A 1ª Conferência da ASN ( anarchist studies network ) começou ontem ( 4 de Setembro) na Universidade de Loughborough, no Reino Unido, prolongando-se até amanhã, dia 6 de Setembro.
A ASN ( anarchist studies network), entidade promotora e organizadora da Conferência, é um grupo especializado da PSA, Political Studies Association do Reino Unido. O seu principal objectivo é promover e coordenar o estudo e a pesquisa sobre o anarquismo, enquanto ideologia política.
Estão confirmadas as presenças de
Ruth Kinna, editor da importante e conhecida revista “Anarchist Studies”;
David Graeber, antropólogo anarquista e autor de *Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology*;
Sasha Roseneil, autora de *Common Women, Uncommon Practices: The Queer Feminisms of Greenham*;
Saul Newman, autor de *From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power*;
John Jordan, co-editor de *We Are Everywhere: The Irresistible Rise of Global Anti-Capitalism*, e co-fundador da Clandestine Rebel Insurgent Clown Army.
A realização desta Conferência insere-se precisamente nesses objectivos, promovendo a inter-comunicação entre os participantes, estimulando a criação e o desenvolvimento de redes, bem assim a compreensão do anarquismo. A Conferência está aberta a todos quantos se interessam pelos estutods anarquistas (anarchist studies)
Consultar:
http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/
http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/here
http://raforum.info/article.php3?id_article=4496
http://www.veggies.org.uk/event.php?ref=1331
O que são e como apareceram os «anarchist studies»?
No seguimento do colapso da União Soviética, e por sua causa, o desaparecimento de uma ordem mundial baseada na tensão entre o poder norte-americano e o soviético, um certo número de intelectuais proclamou ( mais uma vez) que a era das «ideologias» terminara, e que a democracia liberal e o capitalismo tinham ganho, não existindo outras opções políticas e económicas credíveis para o futuro. Muita energia fora despendida nos chamados «new social movements» que emergiram nos anos sessenta e setenta, e que acabaram por se institucionalizar, acomodando-se ao sistema, pelo que o ambientalismo e as outras formas de identidade política («identity politics») deixaram de constituir desafios radicais para o status quo, e muito menos para um verdadeiro «movimento» revolucionário.
Duas décadas depois esta cómoda perspectiva está ultrapassada.Cerca de um terço da população mundial vive em Estados fracassados ( «Failed states»); o direito e a ordem internacional caíram no descrédito; as tensões ligadas ao ecossistemas planetários não param de aumentar; o mercado global balança entre a exuberância irracional e uma crise larvar. Os senhores do mundo actual não se deslocam a nenhum lado sem um enorme aparato policial e militar; aonde quer que se desloquem, multidões de manifestantes irrompem e expressam a sua contestação. Muitos deles falam a este propósito não de um Movimento, mas de «um movimento de movimentos», que não se reconhecem na presente ordem mundial. Tornou-se também uma observação comum que, sob pena de uma total incompreensão do que está a acontecer, a novidade destas forças só pode ser devidamente compreendida através da sua ligação a uma antiga tradição política, que teria sido submergida por alturas da Revolução Russa e das primeiras conquistas do movimento sufragista das mulheres, e que se convertera a não mais que uma simples recordação ou epíteto: o anarquismo.
Não deixa de ser profundamente irónico que actualmente haja mais pessoas fora das academias do que dentro delas que se insiram dentro daquela tradição Não deixa de ser profundamente irónico que actualmente haja mais pessoas fora das academias do que dentro delas que se insiram dentro daquela tradição, e por outro lado, são cada vez em maior número as referências ao anarquismo, apesar de dispersas e muito discretas, no discurso académico.
Como quer que seja, o certo é que nas últimas duas décadas, académicos e investigadores têm pouco a pouco redescoberto o significado histórico do anarquismo que, tal como nos lembra Benedict Anderson aos seus colegas historiadores, foi o principal meio de oposição global ao capitalismo industrial, à autocracia, aos latifundiários e ao imperialismo.
Foi assim que os investigadores começaram a estudar a influência do anarquismo nas lutas de libertação nacional na Coreia e nas Filipinas, no movimento pelo controle de nascimentos desde Barcelona a Bóston, na história laboral da América Latina, na vida dos imigrantes judeus, no desenvolvimento e evolução da moderna sociologia e geografia, na Resistência Francesa, nos debates sobre a eugenia e o social Darwinismo, na arte moderna e na Escola Moderna, no cinema de vanguarda, na música popular, e nas próprias revoluções da Rússia, México e China.
Não falta, aliás, interesse em revisitar antigos documentos do pensamento de esquerda para entender a emergência de movimentos anarquistas, sacudindo o pó de velhas ideias, à procura de novas perspectivas e horizontes. Longe de constituírem os «rebeldes primitivos» com posições anti-intelectuais, a verdade é que os anarquistas têm produzido um riquíssimo discurso crítico relativamente a todos os aspectos da vida e do conhecimento, desde a economia até à linguística, da história social à teoria estética, passando pelo planeamento urbano e a ontologia – um verdadeiro património contra-institucional que só superficialmente tem sido investigado pelos académicos. Para além do aumento de teses e publicações académicas directamente vinculadas ao pensamento anarquistas, tem-se registado uma tendência dos estudiosos para se inspirarem naquelas ideias, encarando o seu trabalho como uma extensão da teoria e da prática anarquista. Para alguns deles, aquilo a que chamamos «estudos anarquistas» ( anarchist studies) não adopta necessariamente o anarquismo como o seu objecto de estudo, mas antes uma perspectiva para estudar o mundo e a realidade. Mais a mais, contributos anarquistas reapareceram em numerosos domínios do pensamento e da pesquisa, questionando e desafiando as ortodoxias estabelecidas. Provavelmente, contra todas as previsões, estamos assistindo à emergência de um novo paradigma anarquista na academia.
Para que esse paradigma possa desenvolver-se e ter futuro torna-se indispensável dar passos para a sua consolidação e conquistar espaços nas instituições existentes, ao mesmo tempo que tomar as cautelas devidas para não ser absorvido por aquelas insituições.
Assim, a Rede de Estudos Anarquistas ( Anarchist Studies Network) procura:
1) promover e fomentar um renovado interesse pelo pensamento anarquista estimulando o estudo do anarquismo como prática e teoria política modernas, através das várias áreas disciplinares, tanto dentro como fora da esfera académica
2) criação de um fórum interdisciplinar onde estejam presentes estudantes e professores, assim como investigadores independentes de todo o mundo
3) criação de uma plataforma que promova o anarquismo como concepção vital, viável e instrumento de análise, bem como um paradigma pedagógio para o século XXI.
