A critique of anarchism and its effectiveness as a strategy to bring down oppressive power systems

Deep Green Resistance is the only movement designed to stop the destruction of the planet by dismantling the industrial complex, depriving the rich and globally powerful of their ability to profit off of the deprivation of all others, and the only real chance for human and nonhuman life to continue on Earth.

I’m over half way through the book Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet (there’s a reason I hadn’t been posting lately) written by Aric McBay, Lierre Keith, and Derrick Jensen, and I can’t say enough good things about it. The book provides many historical examples of successful resistance movements of the past, examines each, and lays out clear patterns between the successes and the failures. It explains the many different forms resistance can take, and explains very well and concisely why some would work beautifully for our movement, and why some simply wouldn’t be feasible, or even attainable from the get-go. This saves us resisters a lot trial-and-(mostly)error, and with any movements designed to face power head-on, error usually isn’t pretty. Not to mention it is beautifully written, and if you follow this crappy blog with interest, you’re bound to be wrapped up with Deep Green Resistance (DGR).

Before the book was even released it was getting attention by anarchist circles around the internet. From any viewpoint of any nonanarchist, one might have good reason to believe they’d support this movement. You couldn’t be more wrong. The responses flooding the internet by dogmatic anarchists (I was going to call them “radical”, but that term simply does not apply to them. I’ll explain that later) were fiery with opposition and criticism. Most these responses came from anarchistnews.org and libcom.org (.ORG, anarchists, .ORG) The main points they all seemed to give were pretty typical. DGR is “authoritarian.” DGR is “hierarchical.” DGR is “weak sauce”…We don’t want to organize ourselves. We want complete autonomy. These anarchists are quick to respond to any objection you have with their opinions or correcting flawed facts. Anarchy theorists seem to be passionate, fiercely ready for the defensive, and at times intimidating for their rock-solid stance.

Anarchy theory also seems incredibly juvenile.

The solutions it presents, however righteous and groovy they may be, will simply never work to bring down civilization. I’ll explain this the best I can in the following paragraphs.

1) Dogmatic anarchists hold a firm anti-authority stance no matter what. They believe authority of any kind should be abolished. Since civilization requires a self- and culturally-entitled authority to exploit the natural world, people of color, the poor, women, any non-heterosexual, etc. in order to perpetuate itself, the first thing to do is abolish that authority. All right, sounds good. But wait…It becomes problematic. Clumping “authority” into a single word is an oversimplification, and doing so immediately destroys the analysis of different forms of authority. Example: A president declares war over night and sends millions of teenagers overseas to likely be killed. That’s one form of authority. A wood shop teacher tells his or her students, sometimes firmly, how to use a  bandsaw for the first time so their fingers don’t get severed. That’s another form of authority. But those two forms are completely different from each other. The former is authoritarianism (a term with negative connotations that anarchists love to use for any mention of leadership), in other words, it’s a social order that makes the refusal of authority punishable. Authoritarianism is when power flows only in one direction, and the endpoint of that continuum is a small number of people telling the vast majority of others what to do, or else. The latter is an example of authority that is only beneficial to the recipient of the orders. The teacher needs to express his or her authority of the potential dangers to bratty teenager students because those bratty teenager students may just be sent out of the room in an ambulance otherwise. It’s an obvious self-interest, in that example, to comply. This isn’t oppressive, nor is it authoritarian. Sure, the bratty teenager “Roger” can refuse to listen, but the teacher’s responsibility then becomes getting that kid out of the classroom before he hurts himself or others. This is an order to protect “Roger”, however hard that may be, from immediate danger. That’s displaying a form of authority that only comes with maturation, something many anarchists have yet to reach.

Complete refusal of all forms of authority is not only an oversimplification, like the word “violence,” but it’s also become taboo in anarchist circles. Optimistically, I imagine this out of ignorance to past resistance movements with success. Pessimistically, I imagine it’s just them being “Rogers”, and I’m starting the lean towards the latter. History class, the internet, the library, *cough*Deep Green Resistance*cough*, will all state very clearly that all past movements to successfully shift power had some form of authority, or persuasive public figures. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Civil Rights Movement. Harriet Tubman in the Underground Railroad. Buenaventura Durruti in the Spanish Anarchists. Emmeline Pankhurst in the WSPU. The list doesn’t stop. Whether or not we want, or wish, to have successful movements devoid of any public figures, it hasn’t happened and likely never will. Leaders, expressing some form of authority (remember the woodworker example), show up. They just do.

