them. if one person does not agree, then the rule or decision fails - which is a good thing - if it doesn't work for all, it is, by definition, unworkable. thus harming even one person in the group is unacceptable.

> tariq ali, the great pakistani intellectual, for one, ascribes to this idea.


(1.) Tariq Ali is British, not Pakistani.

(2.) He's not an anarchist. He's a Trot.

(3.) Neither are al-Queda. They are pretty much the exact opposite of anarchists.

that Tariq Ali is an anarchist after reading this:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1223

CounterPunch Diary
Islamo-Anarcs or Islamo-Fascists?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

I guess the lesson of the week is, Don't run away from an English cop in the London Underground, or anywhere else, particularly if you're brown or black. This means, don't run for a train or a bus, particularly with a bag in your hand. If you want to run, or even surrender to the cops, take all your clothes off and put all your hands up, as Eldridge Cleaver recommended in Soul on Ice. One in every ten of these London cops is heavily armed and will kill you without compunction.

"Hey, Alex: Werbe here from the Anarchist Anti-Defamation League. How can you publish Tariq Ali's remark in his July 8 CounterPunch essay that the London bombers are "Islamo-anarchists," when, if any label is descriptive, they are Islamo-fascists? Rather than aiming for voluntary association as anarchist do, those planting the bombs want authoritarian, theocratic rule, something I suspect Ali would be comfortable with, at least the first adjective. Remember, you can take the boy out of the party, but you can't take the party out of the boy.

Best wishes,
Peter

Yes, this is the Peter Werbe associated with an anarchist publication called The Fifth Estate, and host on a Detroit-based radio show, Nightcall, which goes out on Sunday, and on which both your CounterPunch editors have been sometime guests. Peter's a nice boy who probably flosses every morning and evening, but I fear he slips into the frilly black negligee of anarchism only as a kind of diversion when the stakes are, in his estimation, low. Comes election time and Werbe heeds the siren call, tosses his copies of Bakunin and Kropotkin in the trashcan and starts waving the blood-mottled banner of the Democratic Party.

He did it late last year, writing hysterically to all and sundry that this time the states were SO high (they get that way punctually every four years, round about November) that the common good required all anarchists to vote for John Kerry who was at that time calling, as he still does, for more troops and a wider war. I remember being on Werbe's radio show and he turned apoplectic when I derided both major parties. Years ago I was in Detroit and went to a local gun show called Gunstock and wrote a column about it, extolling the cranky constitutionalists and UN haters as a spirited and genial bunch, united by a commendable hatred of authority, which is surely the heart beat of anarchism.

Werbe had me on his show and acted as though I'd praised a bunch of cat-torturers.

I forwarded Werbe's note to Tariq Ali who swiftly responded:

I have received a number of letters from anarchists along similar lines though, unlike Peter Werbe, nobody has accused me of wanting 'authoritarian' rule anywhere for the simple reason that I don't. I have always been a great admirer of Durrutti and Bunuel's movies. I coined Islamo-anarchism to counter the 'Islamo-fascism' of American and Brit neo-cons. What the 9/11 bombers and their London brethren believe in is the propaganda of the deed. That is the similarity with anarchism and situationism. Clearly the social program of anarchism is far removed from their thinking. It is this notion favored by anarchists of the 19th and early 20th centuries (but not Durrutti) that assassinations, bombings, etc were impactful and might induce change. That is why Lenin referred to this brand of anarchists as 'liberals with a bomb'....it was pressure politics, i.e., the notion that you can pressure the ruling class to dissolve itself.

Thank you Tariq, although "Liberals with a bomb" seems snotty. Reviewing the intensity of anarchist bomb attacks and their decimation of crowned heads on presidents around the dawn of the twentieth century I sometimes wonder whether "propaganda of the deed" had an effect of inducing the ruling classes to take some stumbling steps into the progressive era and launch some basic social reforms. True, you can't pressure the ruling class into dissolving itself. But you can pressure them into doing things different. The IRA demonstrated that successfully in London some years ago.

Tariq, who draws inspiration from Trotsky, took the same stance as Werbe towards John Kerry last year. Oh, they may be on different sides on Kronstadt, but when it came to Kerry they marched shoulder to shoulder under the banner of the Democratic Party.

Incidentally, in his memoirs Bunuel was extremely caustic about the anarchists in Barcelona, some of whom used the cellars of Gaudi's Palau Guell, on the south side of the Ramblas, to torture their opponents.