Para concretizar tais objectivos a ASN ( anarchist studies network) procurará organizar seminários (a fim dos estudantes e investigadores académicos poderem apresentar os seus trabalhos) ; conferências anuais sobre o legado e o trabalho dos anarquistas, a história do anarquismo, a prática anarquista contemporânea, e o potencial contributo do anarquismo para as mudanças políticas e económicas; a ligação entre especialistas de várias áreas disciplinares de estudo, e o reforço do seu relacionamento com grupos existentes fora da esfera universitária, quer os que estejam virados para o activismo quer para os que se movem na vida intelectual pública; uma maior mais vasta coordenação dos projectos de pesquisa sobre o anarquismo, tudo isto como forma de revigorar o interesse pelo estudo do anarquismo nas universidades e instituições académicas.
Para esta Conferência vão ser apresentados trabalhos dentro dos seguintes tópicos e painéis
Anarchism and Political Science
Anarchisms
Anarchist Praxis
Anarchism and Pedagogy
Anarchism and Ethics
Anarchism and Political Economy
Anarchism and Representation
Anarchism and Psychoanalysis
The Possibility of an Anarchist Psychoanalysis
___________________________________________________________
TRABALHOS QUE VÃO SER APRESENTADOS:
Anarchism and Political Science
Painéis:
1) Anarchist Approaches in Empirical Political Analysis
Whilst anarchism is increasingly becoming a popular object of investigation – including studies of the key thinkers, ideas and empirical developments within the broad anarchist ‘movement’ – an alternative way in which to incorporate anarchist perspectives in contemporary study is to use anarchist ideas to inform analysis of empirical developments. Indeed, anarchist ideas, such as the inherently coercive nature of the state, the impossibility of representation, and the enhanced productivity achieved through mutual cooperation, are able to inform interesting lines of theory-building, empirical inquiry, and hypothesis construction, which might provide important insights into developments across the social and political world. Despite this, within many academic debates the anarchist perspective is almost entirely absent. This panel aims to bring together people interested in applying anarchist arguments to the study of empirical political phenomenon, and thereby facilitating the development of a more vibrant anarchist perspective within contemporary political analysis. As such, it might include papers providing anarchist perspectives on political behaviour, political institutions, comparative political analysis, international relations, and/or (international) political economy.
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Jean Allain, 'Anarchy and International Law: The Approaches of Hedley Bull and Noam Chomsky'
Polly Pallister-Wilkins, 'Building a New Theory in the Shell of the Old: How Anarchism Offers an Alternative to the Limits of Social Movement Theory'
______________________________________________________
This panel stream will look at whether and how Proudhon's thought is still relevant to contemporary anarchist praxis in a number of different fields. Contributors to this panel stream expressed interest in this project in early 2007. The papers from these workshop session will be published to mark Proudhon's bi-centenary in 2009
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Jesse Cohn, 'The Logic of Things': Meaning and Immanence in Proudhon's ''De la Justice''
Sophie Chambost 'The Value of Proudhon's Thought for Contemporary Debates about Democracy'
Alex Prichard, 'Proudhon's Political Theory'
_____________________________________________________
Anarchisms
Painéis:
Religious anarchism, especially Christian anarchism, has been around for at least as long as “secular” anarchism. The academic literature tells us that Leo Tolstoy is its most famous proponent, but there are many others, such as Jacques Ellul or the Catholic Workers. There are also anarchists in other religious traditions, but these are almost completely omitted by anarchist literature.
One of the aims of this panel is to bring together enough religious anarchists – or people interested in it – in order to begin a conversation and an exchange of ideas on the topic. This would also work towards establishing the religious anarchist voice within anarchist academic writings. It is therefore both about bringing religious anarchists together as about placing religious anarchism on the broader map of anarchist thought and practice.
Although the literature tends to focus more on Christian anarchism, this predominance need not be repeated here – indeed, the more anarchists from other traditions, the better.
Contributions are also welcome from “practitioners” as much as from theorists. Both on the internet and in the streets, a number of people and groups have been discussing and exemplifying religious anarchism. Papers exploring this activity are welcome.
Also, although not the primary focus of the panel(s), papers on the often uneasy relation between religion and anarchism are also welcome.
Finally, please note that this list of subtopics is not exhaustive. If you are considering presenting a paper on an area of religious anarchism not discussed above, please do not hesitate to contact the convenor.
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Alex Christoyannopoloulos, 'Responding to the State: Romans 13, “render unto Caesar” and the question of civil disobedience'
Keith Hebden, 'Towards a subversive foreignness in Dalit theology'
John Rapp, 'Anarchism or Nihilism? The Buddhist-Influenced Thought of Wu Nengzi'
__________________________________________________
2) Libertarian Communism
Anarchism and Marxism are routinely depicted as being irreconcilable and hostile worldviews in introductory texts, histories of socialism, and in much of the dominant literature. While anarchists and Marxists share the end goal of a post-capitalist society defined in part by the common ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the wage system and the destruction of the state, differing perspectives on the role and nature of the state and the agents and the organizational forms required to carry out a radical social transformation are often cited as key areas dividing anarchists from Marxists both in theory and practice. A turbulent history between the two from the schism in the First International to the proletarian revolutions at the beginning of the 20th century, notably in Russia and Spain, would seem to further bolster the assertion that anarchism and Marxism are incompatible.
However, a cursory glance at radical social movements through the last century reveals a number of individuals and organizations that defy strict classification into either camp. Joseph Dietzgen, William Morris, Anton Pannekoek, Guy Aldred, Daniel Guerin, Maximilien Rubel, and Noam Chomsky, among others, have to varying degrees combined an anarchist critique of hierarchy and authoritarian social and political relations with a Marxist critique of the capitalist mode of production and alienated labour. Similarly, the anarchist/Marxist distinction has been blurred by organizations and radical social movements ranging from the Industrial Workers of the World and the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation to post-68 European autonomist social struggles and the Zapatistas. Recently, John Holloway, author of “Change the World Without Taking Power”, has stated that in the post-Soviet era “the old divisions between anarchism and Marxism are being eroded.”