Would any (white) anarchist who claims to not be a racist object to the Civil Rights Movement just because the black community held MLK Jr. as a central figure? Would any (male) anarchist who claims to not be a misogynist do the same for the WSPU, and Emmeline Pankhurst’s important role? Get real. If you, or anyone else, objects to these movements and the positive effects they have had on people and society as a whole, then I shake my head in shame and disgust. Purist ideologies alone won’t manifest itself to the culture at large without real-world and direct actions to back them. This is the Achilles Heel for anarchism. Effective means to shift or dismantle power systems contradicts the ideology. Thus, anarchism will never took root. It will only remain in the minds of those who identify, meanwhile those in power are completely unscathed. Those in power don’t care about your belief systems. They care only if you flow upstream, disrupting the flow of power (usually by material means, i.e infrastructure damage, economic disruption, harm or threat to human life etc.) If you take dogmatic anarchist theory to its end, it comes to a grinding halt of selfishness, unwilling to join in solidarity with people doing great work for others, and not just themselves. That’s what activism is. Anarchism is the death of activism for social change.

2) Anarchists hold a firm “withdrawal” approach from the problems at large instead of actively working to dismantle them. In the book Deep Green Resistance, the “withdrawal” approach is described as,

” … acts of personal detachment or refusal carried out by alienated individuals. Entire social enclaves –the inheritors of the Bohemian tradition– are filled with such people. Their goal is not to make broad-based social or political change, but to live “authentically.” We can see the potential problem with this strategy in some synonyms for the word “withdrawal”: abandonment, abdication, disengagement, marooning, resignation, retirement.”

Now, withdrawal can work, and has worked in the past to disrupt economies, social practices, political influence, etc. but it will never work to bring down civilization for three reasons. 1) Successful withdrawals of the past economic in nature (i.e boycotts) required large numbers of people to bring those specific institutions to their knees. Those numbers are lacking in this movement. Thus, it’s silly to even try as a strategy. withdrawing for moral reasons is another topic. 2) Those targeted institutions must be local, or at least attainable by the local community. Global corporations like Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, et al. won’t feel anything if withdrawal your consent through purchase. They won’t feel anything if you get your neighborhood to do the same, or even your town. Anything beyond that is magical thinking, and investing so much time into a single corporation, however moral that action may be, is sidestepping the real underlying issue of capitalism, and even further, industrial civilization. 3) Withdrawal, even successful ones, were always for the purpose of reform. During the Civil Rights Movement, African-Americans would demand segregated or segregation-supporting businesses to change. In Birmingham, they were 30 percent the population, so the businesses had to comply with their demands or they’d go under. They gave the oppressors no other choice. They forced them. Because force works, whatever form it takes. It’s the only thing that has worked to disrupt power. Where’s the force backing anarchy? What’s the force backing anarchy? Does it have any? If you refuse to organize yourselves to politically resist, why base your ideologies on the unattainable, on fantasies?

3) Anarchy theory is quite liberal, and not radical, despite the self-proclamations anarchists give otherwise. This whole time when writing this essay, I was going to call dogmatic anarchists “radical” instead of “dogmatic.” This, however, would simply be inaccurate by definition to say. I can also guarantee calling any self-proclaimed “radical” anarchist a liberal would most definitely result in heavy verbal attacks. I’m not saying this to insult though, I just want to get the facts straight. I understand these words, “liberal”, “authority”, “organization”, are all off the table for anarchist conversations, but they really need to be demystified once and for all.

One of the main differences between liberalism and radicalism deals with how societies form and function. From the liberal standpoint, societies are made up of only individuals; that is, the basic social unit is determined only by the people who live in it. This differs greatly from the radical standpoint, which acknowledges that societies are built and sustained by the creation of groups or classes, and people fall into these certain classes by their race, sex, financial status, sexual orientation, even species if we extend and meld human society to the natural world, as we always should. Another key difference worth mentioning is the way liberals and radicals differ in terms of how societies change oppressive behaviors. Liberals believe the correct attitude alone will resonate to others and begin a snowball effect. In other words, the only way to change people is to change their minds and they’ll stop being “the bad guys.” Radicals believe there are systems of power in place within societies to source and physically manifest oppression to the citizens, and the natural world. The people in these power arrangements are benefitting from this, and no amount of fact-telling, educating, movie-making, book-writing, will stop them. Stopping them requires a myriad of different strategies, but strategize you must! Goodness in the heart does not translate directly to the culture at large. To put it simply, lifestyle choice is the primary, determining factor of change to liberals and to radicals, lifestyle choice is a undetermining derivative of social change caused by direct confrontations to power.

