"The continuing Appeal of Nationalism" by Fredy Perlman, A bio-decentralist response
The book "The continuing Appeal of Nationalism" by Fredy Perlman in 1985 by remains the de facto current thinking on nationalism in anarchist circles. The book is written in the format of a classist analysis of nationalism from a purely Marxist materialistic basis. That isn't to say that his specific scientific materialism is the best or most enlightened lens to look through history. Nevertheless the short work of 85 pages contains an insightful and well read knowledge of historical social movements (again in a limited weltanschung of history).
Needless to say this is how many anarchists view the subject from the seemingly correct scathing of the nationalism that describes that brings on exploitation, slavery, wars, injustice, xenophobia, and racism. Perlman goes into great detail how nationalism has been utilized by both Right and Left wing movements.
Criticisms could be surprising and bold, even to agents of Zionist terrorism are included in the study. I think this book presents a picture of what National Anarchism is not interested in recreating, supporting, or justifying nationalist projects in the wanton events of past and contemporary.
Our view of the guiding influence of liberalism in our society can be surmised by the statement of Oswald Spengler Prussianism and Socialism:
"Liberalism, in its German form, has always stood for mental sterility, for the ignorance and incomprehension of historical necessities. It has meant the inability to cooperate with others or to make sacrifices for others. Its position has always been one of entirely negative criticism, though not as an expression of an indomitable will to change society—as manifested by Bebel’s Socialists—but simply out of the desire to "be different." While our liberals have never been at a loss for "standpoints" to adopt, they have lacked the inner vitality and discipline, the confidence and purposeful vigor that are so characteristic of the English form of liberalism."
Contemporary anarchists and socialists are the same to varying degrees of self importance. Again from Spenglers text, is largely how I see a non-statist characteristic of the nation, speaking of a very different kind of socialism than what is commonly assumed:
"The meaning of socialism is that life is dominated not by the contrast of rich and poor but by rank as determined by achievement and ability. That is our kind of freedom: freedom from the economic capriciousness of the individual. My fervent hope is that no one will remain hidden who was born with the ability to command, and that no one is given the responsibility for commanding who lacks the inborn talent for doing so. Socialism means ability, not desire. Not the quality of intentions but the quality of accomplishments is decisive. I turn to our youth. I call upon all who have marrow in their bones and blood in their veins. Train yourselves! Become men! We need no more ideologists, no more chatter about Bildung and cosmopolitanism and Germany’s intellectual mission. We need hardness, we need a courageous skepticism, we need a class of socialistic mastertypes. Once again: Socialism means power, power, and more power. Thoughts and schemes are nothing without power. The path to power has already been mapped: the valuable elements of German labor in union with the best representatives of the Old Prussian state idea, both groups determined to build a strictly socialist state to democratize our nation in the Prussian manner; both forged into a unit by the same sense of duty, by the awareness of a great obligation, by the will to obey in order to rule, to die in order to win, by the strength to make immense sacrifices in order to accomplish what we were born for, what we are, what could not be without us. We are socialists. Let us hope that it will not have been in vain."
Speaking more about what this means he adds, "To the Prussian way of thinking, the will of the individual is subsumed under the will of the totality. This is not just herd instinct; it is an expression of sublime strength and freedom, something which the outsider can never understand. Even in its proletarian form it rejects the workers of other countries together with their egoistic pseudo-socialism. Servility, snobbishness— these are words for attitudes that are understood and despised signs of degeneration [[to be avoided at all cost]]. The genuine Prussian despises no one; but he is himself feared." A possibly valid criticism is that those principals can't possibly be applied to anti-authoritarianism or if they could it would be undesirable. National Anarchy posits that any post revolutionary area will have zones made of different demographics with different language and or different cultural influences and lifestyles. This will be due to the natural distribution of people or decisions made collectively. We advocate a non violent, tribal, syndicalist/gild based economy with an emphasis on sustainable living, and diplomatic/respectful relations between neighbors, communities, and outlander areas. Each area would surely have local customs for the administration of each area. In contemporary anarchist thought this could be referred to bio-diversity of primitivist decentralist ideas.