The tendency for various anarchisms and marxisms to converge has been largely overlooked in the academic community. To these ends, the libertarian communist panel aims to investigate the intersections between historical and contemporary anarchist and Marxist currents including, but not limited to, anarcho-communism, revolutionary syndicalism, autonomist and libertarian Marxism, council communism, social ecology/communalism, and Situationism. Possible topics might include:
- anarchist and Marxist perspectives on revolutionary organization
- the work of Martin Glaberman, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, and/or other heterodox Marxists emerging from post-WWII Trotskyism
- anarchism, autonomism, and class struggle organizing outside of the “point of production”
- the dialectic of spontaneity and organization in emergent social forms – councils, syndicates, communes, assemblies, informal workplace organization
- the history of the German autonomen
- anarchist and Marxist theories of the state and capital
- the work of Murray Bookchin
- theories of workers’ self-management and non-market socialism
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Patrick Baud, 'Reductionist Misreadings of Althusser in Richard Day and Saul Newman's Postanarchism(s)'
Martin Miller, 'Anarchists in the State: New Perspectives on Russian Anarchist Participation in the Bolshevik Government, 1917-1919'
Simon Boxley, 'Red, Black and Green: Dietzgen’s Philosophy Across the Divide'
Tom Purcell, 'Beyond subjective idealism and the negative scream: revolutionary subjectivity in Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution'
Abstracts
___________________________________________________
Alex Christoyannopoloulos, 'Responding to the State: Romans 13, “render unto Caesar” and the question of civil disobedience'
Keith Hebden, 'Towards a subversive foreignness in Dalit theology'
John Rapp, 'Anarchism or Nihilism? The Buddhist-Influenced Thought of Wu Nengzi'
__________________________________________________
2) Libertarian Communism
Anarchism and Marxism are routinely depicted as being irreconcilable and hostile worldviews in introductory texts, histories of socialism, and in much of the dominant literature. While anarchists and Marxists share the end goal of a post-capitalist society defined in part by the common ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the wage system and the destruction of the state, differing perspectives on the role and nature of the state and the agents and the organizational forms required to carry out a radical social transformation are often cited as key areas dividing anarchists from Marxists both in theory and practice. A turbulent history between the two from the schism in the First International to the proletarian revolutions at the beginning of the 20th century, notably in Russia and Spain, would seem to further bolster the assertion that anarchism and Marxism are incompatible.
However, a cursory glance at radical social movements through the last century reveals a number of individuals and organizations that defy strict classification into either camp. Joseph Dietzgen, William Morris, Anton Pannekoek, Guy Aldred, Daniel Guerin, Maximilien Rubel, and Noam Chomsky, among others, have to varying degrees combined an anarchist critique of hierarchy and authoritarian social and political relations with a Marxist critique of the capitalist mode of production and alienated labour. Similarly, the anarchist/Marxist distinction has been blurred by organizations and radical social movements ranging from the Industrial Workers of the World and the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation to post-68 European autonomist social struggles and the Zapatistas. Recently, John Holloway, author of “Change the World Without Taking Power”, has stated that in the post-Soviet era “the old divisions between anarchism and Marxism are being eroded.”
The tendency for various anarchisms and marxisms to converge has been largely overlooked in the academic community. To these ends, the libertarian communist panel aims to investigate the intersections between historical and contemporary anarchist and Marxist currents including, but not limited to, anarcho-communism, revolutionary syndicalism, autonomist and libertarian Marxism, council communism, social ecology/communalism, and Situationism. Possible topics might include:
- anarchist and Marxist perspectives on revolutionary organization
- the work of Martin Glaberman, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, and/or other heterodox Marxists emerging from post-WWII Trotskyism
- anarchism, autonomism, and class struggle organizing outside of the “point of production”
- the dialectic of spontaneity and organization in emergent social forms – councils, syndicates, communes, assemblies, informal workplace organization
- the history of the German autonomen
- anarchist and Marxist theories of the state and capital
- the work of Murray Bookchin
- theories of workers’ self-management and non-market socialism
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Patrick Baud, 'Reductionist Misreadings of Althusser in Richard Day and Saul Newman's Postanarchism(s)'
Martin Miller, 'Anarchists in the State: New Perspectives on Russian Anarchist Participation in the Bolshevik Government, 1917-1919'
Simon Boxley, 'Red, Black and Green: Dietzgen’s Philosophy Across the Divide'
Tom Purcell, 'Beyond subjective idealism and the negative scream: revolutionary subjectivity in Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution'
Abstracts
___________________________________________________
Anarchist Praxis
Painéis:
What is the meaning of revolution today? From the French Revolution through much of the twentieth century, both the theory and practice of revolution was dominated by the assumption that the violent seizure of state power was the defining characteristic of revolutionary change. In recent years, this assumption has increasingly been called into question by a wide range of thinkers and activists from across the radical political spectrum. Yet only a small minority appear to recognise the extent to which recent developments were anticipated by the words and deeds of certain anarchist revolutionaries over a century ago. As a result, a rich and diverse corpus of anarchist revolutionary experience has been neglected, and its relevance to the contemporary world overlooked.
By way of contribution to the process of remedying this historical amnesia and generating fresh ideas rooted in critical reflection on the past, we invite paper proposals for a series of Anarchist Studies Network conference panels on the theme of "Re-Imagining Revolution". More specifically, the aim of the panels is to creatively re-imagine the concept of revolution in ways relevant to the times in which we live, with a particular emphasis on the distinctive contributions and limitations of anarchism - both classical and contemporary - and anarchist(ic) variants of contemporary counter-cultural social movements.
While there is no restriction on possible paper topics, proposals informed by feminist, anti-racist, ecological, pacifist, utopian, romantic, and non-Western anarchist perspectives are particularly welcome. So, too, are papers that promise to illuminate the relationship between the "personal" and the "political" aspects of revolutionary change; its joyous, witty, sensuous, playful, and aesthetic dimensions; the possibilities for combining revolutionary spontaneity and organisation; the conception of revolution as a process unfolding over time rather than a singular cataclysmic event; and the roles of direct action, prefigurative politics, non-violent struggle and organised non-cooperation, countercultural communal experiments and alternative lifestyles, affinity groups and networks, social centres and co-operatives, skill sharing and the practice of mutual aid, utopian imagination, Luddism, and the qualitative transformation of work in generating radically open-ended, popular, organic, constructive, and creative forms of revolutionary change.
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Eduardo Colombo, The Revolution, A concept dissolvable in postmodernity'
Benjamin Franks, 'Revolutionary Modesty'
Peter Seyferth, 'CrimethInc.’s Lifestyle Anarchism: Is it Revolutionary or Just a Petty-Bourgeois Prank?'