Tariq Ali (born 1943) is an author, filmmaker, and historian. He was born and grew up in Lahore, now part of Pakistan, into a communist family. While studying at the Punjab University, he organized demonstrations against Pakistan's military dictatorship. His wealthy parents sent him to England to study at Oxford, because they feared for his safety due to his connections to radical movements. There he quickly became a leader, being elected head of the student union.

anarcho-Islamo-fascist. the all-purpose enemy. bomb one today!

Or was the video's only purpose to make anarchists look like zoo escapees? Note to other anarchists: the next time some camera-wielding fake journalist invites you to say "I'm an anarchist" into his camera, ask to see a press pass or other form of ID. Let's get names of these fuckers

What's YOUR name?

my comments were, in order, as follows:

(A) <<<<<<others, of course, mainly the pro-israelis and such, refer to them as fascists; however, truth be known, today's middle east anarchists are living in a much more violent environment involving brutalization by the west's imperial reign and must adust accordingly;

immediately followed by....

(B) tariq ali, the great pakistani intellectual, for one, ascribes to this idea.>>>>>>>

quote (B) does NOT say tariq ali is an anarchist, rather it refers to the idea expressed in (A) his sense of a geographic/political dichotomy as to 'what is the definition of an anarchist.

i nowhere said that tariq ali was either a fascist or anarchist. i was simply saying that in a very real way western anarchists would not consider themselves fascists despite their history of fascistic activity from time to time as noted by cockburn and ali in the above counterpunch article.

personally i find western anarchists' attitude somewhat hypoctrical, although as i said in my original post, i have a lot of admiration for them otherwise. i have spent some time at meetings of the anarchists at AK Press in Oakland and i have found the meetings to be very informative and helpful. these people are young, idealistic, etc, which as a 54 year old i find very refreshing and it gives me hope that young people today are rising above their oppressive upbringing here in our new police state.

i also referred to tariq ali as a pakistani intellectual and i stand by that comment. although he was born in lahore when it was under british/brahmin rule (before partition), he was a citizen of pakistan during his college years and his parents were also pakistanis.

personally, it's hard for me to see tariq as a "british intellectual" because its such an oriental-ist thing to say. i prefer to see him as the asian that he is. certainly, given the color of his skin, he could easily have his ass shot off if he went into the subways of london.

in my mind he's "stateless" just as was edward said who was born in nazareth and spent much of his life in the u.s.

if your going to call bakunin an anarchist, you can't complain if i call bin laden one too.

"fascistic activity"?

Such as? Be specific.

Anarchism revolves around five basic principles: 1) equality; 2) democracy; 3) free association; 4) mutual aid; 5) diversity.

These are the same principles of Unitarianism! Welcome,Brothers!

<<<<<<<tariq ali
by and anarchists Monday, Sep. 26, 2005 at 3:39 PM

CounterPunch Diary
Islamo-Anarcs or Islamo-Fascists?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN>>>>>>>


READ IT - IT'S JUST A FEW CLICKS ABOVE.

Tariq Ali-- what a jerk. I read his stupid Islamo-anarchists quip a while back. He knows exactly what his little distractive comment was meant to do.
1. smear anarchists
2. distract from the fact the Islamist cutthroats he apologizes for who are indeed Fascists.

Peter Werbe was right on and Cockburn showed his true colors. Cockburn pretends he's endeared to anarchists but when push comes to shove, Cockburn will back despicable people. Which would be in the geneological tradition of his Stalinist daddy who made his living lying for the communist party.

Tariq Ali-- what a jerk. I read his stupid Islamo-anarchists quip a while back. He knows exactly what his little distractive comment was meant to do.
1. smear anarchists
2. distract from the fact the Islamist cutthroats he apologizes for who are indeed Fascists.

Peter Werbe was right on and Cockburn showed his true colors. Cockburn pretends he's endeared to anarchists but when push comes to shove, Cockburn will back despicable people. Which would be in the geneological tradition of his Stalinist daddy who made his living lying for the communist party.