As far as race as a "people" is concerned, I think most National Anarchists believe this in regard to the principal of Julius Evola's criticism of racism in Vita Nova: "The error of some extreme `racists' who believe that the return of a race to its ethnic purity ipso facto equals its rebirth as a people consists of exactly this: they treat the human being as if he were a purebred cat, horse, or dog. To an animal, the conservation or restoration of its racial unity (in its narrow definition) can be everything. But it is not so with the human. . . . It would be too convenient if the simple fact that one belongs to a pure race were to bestow, without further ado, a `quality' in the higher sense." Needless to say to that "race" in a limited biological sense is of no value unless an individual should have possession of personal values good to their community.
We believe that the globalist push for uniformity and monocultural/plurlism dictatorship in Western societies stem from capitalism and other universalist philosophies. National Anarchists argue that philosophies such as liberalism and centerist conservatism so prominent in the anarchist movement (and wider society) today not true, the most politically correct, or desirable to implement under all circumstances. This is especially true from a movement that arguably finds itself weaker after one hundred years of history in North America. At this time their are very few options available to anti-statists as the end of the political illusions they argue about gets superseded by the North American Union. We say it's time to divest from the entire capitalist system, do it yourself, grow your own food, live sustainability, develop strong relationships with friends and extended family and help get your people off the grid.
National Anarchism could probably be called Tribal Anarchism in the opinion of this author. It is important to not attach to much importance to labels of the name of the "movement" as long as it contains the above characteristics that is the name I will be using. Other examples of the modes of social organization that come to mind are the pirate utopias, Assassins, and Tong's such as Hakim Bay has written of. Naturally it could be found in religious groups, temporary autonomous zones, trade unions, Pioneer Little Europe, American Indian territories,
ethnic centers, rural or urban areas and polis-like institutions. In less group orientated terms it's developing a deliberately meaningful involvement with friends and extended family that by it's very nature addresses the alienation that capitalism has brought to our communities. Our goal is to deliver the fatal blow to capitalism by divesting it of the means by which it operates. That means forgoing it as much as possible. Certain communities, like the Amish, operate on a social structure that is well suited to living sustainably. Others, like vagabonds and suburbanites, do not.
I'll end with a message of the Situationists,
Needless to say this is how many anarchists view the subject from the seemingly correct scathing of the nationalism that describes that brings on exploitation, slavery, wars, injustice, xenophobia, and racism. Perlman goes into great detail how nationalism has been utilized by both Right and Left wing movements.
Criticisms could be surprising and bold, even to agents of Zionist terrorism are included in the study. I think this book presents a picture of what National Anarchism is not interested in recreating, supporting, or justifying nationalist projects in the wanton events of past and contemporary.
Our view of the guiding influence of liberalism in our society can be surmised by the statement of Oswald Spengler Prussianism and Socialism:
"Liberalism, in its German form, has always stood for mental sterility, for the ignorance and incomprehension of historical necessities. It has meant the inability to cooperate with others or to make sacrifices for others. Its position has always been one of entirely negative criticism, though not as an expression of an indomitable will to change society—as manifested by Bebel’s Socialists—but simply out of the desire to "be different." While our liberals have never been at a loss for "standpoints" to adopt, they have lacked the inner vitality and discipline, the confidence and purposeful vigor that are so characteristic of the English form of liberalism."
Contemporary anarchists and socialists are the same to varying degrees of self importance. Again from Spenglers text, is largely how I see a non-statist characteristic of the nation, speaking of a very different kind of socialism than what is commonly assumed:
"The meaning of socialism is that life is dominated not by the contrast of rich and poor but by rank as determined by achievement and ability. That is our kind of freedom: freedom from the economic capriciousness of the individual. My fervent hope is that no one will remain hidden who was born with the ability to command, and that no one is given the responsibility for commanding who lacks the inborn talent for doing so. Socialism means ability, not desire. Not the quality of intentions but the quality of accomplishments is decisive. I turn to our youth. I call upon all who have marrow in their bones and blood in their veins. Train yourselves! Become men! We need no more ideologists, no more chatter about Bildung and cosmopolitanism and Germany’s intellectual mission. We need hardness, we need a courageous skepticism, we need a class of socialistic mastertypes. Once again: Socialism means power, power, and more power. Thoughts and schemes are nothing without power. The path to power has already been mapped: the valuable elements of German labor in union with the best representatives of the Old Prussian state idea, both groups determined to build a strictly socialist state to democratize our nation in the Prussian manner; both forged into a unit by the same sense of duty, by the awareness of a great obligation, by the will to obey in order to rule, to die in order to win, by the strength to make immense sacrifices in order to accomplish what we were born for, what we are, what could not be without us. We are socialists. Let us hope that it will not have been in vain."