Stefano Boni, ' The ‘osmotic’ revolution: contemporary libertarian praxis in Tuscany (Italy)'
Marcelo Vieta, 'Autogestión in Argentina's Worker-Recuperated Enterprises: The Possibilities and Challenges for Self-Management'
__________________________________________________________
- What kind of long term grass roots activity is needed if people are to be successful in standing up for their collective interests against those of governments and capitalism? - How can communities develop alternative ideas, ongoing mutual aid and solidarity, strong grass roots organisation, and effective social movements capable of taking control over local decision-making and resources and creating an anarchist society? - What are the postive examples we can get inspiration from and learn from, and the potential pitfalls to avoid?
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Dave Morris and Nick Durie
____________________________________________
3 - Anarchism and Climate Change
Topics for discussion on ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE for a panel session at the 1st ASN Conference.
1. CLIMATE CHANGE • IPCC report and scientific projections (general critic, climate debt from North to South) • Energy production and CO2 emissions (coal, oil) • Transport and CO2 emissions (bio fuels, hydrogen cells)
2. CAPITALIST PROPOSALS • Expansion of free market economy (Stern report) • International agreements on reduction of emissions (Kyoto protocol, Bali talks) • Proposals for energy production and CO2 emissions - Carbon technologies (carbon capture) - Efficiency increase of carbon fuelled plants - Efficiency increase in consumption - Transition to new technologies where associated costs are paid by the consumer (eco taxes, quotas, economic evaluation of environment) - Nuclear proposal to answer increase in energy demand
3. ECOLOGY AND THE COMMONS • Murray Bookchin and social ecology (authoritarian structures) • Joel Kovel and ecosocialism (production process) • Hugo Blanco and indigenous collectivism (ecocentric values)
4. RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND MICROGRIDS • Energy production from wind, sun, biomass, biogas, water • Characteristics of microgrids (autonomous electricity systems and decentralised networks) - Decentralised - Small scale, local and community based - Directly democratic planning - Easy to use technology, plug and play - DIY renewable energy sources - Consumer becomes producer
5. COMBINING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRUGGLES • In the global north - Pressure against state and capital - Local self organised initiatives towards decentralised energy production • In the global south - Renewable energy production to help satisfy basic needs and strengthen the autonomy of local movements
• Unity of north and south through global decentralised solidarity networks (Peoples Global Action, Social Forums, Via Campesina, Other Campaign and the Sixth International, etc ) • Global exchange of technical knowledge, funds (north) and communal, ecocentric values (south)
Topics for discussion on ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE for a panel session at the 1st ASN Conference.
1. CLIMATE CHANGE • IPCC report and scientific projections (general critic, climate debt from North to South) • Energy production and CO2 emissions (coal, oil) • Transport and CO2 emissions (bio fuels, hydrogen cells)
2. CAPITALIST PROPOSALS • Expansion of free market economy (Stern report) • International agreements on reduction of emissions (Kyoto protocol, Bali talks) • Proposals for energy production and CO2 emissions - Carbon technologies (carbon capture) - Efficiency increase of carbon fuelled plants - Efficiency increase in consumption - Transition to new technologies where associated costs are paid by the consumer (eco taxes, quotas, economic evaluation of environment) - Nuclear proposal to answer increase in energy demand
3. ECOLOGY AND THE COMMONS • Murray Bookchin and social ecology (authoritarian structures) • Joel Kovel and ecosocialism (production process) • Hugo Blanco and indigenous collectivism (ecocentric values)
4. RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND MICROGRIDS • Energy production from wind, sun, biomass, biogas, water • Characteristics of microgrids (autonomous electricity systems and decentralised networks) - Decentralised - Small scale, local and community based - Directly democratic planning - Easy to use technology, plug and play - DIY renewable energy sources - Consumer becomes producer
5. COMBINING SOCIAL JUSTICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STRUGGLES • In the global north - Pressure against state and capital - Local self organised initiatives towards decentralised energy production • In the global south - Renewable energy production to help satisfy basic needs and strengthen the autonomy of local movements
• Unity of north and south through global decentralised solidarity networks (Peoples Global Action, Social Forums, Via Campesina, Other Campaign and the Sixth International, etc ) • Global exchange of technical knowledge, funds (north) and communal, ecocentric values (south)
______________________________________________
Anarchism and Pedagogy
Painel:
This panel will be both substantive, by focusing on the origins of anarcho-communism, and pedagogical in terms of thinking about strategies for teaching and research on anarchism.
___________________________________________________________
Anarchism and Ethics
Painéis:
1)Anarchist Ethics, Responsibility and Health
Anarchism as a creative political solution ought to have something serious to contribute on questions of health. This can be broadly construed in terms of ecological health or narrowly focussing on human health. Why is there not more explicit discussion on health in the context of anarchist thought?
In this panel we can use the opportunity to:
Explore the perspective provided by anarchist ideas on ethics and responsibility to see if they can be useful in pursuing the goal of individual health promotion in terms of but not restricted to the patient-led NHS model. Where anarchism promotes individual freedom, autonomy and responsible action in its ethical outlook, some key problems and challenges for discussion arise.
Firstly, such a stance, if used to support improving individual lifestyle choices, has to deal with the difficult issues of consumer choice.
Secondly the role of the state viewed by some forms of anarchism as fundamentally limiting human freedom, so how does this sit with the role of the state in the promotion of healthy lifestyles?
Thirdly, individual freedom in anarchist thought needs to be robust enough to dispense with consumer ‘freedom’, which is arguably at the root of many unhealthy lifestyles and behaviours. An emphasis on a responsible individualism however, can easily neglect the relationship between health and social responsibility.
A fourth is to see if an anarchist conception of individual responsibility with regard to the promotion of healthy lifestyle can be successful at the in-group/community level.
_________________________________________________
2) Listening
Deleuze spoke of "the indignity of speaking for others." Resisting any clear distinction between the personal and the political, this panel aims to explore the dignity of listening to others speak for themselves(and of being listened to). Although not usually set out in these terms, listening can be understood as a key ethic/practice of anarchist(ic) traditions. For ecological anarchisms, including primitivist, permaculturist, pagan and those inspired by deep ecology, this is expressed through listening to the land, to acknowledging the connection between human and more than human worlds. In the Zapatista's Other Campaign, it is demonstrated through a focus on listening to the struggles of others and supporting their capacity for autonomy rather than electoral campaigns to become representatives. In anarcha-feminisms and radical psychologies, learning to listen to oneself, to acknowledge one's own emotions and needs, is crucial to unlearning a patriarchal hierarchy of the rational over the emotional and to resist individualising pathologisation. Listening is also central to anarchist cultural politics, and political culture, in areas such as music and storytelling. Proposals for papers and other forms of presentation on any aspect of listening in relation to anarchism are welcome.