I think we can see where anarchy theory falls when you compare liberalism with radicalism. If only you practice believe in anti-authoritarianism, well, something will happen. If only you believe civilization needs to come down, if only you yourself know in your heart hierarchical societies=bad, egalitarian societies=good, well, gosh…At least you know that! At least you have that knowledge of righteousness that so many inferiors seem to be lacking. This obsession with self-purity is the source of horizontal hostility to the Deep Green Resistance. Yes, don’t rape. Yes, don’t boss. Yes, don’t normalize oppression. Yes, don’t commit ecocide, or any -cide. We agree there. But nonparticipation isn’t going to do anything. To change the world, indeed bring down civilization, requires lots and lots of dedication. It requires lots and lots of participation. As well as selflessness. And resistance.

Anarchism has its place in the resistance against empire. It should be considered for future sustainable human cultures when global industrial civilization meets its inevitable end. But as a strategy, it’s lacking big time.

I didn’t write this to intentionally piss off those who identify as an anarchist. I didn’t write this to add to the dualism between dogmatic anarchy circles and DGR. I wrote this because if we –humans, blood, bone, and soul– wish to save the planet, we need to go whatever it takes. Attacking the only movement at the time for doing so is nearly unforgivable, but I still believe I have more in common with the very anarchists I just critiqued than my next door neighbor. We have the drive. We know our base-line goal. Anything else is secondary, even tertiary. But to throw DGR out the window before the book even came out is silly. I encourage everyone who reads this blog, anarchist or not, to at least give the book a chance. You’ll learn a lot. Hell, I’m not even done with it and I’m ranting and raving.

And remember this: Nothing, absolutely nothing, –not anarchism, not me, not you– is more important than the source of everything, the planet. She needs you desperately. If you don’t want to join DGR, great. That’s fine. No one is making you do anything you don’t want to do. (Hear that? Does that really sound authoritarian?) But understand those who are a part, those who are working toward that base-line goal, are your brothers and sisters in the battle for a livable planet. You may disagree with this and that, but fundamentally we’re on the same page.

Solidarity. That’s the fruit of the anti-civilization critique. Solidarity with the natural world. With the oppressed. The natives, people of color, women. A shift of loyalty away from the system and back into our long-awaited return to mutuality and respect with the world, nestled inside repairing ecosystems. Helping with that repair, and having that repair, too, help us repair.

***********(Edit, June 9, see below)***********

 Also, always remember this: Any ideology is only as righteous as it’s subscribers actions in accordance to that ideology. That is, any ideology with such prevalent, widespread refusal of effective action is not a good ideology, regardless of how it looks on paper.

It’s a kindergarten lesson, folks. Actions speak louder than words. After rereading my original post, and after thinking of the actions subscribers of anarchism have committed, (Zerzan attacks Jensen more on a weekly basis than he attacks the capitalist state all year. Keith, a woman with a disability, got pied with a cayenne pepper-laced cream pie at an anarchist book fair. The anarchist community cheered. Tucker denounced Deep Green Resistance before the book was even released. I got could on and on. B..B..But…They have broken windows in front of the police! Fight the system!) I feel no shame in addressing this behavior in the way it ought to be. It needs to be called out, big time.

One of the main problems I run into when making these points to someone who identifies themself as an anarchist is because they always seem to fall back on the same points. “You’re ‘cherry-picking’ when you give those examples!” “That wasn’t me who did those acts, therefore I’m not responsible for them!” “You can’t homogenize or generalize all anarchists into one big clump and call bullshit!” These points they make, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, effectively shuts down conversation. (Maybe my next essay I write will be titled, “A critique of anarchism and it’s effectiveness to shut down confrontational conversation.”) Okay, let me tackle these one by one so I don’t have to in the comments section. 

The cherry-picking argument is not cherry-picking when the vast majority of anarchists are in support of those actions committed by a select few. Ninety percent of attorneys give the other 10 percent a bad name, as they say. I have no reason to believe the aforementioned examples, plus others, is cherry-picking so long as no or very little negative responses have been said about them within anarchist circles.