Speaking more about what this means he adds, "To the Prussian way of thinking, the will of the individual is subsumed under the will of the totality. This is not just herd instinct; it is an expression of sublime strength and freedom, something which the outsider can never understand. Even in its proletarian form it rejects the workers of other countries together with their egoistic pseudo-socialism. Servility, snobbishness— these are words for attitudes that are understood and despised signs of degeneration [[to be avoided at all cost]]. The genuine Prussian despises no one; but he is himself feared." A possibly valid criticism is that those principals can't possibly be applied to anti-authoritarianism or if they could it would be undesirable. National Anarchy posits that any post revolutionary area will have zones made of different demographics with different language and or different cultural influences and lifestyles. This will be due to the natural distribution of people or decisions made collectively. We advocate a non violent, tribal, syndicalist/gild based economy with an emphasis on sustainable living, and diplomatic/respectful relations between neighbors, communities, and outlander areas. Each area would surely have local customs for the administration of each area. In contemporary anarchist thought this could be referred to bio-diversity of primitivist decentralist ideas.
As far as race as a "people" is concerned, I think most National Anarchists believe this in regard to the principal of Julius Evola's criticism of racism in Vita Nova: "The error of some extreme `racists' who believe that the return of a race to its ethnic purity ipso facto equals its rebirth as a people consists of exactly this: they treat the human being as if he were a purebred cat, horse, or dog. To an animal, the conservation or restoration of its racial unity (in its narrow definition) can be everything. But it is not so with the human. . . . It would be too convenient if the simple fact that one belongs to a pure race were to bestow, without further ado, a `quality' in the higher sense." Needless to say to that "race" in a limited biological sense is of no value unless an individual should have possession of personal values good to their community.
We believe that the globalist push for uniformity and monocultural/plurlism dictatorship in Western societies stem from capitalism and other universalist philosophies. National Anarchists argue that philosophies such as liberalism and centerist conservatism so prominent in the anarchist movement (and wider society) today not true, the most politically correct, or desirable to implement under all circumstances. This is especially true from a movement that arguably finds itself weaker after one hundred years of history in North America. At this time their are very few options available to anti-statists as the end of the political illusions they argue about gets superseded by the North American Union. We say it's time to divest from the entire capitalist system, do it yourself, grow your own food, live sustainability, develop strong relationships with friends and extended family and help get your people off the grid.
National Anarchism could probably be called Tribal Anarchism in the opinion of this author. It is important to not attach to much importance to labels of the name of the "movement" as long as it contains the above characteristics that is the name I will be using. Other examples of the modes of social organization that come to mind are the pirate utopias, Assassins, and Tong's such as Hakim Bay has written of. Naturally it could be found in religious groups, temporary autonomous zones, trade unions, Pioneer Little Europe, American Indian territories,
ethnic centers, rural or urban areas and polis-like institutions. In less group orientated terms it's developing a deliberately meaningful involvement with friends and extended family that by it's very nature addresses the alienation that capitalism has brought to our communities. Our goal is to deliver the fatal blow to capitalism by divesting it of the means by which it operates. That means forgoing it as much as possible. Certain communities, like the Amish, operate on a social structure that is well suited to living sustainably. Others, like vagabonds and suburbanites, do not.
I'll end with a message of the Situationists,
Young guys, young girls
Talent wanted for getting out of this and playing
No special qualifications
Whither you're beautiful or you're bright
History could be on your side
Talent wanted for getting out of this and playing
No special qualifications
Whither you're beautiful or you're bright
History could be on your side
Like this post? Digg It.
Stumble It!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "The continuing Appeal of Nationalism" by Fredy Perlman, A bio-decentralist response.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://bayareanationalanarchists.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31
3 Comments
Leave a comment
North American New Right Blog
Bay Area National Anarchist Forum
New Right Australia/New Zealand
Rose Noir
Metapedia
FAS / A Nordic National-Anarchist Blog
Folk and Faith
National Anarchist!
Traditionalist Blog
The Spoils of War
San Fransanity
Social War
Republic of South Carolina
Celtic Anarchy
Underprivileged Journalism
Attack The System
Velhametsä
You're prolific! Excellent blog.
You mention in your response to Fredy Pearlman that your goal (and forgive me if this is taken out of context), "is to deliver the fatal blow to capitalism by divesting it of the means by which it operates. That means forgoing it as much as possible. Certain communities, like the Amish, operate on a social structure that is well suited to living sustainably."