___________________________________________________________
Anarchist thought and ethics has always been intimately interconnected, whether in the overt discussions of ethics found in the works of the classical anarchist such as William Godwin and Peter Kropotkin, or in the moral language which infuses the discussions and debate of contemporary activists in their assessment of agency, methods and goals.
The Anarchist Studies Network is organising a conference and invites submissions for panels on Anarchism and Moral Philosophy, whether in terms of meta-ethics (such what is the status of ethical judgements? From where do they derive?), normative ethics (such as what are the moral principles that distinguish anarchism from other movements? Is Nozickian libertarianism compatible with anarchism?) and applied ethics (when is direct action justifiable? Is the exploitation of animals more important than the exploitation of humans?).
Whilst this call for papers is directed at those thinkers with specialist interests in moral philosophy, in keeping with the openness and questioning of disciplinary and social divisions we also welcome submissions and contributions from who cross disciplinary boundaries and those outside of academia.
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Andrew Beck, 'Anarchism, Society and Knowledge: An Anarchist Ethical Approach to Learning'
Kory DeClark, 'Autonomy, Taxation and Ownership: An Anarchist Critique of Kant’s Theory of Property'
Niall Scott, Anarchist Ethics, Responsibility and Health'
Paul McLaughlin, 'In Defence of Philosophical Anarchism'
Seferin James, 'The Reduction and the State'
Sébastien Caré, 'Anarcho-capitalism and Moral Philosophy: Deontological versus Consequentialist Ethics'
Stephen Condit, 'ECOSOPHY AND THE ANARCHIST CHARACTER'
Benjamin Franks, 'Anarchism: Ethics and Meta-Ethics'
Matt Wilson, 'Freedom Pressed: Anarchism, LIberalism and Conflict'
Individual Paper Abstracts
Alex Prichard
'The Moral Sociology of War: A Tentative Vindication of Proudhon and Kropotkin'
This paper looks at recent developments in the evolutionary and social psychology of morality, to argue that many of Kropotkin and Proudhon's key assumptions about the nature of morality and of sociology have been borne out by contemporary analysis. My case study will be the literature on military psychology and post traumatic stress, non-firing in the military and military cultures. In each area we will see that Proudhon and Kropotkin were both remarkably perceptive. As Proudhon argued, transformations in military technology would clash with a basic human psychology and the 'reciprocal slaughtergrounds' of modern warfare would prompt new ways of legitimising and ordering social force. As military technology changes, so too will the social forces generated to restrain them. As modes of social force restrain military power, new forms of fighting will develop. Consistently high levels of non-firing and the persistence of 'buddy groups' within the military suggest that an appropriate methodological and normative approach to these issues can be found in Kropotkin’s theory of ‘mutual aid’. I will suggest that a more coherent attitude for anarchists vis-à-vis the military ought to be one of active campaigning for the health and human rights of individuals systematically trained and ordered to kill and be killed. What the modern literature suggests is that this training is vital to overcoming basic human resistance to killing and fighting. The paper will thus argue that a basic, if evolved, human nature informs our moral choices. However, following both Proudhon and Kropotkin, rather than assert whether this nature is either good or bad, this paper will suggest that a basic conception of morality, human reflex and mutuality can provide a more coherent basis for the critique of war, moral philosophy, domination and exploitation extant in contemporary (post)modern anarchist literature.
Andrew Beck
Anarchism, Society and Knowledge: An Anarchist Ethical Approach to Learning
In his work The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge Jean-François Lyotard comments on the nature of knowledge: “Knowledge in the form of an informational commodity indispensable to productive power is already, and will continue to be, a major—perhaps the major—stake in the world wide competition for power. It is conceivable that the nation-states will one day fight for control of information, just as they battled in the past for control over territory, and afterwards for control of access to and exploitation of raw materials and cheap labor” (5). He continues on later in the same work to emphasize that, “the question of the State becomes intimately entwined with that of scientific knowledge,” and that, “the question of the legitimacy of science has been indissociable linked to that of the legitimation of the legislator” (31, 8). Working with the ideas of Lyotard and other theories on the nature of learning and knowledge, and its relationship to society, I will argue that in an anarchist society a moral imperative exists for individuals to actively pursue knowledge of all types, and to facilitate the learning of others. This pursuit and support of learning is important both on the practical level as a mechanism that can function as a binding agent within a society, and on the sociopolitical level as a way for the public to reclaim the role as the legitimizer of knowledge and insure that an elite cannot be formed through controlling access to knowledge and education. In a society where intellectual activity has become an important element in production, allowing equal access to the education necessary for such work, is important yet insufficient. Unlike other means of production, such as a factory, knowledge is largely intangible and will quickly vanish if it is not passed on. Because of this, and its potential to be used as leverage to control or manipulate groups of people which do not possess it, when one learns they both preserve knowledge that is important for the community as a whole, and insure the inability of any individual, minority group to dominate other members of the society. These characteristics are at the root of the moral nature of learning.
Costas Athanasopoulos
Duty and Anarchism: Why the Anarchist has a duty to disregard the state.
The paper will investigate through a discussion of a recent exposition and critique of both political and philosophical anarchism (Knowles 2001 and forthcoming) why the anarchist core thesis may be regarded as problematic in making the claim that the citizen has no duty to obey the state. Through a more sympathetic reading of key texts from Kropotkin, Proudhon, Tolstoy, Sartre and Gandhi however, an alternative view of anarchism will be supported, according to which there are other (ethical) considerations besides citizenship which necessitate a different kind of duty for the anarchist: the duty to disregard the state when it comes to ethical choices and perspectives, which ultimately may lead to the political duty of disobeying the state law and of subverting social norms and customs.
Benjamin Franks
Anarchist Meta-Ethics
The distinction between the competing versions of anarchism, can often be identified through their distinctive normative ethical and meta-ethical approaches. Whilst individualist (or philosophical anarchism) appeals to deontological theories (such as Robert Wolff), social anarchism is often either consequentialist (Sergei Nechayev) or prefigurative, and the latter of these is consistent with practise-based virtue ethics. There are, however, important meta-ethical differences between different ethical positions, which have rarely been considered. There is a central tension between Moral Realist position (that moral statements are objectively verifiable based on universal standards (Smith, 2001:399-409), amoralist position (in which ethical theories are irrelevant to political debates) and a narrow subjectivist position (right and wrong just a matter of individual opinion). The latter has more recently been endorsed by theorists, such as Saul Newman, interested in the intersection of poststructuralism with anarchism (often referred to as postanarchists).