Tariq Ali has his flaws but hes spent a hell of a lot more time risking his life and fighting against Islamists in Pakistan than you ever will. All YOU seem to do is lurk around this site and post negative comments about groups working to end the war in Iraq. Sure many groups have problems and people shouldnt be silent about the problems so they can work to make the movement stronger but what I see from you is an attempt to create divisions not an attempt to build a movement. For all your self-righteous talk about Anarchism you sound much more like a Spart or LaRouchie than most Anarchists I know.

but, anarchist probably isn't one of them

instead, he speaks in the right wing rhetoric of David Horowitz and FrontPageMag, as his posts here indicate, and was especially exposed when he ranted about Jane Fonda on a thread last week

if Magon is an anarchist, it's certainly a strange kind

I mean, who on the left under the age of 50 talks about Jane Fonda as if she is politically significant right now?

Magon is still factually challenged about the insurgency, where he still seems to believe that it is exclusively Sunni, despite almost daily evidence to the contrary:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1770397.php

Magon also ignores the possibility that some of these bombings that he finds so appalling may actually be the work of US and British intelligence operations, designed to achieve the goal of fragmenting the country:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050925&articleId=994

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1769706.php

Now, Juan Cole has a different view, but note that Douglas Feith of the Pentagon, who has just resigned, ran an office that has purportedly been involved in back channel communications with people Ghorbanifar, the arms smuggler mentioned by Cole, about regime change in Iran and Syria

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1770549.php

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/31/2d_probe_at_the_pentagon_examines_actions_on_iraq?pg=full

so, if you follow the Keefer article for Global Research, the British may have been planting the boms, but if you follow the Cole approach, maybe they were trying to stop Iranian arms merchants connected to the Pentagon from doing so

time will tell, of course, but, in the end, note that Magon's emphasis on "Islamo-fascists" is utterly meaningless, as the only question in Iraq is whether the political Islamicists (supported by the US and, strangely enough, Iran) prevail, or whether the violent, nationalists ones do (Sadr, etc), the ones who oppose the occupation, although Sadr is very calculated about when and where he engages US/UK forces, so I use the word "violent" to describe any group that has been willing to resort to violence at any time

finally, a current example of the secularization of Iraq that is being promoted by US/UK forces:

Tel Afar: http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1770008.php

Samarra next: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/49f99eb15f7960dc5672fa3a66f7f753.htm

Indeed, it is this sort of indiscriminate violence by the US, a violence that randomly kills people and creates tens of thousands of refugees, if not more throughout al-Anbar province, that has persuaded Cole to acknowledge that immediate withdrawal is necessary:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1770598.php

(what will those Democratic Party apologists like David Corn and Marc Cooper do now? after they relied so much upon Cole to justify their support for the occupation to provide cover for pro-war Democrats?)

but, I digress, maybe if Magon finds the mission so important, so essential, so moral, maybe he can enlist in the US military . . . . oops, I forgot he's an anarchist, so, just like with the neo-conservatives, the dirty business of conducting the occupation should be philosophically left to others


--Richard

as always, richard is a few light years ahead of the crowd.

Excellent job

" if Magon is an anarchist, it's certainly a strange kind "

I called him an anarchist because of who I think he is not what he says. While I dont think Magon is an "Anarchist" ideologically his tone and style of criticism sounds an awful lot like some of the "post-left anachists" around here and I wouldnt be surprised if hes is either a member of the Anarchist study group or one of several anarchist organizers who tend to make similar arguments in a similar style. Of course Magon goes beyond the usualy Anarchist red-baiting to "jihad bait" but a lot of people who hate ANSWER, Left Turn, the ISO, for semilegitimatre reasons seem willing to sink to right-wing sounding smears (that are in then same line as those of Hitchens and Horrowitz) rather than bring up their real issues in a rational debate. Sometimes the line between smear and argument as blurred as is the case in the anti-ANSWER stuff put out by the guy behind infoshop.org; accusing ANSWER of supporting North Korea is a little strange since it follows the right-wing tactic of demonizing a coalition because of what any member of any member group ever said and it also consfuses support for opposition to an invasion of N Korea with support for the government of N Korea over other alternatives. I would be curious to know if those who put out the "ANSWER supports N Korea" stuff on websites and in flyers at protests has ever meet an ANSWER member who actually argued in support of N Korea or if it really does mainly boil down toa visit by Ramsey Clark and talk of opposing a US invasion.

wow, a neo-conservative anarchist, I never knew that there was such a thing

guess news travels slowly out here towards the Central Valley

--Richard

[" if Magon is an anarchist, it's certainly a strange kind "