How do you see capitalism and the state collapsing by withdrawing into communes or PLE's? How does "withdrawing" overthrow either the state or capital? Isn't this essentially another democratic ideal or version of majority rule with respect to revolutionary tactic?
The problem with situationists, in my mind, is their desire for pure revolutionary moment-- a perfect, non-recouperable, non-reified instant that self-conscious proletarians may seize as their own, repossesing public and private space through spontaneous acts like wildcat strikes and urban riots.
It seems this would limit meaningful action to extremely rare occasions in history because anything short "pure, leaderless contestation", according to situationists, is inherently recouperable and therefore reformist.
If this is our objective, then how do we constitute stable relationships and instutions? It reminds me of "negative dialectics" or Mao's successive "cultural revolutions". What is left behind is neither tradition or community, but society unwinding or caught is a destructive critique of itself.
Is there a more ordinary and less dynamic means for revolution? e.g., Is it possible to generate 'anti-statism' through 'statism'? An example might be the rise and fall of the Polish monarchy. Or the succession of states from the USA during the civil war. Both are case points where states fragmented into smaller polities, dividing these societies into competing fiefs. When a society fragments into political units like 'fiefs' or 'warlords' is it still a state?
"What is the state?" If it is the monopoly of violence, then aren't we speaking of states only until we pass the 14th century? If the monopoly of violence marks the essence of a state, what would true 'anarchy' be? Or does true 'anarchism' refute all definition, and therefore all scrutiny?
How to get from here to there?
Greetings Kaklokard,
"You're prolific! Excellent blog."
Thank you, you raise excellent questions!
"You mention in your response to Fredy Pearlman that your goal (and forgive me if this is taken out of context), "is to deliver the fatal blow to capitalism by divesting it of the means by which it operates. That means forgoing it as much as possible. Certain communities, like the Amish, operate on a social structure that is well suited to living sustainably.
How do you see capitalism and the state collapsing by withdrawing into communes or PLE's? How does "withdrawing" overthrow either the state or capital? Isn't this essentially another democratic ideal or version of majority rule with respect to revolutionary tactic?"
A major problem with the situationists, in my mind, is their desire for pure revolutionary moment-- a perfect, non-recouperable, non-reified instant that self-conscious proletarians may seize as their own, repossesing public and private space through spontaneous acts like wildcat strikes and urban riots."
I don't see state power weakening to any great degree by the establishment of communes or PLEs as the human population in any given country is growing fast enough to be able to replace those consumers who leave the grid. Thats not to say that cooperative intentional communities are ineffective, on the contrary I advocate such actions for people and the reestablishment of tribes among people of Western heritage. As zones beyond direct state control is the primary value of such areas. Needless to say if the people organizing those areas are incapable of making it work or have problems come up that hinder it's development to a fatal degree than the project shouldn't be undertaken IMO (or attempt to jump start failure). Thats the danger and reward of living life how (and with who) you want. In most areas where "anarchy" flourished historically was where people had no other choice but to make due with what resources and options they had.
The Situationists suggestion, even frenzy, as you mention, has in my view, the fatal flaw on relying on so-called spontaneous uprisings. As a tactic and method situ ideas are fine, but all forms of a "pure" situ society only makes sense in an urban setting and even then the suggestions they offer (such as "unitary urbanism") are more in the direction of an art project than everyday life (the last two words chosen to really draw their ire!).
"It seems this would limit meaningful action to extremely rare occasions in history because anything short "pure, leaderless contestation", according to situationists, is inherently recouperable and therefore reformist.
If this is our objective, then how do we constitute stable relationships and instutions? It reminds me of "negative dialectics" or Mao's successive "cultural revolutions". What is left behind is neither tradition or community, but society unwinding or caught is a destructive critique of itself."
And thats what Situationism is at root, a post modern deconstructionist project. This stems from the roots of the movement in the Letterist movement, a rather putrid angst 'against society for societies sake,' like art for arts sake. Reminds me of Trotskys "permanent revolution" too (theres a common factor that connects this angst for those that care to notice it).
"Is there a more ordinary and less dynamic means for revolution? e.g., Is it possible to generate 'anti-statism' through 'statism'? An example might be the rise and fall of the Polish monarchy. Or the succession of states from the USA during the civil war. Both are case points where states fragmented into smaller polities, dividing these societies into competing fiefs. When a society fragments into political units like 'fiefs' or 'warlords' is it still a state?"