The strengths and weaknesses of these competing meta-ethical is assessed to show that neither moral realism, subjectivism or amoralism is sufficient for anti-hierarchical practices, and a modest (multi-)functionalism (a view that values can be assessed in relation to particular arenas, which intersect, and whose standards adapt) is proposed as an alternative.
Jones Irwin
Is Nietzsche an Anarchist? – Some Reflections on the Affinity Between Nietzschean Thought and Anarchism
Friedrich Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals polemically deconstructs the history of Western moralisms, and demonstrates much of their underlying hypocrises and implicit power plays. In this measure, at least this part of Nietzsche’s philosophical project can be seen as anarchist, and analogous to the critique which Bakunin puts forward of the residual power relations in the Marxist emancipatory project. For Nietzsche, the irony is that the philosophies which most claim to be virtuous and moral are those which precisely emasculate their own hidden will-to-power.
In this paper, I will take cognisance of this Nietzschean claim, which has also been central to the development of anarchist thought – a suspicion of authority, and especially when it presents itself as supposedly benevolent and good. Within a general anarchist tradition, the value of authority per se is contested and this can provide a crucial framework for understanding key elements of Nietzsche’s own work.
However, tensions in the affinity between Nietzschean thought and anarchism are also evident on both sides. From an anarchist perspective, certain motifs within Nietzsche’s texts such a the Eternal Return or the Ubermensch risk a falling back into metaphysics or mysticism while, from a Nietzschean perspective, the moral imperative of anarchism might be subjected to the same critique Nietzsche applies to other forms of ethics.
The paper will conclude with a reflection on how this debate is played out in a more contemporary setting, concerning both affinities and disaffinities in the respective influences of neo-Nietzscheanism and neo-anarchism on current French political theory.
Matt Wilson
Freedom, Conflict and Values.
Freedom is a central principle within all anarchist thought. Alexander Berkman's position is reasonably exemplary: “Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you. It means you should be free to do the things you want to do, and that you should not be compelled to do what you don't want to do.”
But to what extent is such a pure expression of freedom viable as a political and moral idea? It has been well noted that freedom is a complicated concept, open to numerous interpretations, as well as plain abuse. The distinctions between positive and negative freedom may add a little clarity, but even here anarchists disagree which form to support. David Graeber suggests anarchists follow negative freedom; Randall Amster believes they tend towards positive freedom. And even when a community of anarchists know - and agree on - what they mean when they talk of freedom, problems persist. How do we reconcile competing freedoms? Is freedom always to be treated as the highest good – over justice, or equality? If not, how do we find an appropriate balance? Are we free to cause harm? If not, who defines harm? And who does what to stop us harming?
Pressing questions indeed, which liberals and communitarians have written extensively about. The same, somewhat strangely, somewhat alarmingly, can not be said of anarchists, especially within contemporary, 'movement' focused anarchism. In fact, if we take a random sample of recent, and in other ways excellent, anarchist writing, such as those of Graeber or Uri Gordon, or collective publications like that of Trapese or Notes From Nowhere, we are likely to find very little – if anything – about the complexities of freedom, and how anarchists answer the many difficult questions that these complexities and difficulties raise. Where are the discussions about how we might deal with dangerous individuals, about who should be free – animals? unborn children?, about how to act when consensus cannot be reached, about positive and negative freedom, about genuine conflicts of freedom? Almost nowhere.
Why is this so? One reason is that anarchists are, by definition, committed to a libertarian ethos that rejects authority and coercion; however, the problems freedom throws at us make it all but impossible to apply these principles without certain clauses; discussing freedom, then, will inevitably turn at some point into discussing reasons for and ways of denying certain freedoms – something anarchists are extremely uncomfortable doing. This discomfort is laudable; it demonstrates a genuine commitment to libertarian principles; it is also, however, dangerous. By refusing to engage in discussions about the limits of freedom, anarchists perhaps hope to stick to an ideal, where compromise is seen as unacceptable. But ignoring a problem does not make it go away.
Anarchists also believe that, through consensus decision-making, most disputes will be resolved within communities; it is not our job to resolve these future problems in advance. If disputes can not be resolved, community members must be free to leave and join another group. Consensus has considerable potential, but is doubtful that it will be able to reconcile all differences. When it fails, the notion of relocation is, to be blunt, entirely unacceptable. People can not simply be expected to pack up and leave their communities, their friends, their homes, their jobs. Just as there are limits to freedom, so too are there limits to the viability of consensus.
It seems then that anarchists have generally neglected to consider the ways in which freedoms may by necessity be curtailed, either through conscious deliberation, or through the predominance of certain values or norms. If anarchism is to be a viable philosophy in an industrialised, plural world, it needs to come to terms with how to deal with these pressing issues. Anarchists already hold other values in high regard; equality, respect, justice, sustainability. These values need to be articulated more clearly and honestly; when we talk of diversity, we must recognise that not every belief is welcome; when we talk about freedom, we must recognise not every act is acceptable. Only other values can help us explain and explore these limitations to freedom; if they are not expressed, they will exist nonetheless, and they will be all the more illiberal as a result.
Paul McLaughlin
In Defence of Philosophical Anarchism
This paper will explore the historical relationship between anarchism and moral philosophy. It will trace the emergence of philosophical anarchism, as a specific moral position, through the Enlightenment tradition; and it will examine two associated assaults on this tradition – by Stirner and Marx – that led later anarchists, from Bakunin onwards, to distance themselves from philosophy as such (conceived as a methodology applied by specific social classes under specific social circumstances). It will also demonstrate the extent to which philosophical anarchism has been misrepresented by both its supporters (like Robert Paul Wolff) and its opponents (like John P. Clarke) in the twentieth century. Finally, a contemporary form of ‘weak’ but ‘engaged’ philosophical anarchism will be defended against the objections of activists and postmoderns.
Michael Vaughn, University of Warwick
“Was Bergson an Anarchist? The Metaphysics and Ethics of Creativity”
Working on Henri Bergson’s social thought, it is increasingly apparent to me that his is, in broad outline, an anarchist philosophy. However, as a philosopher whose research and writing was for the most part (at least on the face of it) engaging with the physical and life sciences rather than political sciences, the tone and emphasis of his work would bear little resemblance to that of canonical anarchist thinkers. That is to say, while Bergson’s metaphysics and his views on science are worked through in incredible detail, his ethics remain largely implicit.