While the argument that it wasn’t them personally who committed those acts is true, it’s the typical analysis I’ve come to expect from any dogmatic anarchist. Humans are social creatures, and the backbone of that basic human need is community. Accountability and responsibility are an essential part of healthy, functioning communities. In fact, that’s what determines whether a community is healthy and functioning. And to give up both on behalf of another who subscribes to the same ideology, or circle, or “community” as you is what is sorely lacking, and another failure of anarchist theory.

So my response? A) Start being responsible in response to abusive actions committed by those to whom you identify themselves with. B) Evaluate the level of abuse occurring within these circles. C) If the abuse is widespread and represents a large percentage of the collective group, reconsider your role within this group and your relationship to it. D) Always, always call bullshit when bullshit has been tossed.

I hear all the time that you can’t homogenize all anarchists into one big group because anarchy is so diverse and has so many different strands. Again, it’s true that anarchism has many different strands (“anarcho-everything,” or better yet, “anarcho-globalization”), but it’s sidestepping the important and central issue of behavior in accordance to ideology, which as I said earlier, determines whether that ideology is sound and valid.

Deep Green Resistance as a strategy, though still in its infancy, recognizes very clearly the vast amount of diversity required for building a culture of resistance, as it embraces that. But if anyone who labelled themselves a “Deep Green Resister” did half the shit many anarchists are doing, I’d call them out immediately since I support the organization, let the public know this person does not have any association with DGR, and that the organization does not support that action. If this person agreed to the code of conduct (which is what really riles up anarchists across the board), then they’d be shunned from the group forever.

Speaking of the code of conduct, if any anarchists reading this have a problem with that, might I remind you that if you have a Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, a WordPress account, or any other “membership” to a website, you have signed and agreed to a “Terms of Service” for that site, which is essentially the same thing as a “code of conduct.” You gave your consent to the owners of that website or organization, and violation of those terms results in termination. But do they bicker about those?

Also, even the Spanish Anarchists had strict codes of conduct for their men, like prohibiting the consumption of alcohol or the outbreak of fights between them. Doing these would result in punishment, not just banishment. If you anarchists have a problem with that, don’t butt heads with me or Derrick or Lierre or Aric, butt heads with the Spanish Anarchists…

And if agreeing to these (see below) codes of conduct is authoritarian, then you have no idea of what authoritarianism is, and it’s a huge insult to the real victims of such a regime. Shame on you.

Deep Green Resistance Code of Conduct
Civilization, especially industrial civilization, is fundamentally destructive to life on earth. Organized political resistance is the only hope for our planet. Our task is to create that resistance movement. With this goal in mind, we agree to adhere to the following Code of Conduct in our organizing groups:
1. Political Action: DGR groups will only engage in aboveground, non-violent activities. These can include legal demonstrations as well as civil disobedience.
2. Solidarity: Non-indigenous members of DGR remember that we are living on stolen land in the midst of an ongoing genocide. The task of the non-indigenous is to build solidarity with indigenous people in defending the land, preserving traditional cultures, and protecting sacred ceremonies from exploitation.
3. Justice: We are enmeshed in overlapping systems of sadistic power built on stolen wealth, white privilege, misogyny, and human supremacism. As individuals, it is our responsibility to acknowledge those systems, overcome our entitlement, and make alliances with the dispossessed. Collectively, it is our task to bring those systems down.
4. Liberty: DGR groups have a zero-tolerance policy for abuse of anyone, human or nonhuman. Physical integrity and emotional safety are basic human rights that DGR is sworn to defend. DGR will banish any members who rape, batter, or abuse any living creature. Masculinity, with its militarized psychology and its violation imperative, has to be abandoned personally and dismantled globally.
5. Character: DGR is a serious undertaking that requires loyalty, commitment, integrity, and
courage. Members are expected to treat everyone with respect.
6. Security: All DGR members are required to abide by principles of security culture and to
address breaches directly. Both lax security and paranoia are dangerous to our movement. All non-political illegal activity puts everyone at risk and is inappropriate for members. DGR groups are required to educate new members on security culture.

***********(Edit, June 11, see below)***********

I found this essay that does a much better job than I did talking about anarchism and it’s downfalls. It’s written by Christopher Day and titled The Failure of Anarchism, Implications for the Future of the Revolutionary Project. It’s pretty long, but if you have to time to read it, I really recommend it. Here’s the link…

http://readingfromtheleft.com/PDF/Kasama/historical_failure_of_aanarchism_chris_day_kasama.pdf

“There is a crying need for the development of a new body of revolutionary theory that breaks decisively with the dogmatism and political shallowness of anarchism as well as with the authoritarian essence of marxism.”