Anti-statism through statism is called Marxism :-) and I'm not a fan. Libertarianism of the Ron Paul type is still a weapon of the upper classes on the lower and by default a weapon of globalization. I'm fond of a mix of ideas but as far as being able to "whither away" state control I'm fond of syndicalism (essp. national syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism is exclusively internationalist/globalist by definition) advocates that the means of industry be self managed by the workers as much as possible but still allow the use of limited private ownership. This was espoused by the Fascist government of Mussolini and the Falangists of Spain but in practice became reactionary in those regimes and dominated by the ruling class and turned into an instrument of state repression. That isn't to say that it isn't workable though. The IWW is an American anarcho-syndicalist union.
""What is the state?" If it is the monopoly of violence, then aren't we speaking of states only until we pass the 14th century? If the monopoly of violence marks the essence of a state, what would true 'anarchy' be? Or does true 'anarchism' refute all definition, and therefore all scrutiny?
How to get from here to there?"
I like Lenin's definition of what the State is in his essay State and Revolution: the state is a weapon. The monopoly of violence in society is it's most vaunted ability of it's power. The modern nation state has it's origin in the 14th century but I like to specify the state as conceived in France after the French Revolution as the particular type of entity we have to contend with today.
I don't believe the following statements about anarchy: "pure anarchy," "unlimited liberty," "negation of responsibility," "absolute anti-social individualism," "anarchy utopia," or rejecting organization and self-discipline.
On the contrary I see anarchy as a a militant discipline of self, family, clan, and community as characterized by a libertarian Prussian kameradschaft and volkgemeinschaft. At least thats how I want it :-)
The first step to get from here to there is to find your tribe, strengthen what binds it together, let no one and no cause be allowed to threaten it, and divest from everything that prevents it's complete autonomy of action in time and space. As freedom of latitude increases (i.e., such as having food to eat and clothes to wear acquired without the use of money) expand into each area of life until all needs are met without cash and capital.
How do you see capitalism and the state collapsing by withdrawing into communes or PLE's? How does "withdrawing" overthrow either the state or capital? Isn't this essentially another democratic ideal or version of majority rule with respect to revolutionary tactic?
The way I see the beginning of a gradual decentralisation of the State is the acquiring of property by N-A collectives with the intention of living in them and using them as a Syndicalist organised business as well. We use these properties to become as self-sufficient as possible, down to the point where the only money we're paying to the State is property rates. We also use these properties to make money to not only feed/clothe the community but also to make more money to fund the N-A activist projects in that community.
Part of the money made will go in to purchasing more property, not only in the cities but also in rural areas, all owned equally by the collective with the interests of the collective put first. The collective could optionally decide to also help fund N-A collectives in other regions also, a sort of N-A International, though each collective will retain complete sovereignty of their own community.
The problem with situationists, in my mind, is their desire for pure revolutionary moment-- a perfect, non-recouperable, non-reified instant that self-conscious proletarians may seize as their own, repossesing public and private space through spontaneous acts like wildcat strikes and urban riots.
The problem I see with riots, strikes and takeovers is that rather than being a revolution by the people and for the people it can very quickly degenerate in to a Coup/Putsch by the minority who will then enforce their will/ideals upon an unwilling majority. Any sort of revolution must be at the will of the people, not of one particular group.
Is there a more ordinary and less dynamic means for revolution? e.g., Is it possible to generate 'anti-statism' through 'statism'? An example might be the rise and fall of the Polish monarchy. Or the succession of states from the USA during the civil war. Both are case points where states fragmented into smaller polities, dividing these societies into competing fiefs. When a society fragments into political units like 'fiefs' or 'warlords' is it still a state?
I think the only way we can destroy the State is by using Private Ownership against it, the collective must become the Landlords, become the Business Owners and also must become the Bankers until those in the State no longer have any power. We must gradually decentralise until the State no longer exists and until Capital and even Currency is no longer needed.
"What is the state?" If it is the monopoly of violence, then aren't we speaking of states only until we pass the 14th century? If the monopoly of violence marks the essence of a state, what would true 'anarchy' be? Or does true 'anarchism' refute all definition, and therefore all scrutiny?
The State is the institution that makes us pay to live within it's borders, it makes us die to protect it's interests, it makes us follow it's laws/orders to avoid being punished by it's enforcers. The State is the monopoly of Capital, it is the monopoly of everything within it's borders.
Until the people begin using it's own policies against itself!
Regards
NA23.