What themes in Bergson suggest anarchism, then? First, he views nature and human nature as open, creative processes with their own emergent order. Second, he formulates a critique of the existing order, particularly the scientific, technological and moral order that doesn’t recognise the reality of creative emergence, and actually inhibits it through a mechanisation of nature and habituation of human nature. Third, he has a vision of an alternative “open society” where individuals participate in rather than seek to control natural processes and each other. Fourth, he has a highly developed methodology for going about realising this paradigm shift in the way we live (which in modern terms would be a shift towards sustainability, cooperation etc). And finally, he makes a clear distinction between ‘society’ as a natural emergent order and ‘the state’ as an imposed order that fails to follow what he calls the “articulations of the real” (on this last point he would incline towards social anarchism, his work on evolutionary biology suggesting that society is as natural and real as individuality and doesn’t have a voluntary or contractual origin).
Bergson’s metaphysics is based on the reality of change and creativity at the physical, biological, psychological and social levels. Events, physical or social, taken in their real complexity, are never ‘given in advance’. However, Bergson is not a radical libertarian and creativity does not mean anything goes. Metaphysical creativity as a kind of self organisation or continual emergence of order has real articulations. This provides Bergson with a basis on which to oppose both the technological reorganisation of the material world and the political reorganisation of society as fundamentally inappropriate to the creative, emergent nature of real organisation. What’s more, at all levels a centralised, premeditated, top-down organisation exerts a real inhibition on natural processes as we treat them according to our needs rather than according to their natures.
Interestingly, Bergson advocated a liberal democratic politics, emphasising equality. However, I would suggest that the notion of equality is incompatible with a complex, process-based ontology because equality precisely depends on an abstract universal law being imposed on every individual. Now this is the very opposite of an emergent order the very nature of which is to introduce real difference. In conclusion, I will indicate that this tension in Bergson’s thought (which seems to me to be present in much anarchist thought) between the ethics he appears to want and that which his metaphysics will allow him, may be resolved if there was a concept of equality that could be based on the really emergent qualitative differences, rather than an abstractly imposed quantitative identity, between individuals.
Dr Niall Scott
Anarchist Ethics, Responsibility and Health.
In this paper I will explore the perspective provided by anarchist ideas on ethics and responsibility to see if they can be useful in pursuing the goal of individual health promotion in terms of the patient-led NHS model. Where anarchism promotes individual freedom, autonomy and responsible action in its ethical outlook, some key problems arise. Firstly, such a stance, if used to support improving individual lifestyle choices, has to deal with the difficult issues of consumer choice. Secondly the role of the state viewed by some forms of anarchism as fundamentally limiting human freedom, so how does this sit with the role of the state in the promotion of healthy lifestyles? Thirdly, individual freedom in anarchist thought needs to be robust enough to dispense with consumer ‘freedom’, which is arguably at the root of many unhealthy lifestyles and behaviours. An emphasis on a responsible individualism however, can easily neglect the relationship between health and social responsibility. My second aim is to see if an anarchist conception of individual responsibility with regard to the promotion of healthy lifestyle can be successful at the in-group/community level.
Sébastien Caré
Anarcho-capitalism and Moral Philosophy: Deontological versus Consequentialist Ethics
The most important controversy among anarcho-capitalist theorists concerns the question of whether their doctrine should be based on deontological or consequentialist ethics. Right-based anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray Rothbard, claim that a stateless society is founded on natural law basis, more precisely on a nonaggression axiom according to which the only justification for the use of force is to deal with aggressive force initiated by someone else. However, consequentialists such as David Friedman argue that rights are merely human constructs created through contracts, and that a libertarian system can only come about by contract between self-interested parties who agree to refrain from initiating coercion against each other. In that perspective, an anarcho-capitalist society is justified by its advantageous consequences for all parties concerned.
The aim of this paper is to compare the two moral versions of anarcho-capitalism, notably their implications on the two different types of society they respectively lead to. Indeed, deontological anarcho-capitalism supposes that a universal system of rights (including the sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression) would spontaneously emerge from the different decisions of private courts. Rothbard holds that this legal code would be based on a widespread acceptance of the ethic of reciprocity that would pledge the courts to follow it. However, consequentialist anarcho-capitalism claims that there is not such thing as a universal set of rights that would transcend individual preferences. David Friedman rather proposes that “the systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today”. In other words, people would have the law system they pay for, and laws would differ from place to place depending on the tastes of the people who would buy them. Friedman has then to aknowledge that unlibertarian laws may result from an anarcho-capitalist system, such as laws against drugs or homosexuality. But he thinks this would be rare, given that “if the value of a law to it supporters is less than its cost to its victims, that law […] will not survive in an anarcho-capitalist society”.
The confrontation of these two versions of anarcho-capitalism underlines their respective weaknesses, and the literally “precariousness” of anarcho-capitalism. Nothing, except the “prayer” of its theorists, can ensure that an anarcho-capitalist society would actually be libertarian and effectively maximize individual liberty.
Sam Clark
Anarchist Perfectionism: structure, history, prospects
Recent work in intellectual history and philosophy has uncovered and developed perfectionism as a strand of ethical thought distinct from utilitarianism, Kantianism, and virtue ethics. In this exploratory paper, I consider the structure, history, and prospects of a specifically anarchist perfectionism. I begin by describing perfectionism in general. The perfectionist claims: (1) that the right is the promotion of the good; (2) that the good is human flourishing; and (3) that human flourishing consists in the cultivation and use of certain social, aesthetic, emotional, rational, moral, and/or reflexive capacities. Next, I show, by investigating problems in interpretation and critique, that some classical anarchist thought can productively be understood as perfectionist. I concentrate on the roles that human nature and its development have played in anarchist thought, on the capacities anarchists have regarded as central to that nature, and on the social and material conditions of cultivation of those capacities. Finally, I make some suggestions about the possible shape and content of a revitalised anarchist perfectionism. The result of this work is both a distinctive understanding of the history of anarchist thought, and an anarchist ethic which we now may find attractive.
Seferin James
Problems with the Phenomenological Reduction and the State
Twentieth Century French Philosopher Jacques Derrida is not exactly known as an anarchist but this paper will argue that there is the possibility for a fertile crossover between Derrida's philosophy and anarchist politics. The promise of such a possibility for Derrida's philosophy is that it represents the most likely path for its effective politicisation. The promise of such a possibility for anarchism is that the difficulties facing activists in their desire for radical experience, as well as the problem of the state, can be effectively reformulated. It is therefore argued that there is good reason to explain Derrida's philosophy to anarchists and anarchism to Derrida's philosophy. This paper begins with an exposition of Husserl's phenomenological reduction and Derrida's critical engagement with the possibility of this methodology. This paper then argues that the phenomenological reduction is not confined to Husserl's philosophy but is actually a common, though perhaps unrecognised, abstract trope of thought in a number of politically relevant contexts. Derrida's problematisation of the phenomenological reduction offers a means of explaining some of the difficulties faced by feminists and anarchists seeking a radically different experience of life without patriarchy and authority. As well as explaining some of the problems faced by radical activists, Derrida's problematisation of the phenomenological reduction lends itself superbly to an ethical questioning of the state. This ethical argument suggested by Derrida's mode of thought is that attempts to instantiate a moral structure through the state necessarily involves an impossible attempt to suspend morality in relation to the state itself. This argument not only functions as a reformulation of the classic anarchist critique of sovereign authority, it also creates a way of effectively explaining the problem with the current extension of state power by understanding them as attempts to put morality even further out of play.