I called him an anarchist because of who I think he is not what he says. While I dont think Magon is an "Anarchist" ideologically his tone and style of criticism sounds an awful lot like some of the "post-left anachists" around here and I wouldnt be surprised if hes is either a member of the Anarchist study group or one of several anarchist organizers who tend to make similar arguments in a similar style. Of course Magon goes beyond the usualy Anarchist red-baiting to "jihad bait" but a lot of people who hate ANSWER, Left Turn, the ISO, for semilegitimatre reasons seem willing to sink to right-wing sounding smears (that are in then same line as those of Hitchens and Horrowitz) rather than bring up their real issues in a rational debate. Sometimes the line between smear and argument as blurred as is the case in the anti-ANSWER stuff put out by the guy behind infoshop.org; accusing ANSWER of supporting North Korea is a little strange since it follows the right-wing tactic of demonizing a coalition because of what any member of any member group ever said and it also consfuses support for opposition to an invasion of N Korea with support for the government of N Korea over other alternatives. I would be curious to know if those who put out the "ANSWER supports N Korea" stuff on websites and in flyers at protests has ever meet an ANSWER member who actually argued in support of N Korea or if it really does mainly boil down toa visit by Ramsey Clark and talk of opposing a US invasion.]

he could drop some names of other anarchists who could vouch for him. In the meantime, assume he's an imposter.

To Richard-- from the link you posted:
"The clashes were the first between American forces and Mr. Sadr's militia since August 2004".
So Sadr hasn't engaged in armed actions against the US in over a year, the very current clash may or may not be significant--we'll see. For the most part I think your link reaffirmed my position that the armed Iraqi resistance is a Sunni (Arab and to a smaller degree Turkomen) phenomenon. If facts become available that contradict my position I'll adjust my analysis accordingly. My opinion is that Sadr is basically a tool of Sistani who has no problem with the US staying and doing the dirty work of fighting his Sunni competion for control of Iraq.

And Richard-- If my term Islamo fascist (and I think the term is flawed) is meaningless then so is Tariq Ali's use of Islamo-anarchists. So at least be even handed.

And Richard-- Honestly my impression of Global research is that they are conspiracy wingnuts-- so I'm not really interested in reading that link. I'm sure the US/and the UK are up to all kinds of dirty business in Iraq but I doubt that the US is trying to provoke a civil war. It's hardly in the interest of international capitalism for Iraq to descend into chaos with the massive potential distruption of oil supplies.

And finally to the posters that whine about me being "negative". Boo fucking hoo. The positions the anti-war movement matter and I'll criticize them whether they're liberals, anarchists, communists, libertarians or whatever. If I hurt your fragile ears by dissing Jane Fonda-- I'm truly sorry.

["The clashes were the first between American forces and Mr. Sadr's militia since August 2004".
So Sadr hasn't engaged in armed actions against the US in over a year, the very current clash may or may not be significant--we'll see. For the most part I think your link reaffirmed my position that the armed Iraqi resistance is a Sunni (Arab and to a smaller degree Turkomen) phenomenon. If facts become available that contradict my position I'll adjust my analysis accordingly.]

While this is true to an extent, you are ignoring Basra, where Sadr's group has been involved in a contest with the Badr Brigade to see who will control the city as British troops stand by, while escalating their conflict with British troops in recent months.

[My opinion is that Sadr is basically a tool of Sistani who has no problem with the US staying and doing the dirty work of fighting his Sunni competion for control of Iraq.]

A little simplistic, I think Sadr is more than that, but, yes, as I posted here last year, Sistani and Sadr are the "good cop/bad cop" of the Shia in regard to their dealings with the occupation, with Sadr using the Mahdi Army to violently engage the Occupation Authority from time to time. Note, however, that neither supports the occupation, and Sistani has reportedly refused to publicly endorse the constitution.


[And Richard-- If my term Islamo fascist (and I think the term is flawed) is meaningless then so is Tariq Ali's use of Islamo-anarchists. So at least be even handed.]

I never said that I agreed with Ali's comment, as much as I respect him otherwise for his analytical insights. If you read my link to his interview about Chavez and Venezuela, he's definitely no anarchist. I am closer to Cockburn, the pre-World War I anarchists accomplished a bit more than Ali is willing to admit, who dismisses them as violent adventurers consistent with Leninist/Trotskyite doctrine.

[And Richard-- Honestly my impression of Global research is that they are conspiracy wingnuts-- so I'm not really interested in reading that link.]

I understand, this is certainly a valid concern, but I did actually read the article before I posted the link here, and I know from following the events mentioned in the article (for example, the history of the British in Northern Ireland, and their undercover activities there), that much of what the article describes is factually accurate.

The other aspect of the article that is interesting is that it doesn't reflexively dismiss the claims of Iraqis that the US and the UK have been involved in bombings, and relates some disquieting stories about it. Remember Abu Ghraib? Iraqis said terrible things were happening there for months before the US media believed it after pictures obtained from Americans confirmed it.

My point is, as John Pilger, Justin Raimondo, and others have written, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support that the belief that the British have been involved in terror activity in Basra, it shouldn't be summarily dismissed just because the British tell the London Times that they were involved in undercover activities against Iranian arms merchants. Indeed, the quality of the evidence, while inconclusive, is bette than anything the Bush Administration has cited to condemn the Iraqis or the Iranians. If there was really a free press in the US and the UK, they'd be digging into it. Maybe, Sy Hersh will spend some time on it.

[I'm sure the US/and the UK are up to all kinds of dirty business in Iraq but I doubt that the US is trying to provoke a civil war. It's hardly in the interest of international capitalism for Iraq to descend into chaos with the massive potential distruption of oil supplies.]

Actually, this gets talked about all the time among American foreign policy pundits. Personally, I agree with you, it makes no sense, but then, the invasion of Iraq didn't make any sense, either. One of the major failings of the left, anarchistic, socialist, Bolshevik or otherwise, is that it frequently imputes a consistent, deterministic rationality to capitalism that doesn't exist. World War I is a classic example, and one can speculate endlessly about how and why capitalists let themselves be influenced by the philosophies of racial and cultural superiority incorporated within imperialism with such disasterous consequences.

In any event, Thomas Friedman just wrote today that we should arm the Shia and the Kurds to fight the Sunnis in a civil war. Leslie Gelb, a preeminent Council on Foreign Relations, State Department, New York Times, and probable CIA guy, has said something very similar, that we should divide the country into three sections (which, of course, makes civil war inevitable). If you dig around some for about half an hour, I bet you can find 5-10 recognized American foreign policy analysts who have promoted a civil war as a way out of Iraq.

My main point here, however, is that the conflict in Iraq is really between our Baathists, our Islamic fundamentalists and our Kurds, against their Baathists, and their Islamic fundamentalists, Zarqawi trying to provoke a religious war between Sunni and Shia. So, bleating about Islamo-fascism is just that, bleating, because, realistically, the occupation has nothing to do with eradicating Baathism or imposing a Western, secular style political system on the country.

Absent the left creating its own Abraham Lincoln brigades for Iraq, to take on the Islamic fundamentalists (as athiests) and the US/UK occupation forces (as imperialists), sort of like Toshiro Mifune in "Yojimbo" and Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti western remake, "For a Fist Full of Dollars", all that remains for the left is to get the foreigners out, and hope that Iraq can start a process of self-determination that will ultimately marginalize the fundamentalists. Is there any guarantee that it will happen? No. Is there any chance at all that it will happen as long as US/UK troops stay in the country? No.

[And finally to the posters that whine about me being "negative". Boo fucking hoo. The positions the anti-war movement matter and I'll criticize them whether they're liberals, anarchists, communists, libertarians or whatever. If I hurt your fragile ears by dissing Jane Fonda-- I'm truly sorry.]

Jane Fonda? Who cares. "Klute" was her last great performance.

Magon is I'm sure a "sincere anarchist," not a wily neocon dressing up as one to do cyber-battle.

His absolutism and snide know-it-all-isms mark him as a devotee of the post-left school. (Ask a post-lefter what being post left means and they can't ever give a coherent answer).

That said, I think Magon has raised some important issues here. The knee-jerk support for the "iraqi resistance" among many far leftists seems pretty myopic. Internationalism demands more than just being opposed to imperialism.

maybe he's a poststructuralist. They're hard to understand, such as Foucault, who previously was just a structuralist.

"Where structuralism attempted to find a level of generalizable and self-sufficient metalanguage capable of describing configurations of elements variably anthropological, literary, linguistic, historical, or psychoanalytic and analyze their relations without being mired by the identity of these elements as such, post-structuralism is said to share a general concern for identifying and challenging hierarchies implicit in identification of binary oppositions which generally characterize not only structuralism but Western metaphysics, see deconstruction. Re-evaluation of the structuralist interpretation of Ferdinand de Saussure's distinction between the diachronic and the synchronic is the most that can be credited as a common point of critique which generally led post-structuralists to assert that structural analyses are generally synchronic and thereby suppress historical or diachronic analyses."

If radicals were funding or helping arm Iraqi rebels I could see some substance in this worry but since "support" for the most part means "make provacative statements to scare liberals" and make oneself appear more radical than everyone else....

The Iraqi resistance isnt even remotely unified and most poeple are fighting for different aims. The people carrying out the most brutal bombings of mosques and civlians probably arent fighting for a US withdraw or at least want the conflict to spread. If you want to support Al Qaeda in Iraq, support Bush and spew lies like Hitchens to try to undermine the antiwar movement. Or act like Magon and try to divide and take away from antiwar energy by demonizing people via guilt by association; an ineffective antiwar movement and a gradual wearing down of the US economy and US power via an Iraqi quagmire lasting for years may be what they want so anyone trying to "support" Al Qaeda in Iraq by actions in the US would be trying to undermine the US antiwar movement. Of course a US withdraw with fundamentalist Shias starting a broader Shia Sunni civil war is also thought to be an aim of Al Qaeda so who knows what support for them really means but I wouldnt call some fringe protesters in SF holding a sign saying "I support the Iraqi resistance" or a Socialist speaker talking about the "right to resist US occupation" as being real supporters of the Iraqi resistance.

In terms of negativism and post-left Anarchists I tend to see them like thos Evangelical Christians who come up to you on the street and try to argue that everyone else is pushing religion but they are different since they believe in the truth. Of course aside from the "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is part of the problem" attitude the other issue with them comes down to motivation; there is a strong misanthropic feel to their clique and the motivation behind all of their antiANSWER, antiGalloway, antiISO, anti-protest rhetoric seems to have psychological more than a political feel to it (especially when the accusations jump back and forth between ANSWER working with too many groups and thus promoting too many different issues and ANSWER being too authoritarian and only trying to push their views). If you really want an idology that lets you hate everyone postleftism seems to be a good fit; you can accuse most groups of being reformist and "love me I'm a liberal" types and then when anyone says anything more extreme you can use Horrowitz sounding rhetoric to denounce the hyperbolic stuff as representative of a broader problem in the left. While post leftists pretend to be opposed to Bush's wars (since they are opposed to everything?) the seem to see the role for themselevs as one of finding weaknesses in any group fighting the war and then going after those weaknesses with a schadenfraud like joy. Rather than getting beyond sectarianism and politics that revolve around group think of a self-identified left, post-leftists are essentially an Anarchist version of the Sparticists (who can perhaps be seen as postTrotsyists in the same sense that the post-leftifists are postAnarchists); it is in a sense anarchofundamentalism in its belief that everyone else who is an activists is part of the problem and the real thing keeping the masses away from the "one fundamental truth" are other actvists groups, so working to undermine them is more important than actually doing work of ones own.

Some postleft propaganda makes its way out beyond their clique in that much Anarchist criticism of groups like ANSWER revolve around them "getting in the way" of "real" organizing. If this were really the case then during the 4-5 month periods with no ANSWER protests one would expect organizing among Anarchists to flourish yet one mainly sees the groups critizing ANSWER piggybacking on ANSWERs organizing with breakaway and contingent marchs rather tham really trying to do their own organizing ANSWER does have serious problems and there have been some good Anarchist actions that have been organized outside of the ANSWER protests, but the hostility among most Anarchists towards ANSWER with "getting in the way" being main accusation strikes me more as an excuse for inaction rather than a real complaint and is perhaps a problem with post-left misanthropy and fundamentalism rubbing off on the broader anarchist scene.

>If radicals were funding or helping arm Iraqi rebels I could see some substance in this worry but since "support" for the most part means "make provacative statements to scare liberals" and make oneself appear more radical than everyone else....

He's right. If people were really serious about supporting Iraqi resistanc, and resistance to Anglo-American imperialism in general, they would take direct action. Only direct action can stop this war. Once the physical infrastructure of the war machine and it's support industries has been sufficiently crippled, the war will stop out of necessity. War cannot be fought without spare parts.

The soldiers themselves have the key role to play. Even with spare parts, a war cannot be fought without soldiers. Soldiers can stop this war the same way soldiers stopped the Viet Nam war, by fragging, sabotage and desertion.

See:

http://www.nlg.org/mltf/giresistance.html