Stefan Riegelnik
The Failure of Moral Philosophy
Moral reasoning is reasoning about what one ought to do because it is morally right or wrong. This means it has to be shown on what conditions moral normative statements are justified. Since moral judgments are directed toward actual actions and decisions, reasoning about moral statements is not mere sophistry. Moral reasoning belongs to the realm of what is called practical philosophy, and philosophers in this branch seek to and answers to the question on what grounds moral judgments could be justified. Thus, David Hume asks [...]whether they [Morals] be derived from Reason, or from Sentiment; whether we attain the knowledge of them by a chain of argument and induction, or by an immediate feeling and innerer internal sense; whether, like all sound judgment of truth and falsehood, they should be the same to every rational intelligent being; or whether, like the perception of beauty and deformity, they be founded entirely on the particular fabric and constitution of the human species.(David Hume: An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals)
But moral philosophers have not been able to put moral judgments on a ground such that it could be understandable why persons necessarily have to follow certain norms. This is so because moral philosophy in all its varieties has not succeeded in showing that moral judgments are justified out of pure practical reasoning (Kant), basic intuitions (Moore), or sentiments people have as human beings (Hume). As a consequence, various theories have been defended that represent a kind of moral substitute, e.g. utilitarianism or contractualism. But all these theories fail in answering the free rider problem', and, more seriously, the necessity to participate in or to fulfill a contract'. Any contract that is supposed to constitute the interactions in a society as whole cannot but justified with reference to some higher-order-principle, which ultimately would be a moral norm. My skeptical attitude toward moral theories of any kind may provoke disagreement. But what I want to emphasize is, that even if moral judgments are shown to be true or justified, at the end it is always up to the particular person to decide whether to follow a norm or not.
Thus, first, I want to point out that morality cannot be used to induce changes in a society. In addition, I will show that the lack of justified normative statements means that no order or hierarchy in a society is morally justified. As a conclusion I want to question the relationship between moral philosophy and anarchism as it was prominently defended by Georges Sorel and sometimes hinted at by Peter Kropotkin.
Stephen Conduit
Ecosophy and the Anarchist Character
This paper suggests a possible foundation for a practical commitment to an ecologicalp hilosophy of anarchism and its requisite social structures in an indifferent or antagonistic environment. The paper assumes that anarchism is fundamentally if perhaps only inchoately a doctrine of ecological responsibility. Such responsibility can be formulated at a personal level as an ecosophy. Based on work by Naess, Drengson, Devall and Emerson, ecosophy is initially and tentatively imagined as a practical wisdom about life’s final causes as experienced in nature, with one’s own life as the realm of communal responsibility with nature, one of its purposes. The implications of the idea of ecosophy are correspondingly anarchist, and both are strengthened by making explicit their implicit commensurability. To do this requires a prefiguring commitment to ecosophical anarchist community, an immense ethical burden for its adherent. Thus there is a need to formulate traits of character, perhaps as virtues or as dispositions to virtue, which to the extent they can be acted on reciprocally with others similarly disposed, acquire external validity as experiences of ecosophical anarchist community before such a community exists or is even possible. The communal nurturing of these character traits may be evidence of its possibility. The character traits here briefly stipulated are: vulnerability, indeterminateness, purposiveness, economy, responsibility, communality, reflexivity and frugality. For each trait an ecosophical meaning is indicated, from which coherent, communally valid ecosophies might be inferred, and the idea of ecosophy made more explicit. This in turn can inform the formulation of an eco-anarchist doctrine which must be and can be justified as a mode of ecological responsibility. The argument is circular.
____________________________________________________
Anarchism and Political Economy
Painel:
With a view to the forthcoming 1st Anarchist Studies Network Conference we would like to organise a workshop on syndicalism or more generally on issues related to anarchism and the labour movement. The theme will be understood in its broadest sense, with no specific geographical or period restriction. Possible topics (by no means exclusive) could include:
- the everyday practice of syndicalism in the workplace or the unions - the relationship of syndicalist militants with more reformist elements within the unions, in the workplace or during strikes, and with marxists - theories of syndicalism and their legacy - comparative studies of syndicalist movements or theories - biographies of prominent as well as lesser-known syndicalist militants - syndicalist networks - syndicalist papers - the transnational diffusion of syndicalism - strategies associated with syndicalism (sabotage, the general strike…) - syndicalism and parliamentary politics - syndicalism and war - syndicalism and marxism - syndicalism and councilism
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Rafal Chwedoruk, 'Polish Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism in the 20th century'
Jason Lindsey, 'Functional Representation and its Anarchist Origins'
Bert Altena, 'Analyzing Revolutionary Syndicalism: The Importance of Community'
_____________________________________________________________
Anarchism and Representation
Painel:
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in America, a worldwide movement has developed. Its activists run thousands of websites, have produced hundreds of books, DVDs and articles, and attend events as diverse as the Notting Hill carnival, the 2005 Anarchist Bookfair, Green Party conferences and Universities and colleges across the UK. Their influence, particularly amongst young people and many British Muslims, appears to be growing.
This movement denies any link between Islamist ideology and violence, and doesn’t prioritise opposing the ‘war’ on terror. Instead the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement denies the existence of Al-Qaeda, argues American and/or Israeli ‘inside’ involvement in 9/11, and regards conventional leftist and anarchist commentators on such events (e.g. Chomsky) as ‘gatekeepers’, protecting the guilty parties from the wider public.
The 9/11 ‘truth’ movement massively distracts from the issues facing all those struggling for a better world. Surely we need to criticise the US/UK governments for what they have actually done (bad enough) rather than imaginary crimes? By seeing all contemporary (and past) political events through their skewed view of 9/11, the ‘truth’ movement takes progressive forces down a cul-de-sac. We must resist their influence.
Trabalhos a ser apresentados neste painel:
Paul Stott, 'Half Truth Movement: How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History'
____________________________________________________
Anarchism and Psychoanalysis
Painel:
