In an interview with The Vast Minority,
writer Paul Cudenec calls for anarchists to unite in "total
opposition" to the global capitalist system. He says he is
trying to unearth the primal force behind the philosophy and argues
that anarchism has the potential to become a new "religion"
for the current age. For a discussion on our Facebook page regarding this interview, please see here and here.
Q: Your book The Anarchist Revelation
is very much focused around presenting an anarchist spirituality.
Why?
That’s the question I hopefully go
some way to answering over the course of some 150 pages! In short,
there are two separate, and yet interwoven, strands. Firstly there is
the individual question – how can an alienated individual such as
an anarchist, who is sane enough to find the contemporary capitalist
world insane, carry on living in that world? Involvement in the
anarchist struggle is part of the answer, but you also need something
more than that, some greater perspective to fall back on in times of
doubt or isolation.
I think anarchism, historically, has
always offered a depth of vision that can sustain and propel an
individual through adversity but, if we start to regard anarchism not
as a life-philosophy but as a narrowly defined social movement, we
will lose contact with that vital force.
Secondly, there’s the spiritual depth
of the anarchist movement as a whole. To me, it stands opposed to the
modern materialist mindset at a fundamental level. It’s not just
that we reject all those assumptions about the legitimacy of
authority, property or privilege, but we also reject the blinkered
and one-dimensional thinking of the current age.
Anarchy is lateral thinking, creative
thinking, poetic thinking in many ways, and in that it has a lot in
common with something like Sufism, the esoteric strand of Islam. It’s
not stuck on the one level - like Marxism is, for example. And I
think we need to reconnect to that imaginative and fluid side of
anarchist thought.
Q: But there’s a difference between
the vitality or fluidity of a philosophy and this idea of
“spirituality”. Why does that come in? Why does it have to come
in?
Spirituality for me is all about using
the parts of our mind that are left to wither away in a purely
materialist society, where nothing it considered valid unless it can
be “empirically” proven to be so. These are the powers we need to
reignite, on both an individual and collective level.
Q: But what about the religious aspect
to “spirituality” that you do evoke in your book? Are you
suggesting that these unused parts of our mind are something to do
with a supernatural element?
Not supernatural, no. But my definition
of what is natural, and real, would go a lot further than what’s
generally understood by that. As far as religion goes, the only
religion I’m promoting is anarchism. OK, maybe it’s not quite a
religion at the moment, but I think it has the potential to be, if it
doesn’t cut itself off from the less materialist aspects of its
philosophy that take it up in that direction.
Q: So what kind of religion would
anarchism be? A religion with no god?
There doesn’t have to be a “god”,
in the sense in which it’s normally meant in the West. It’s all
about an holistic vision, understanding that on every level of
existence everything is interconnected and ultimately part of the one
entity. On a human level, this is already the anarchist position –
mutual aid, co-operation, solidarity and so on. On a planetary level
this is the environmentalist position – the Gaia idea of a living
Earth. On a cosmic level, this becomes a Buddhist or Taoist idea of
the ultimate unity.
I think that anarchism naturally
embraces the holistic approach on the other levels, as well, thus
expanding itself into a complete vision of life, rather than
remaining merely a social or economic programme spiced up with a
confrontational attitude.
Q: Is this a bad thing, then, a
“confrontational attitude”? Should anarchists be adopting the
quietism of Eastern mystics?
Not at all. A confrontational attitude
is essential for anarchism. I think we need to be more
confrontational, in fact, in contexts other than street battles with
the police or fascists. We need to be more confrontational in our
refusal of the moral claims of the state, by stating clearly that we
don’t accept that they have the right to rule us, to jail us, to
control us in any way. Of course, we recognise the reality that they
can do so, in the same way that a large man with a knife has the
physical ability to rob me in the street, but we should make it clear
that we don’t buy into their lie that there is any moral legitimacy
behind this.
We also need to be more confrontational
in attacking the limits that are placed around possible futures.
Although it’s often a tactically good idea to work with reformist
campaigns, if only to help stem the tide of increasing capitalist
domination, we should never stop talking about the completely
different society that is our vision and inspiration. It doesn’t
matter if people can’t grasp that this could ever happen, that they
are conditioned by society to think that such a future is not only
undesirable but also impossible.
We have to keep our black flag flying
so that the vision stays alive, at least on an abstract level, and
it’s there for people to turn to one day when they finally realise
that the only alternative is going to be a future of slavery and
misery for the vast majority of humanity. What we need to reclaim is
the total opposition to the current system that was historically
offered by anarchism. There’s such a strength in that.
Also, by the way, there’s nothing
necessarily quietist or pacifist about faiths like Buddhism – take
the Tibetan monks in their struggle against Chinese occupation, for a
start. Many religions are used by authorities to promote obedience
and submission, and Buddhism is no exception, but that doesn’t
reflect on its innate qualities or its potential as an aid to human
liberation.
Q: Total opposition? That sounds quite
full-on!
In the context in which I just used it,
I meant total opposition in a philosophical sense – attacking the
current death-system at its roots, rather than focusing on trimming
it back here and there. But I do think that’s what we need, at
every level. Otherwise nothing will change, all possibilities of
improvement will remain blocked and the future will be like this,
only a thousand times worse.
Q: There’s a strong environmental
current running through your work. Would you describe yourself as an
eco-anarchist?
I have done, yes, though I’m tending
now to focus on just being an anarchist, which I think is enough. For
a start, I can’t see that anything other than anarchism – and the
total opposition that it involves – is going to save the planet.
The system is not going to reform itself or voluntarily concede any
power or control. I also don’t feel there’s a need for any of us
to qualify our anarchism with adjectives.
I’ve been playing around with the
notion of an Anarchy Threshold, this being the “finishing tape”
that all anarchists are aiming at, the point at which humankind can
said to be liberated. The idea is that we don’t really have to
argue about what happens after that, because, as anarchists, we’re
saying that the people around at the time (whenever it actually
happens!) will decide that, by their actions and views, among
themselves.
So it doesn’t matter if my vision of
a better future is one without factories, while my comrade sees the
need for a continuation of some form of industrialism. Neither of us
will be in a position to decide that. As anarchists we’re not about
imposing our views on others anyway, even if we could do so. So it’s
purely theoretical – our only input is in putting forward our own
visions of how life could be. If we have faith in a free humanity, we
will have faith in the future it will create for itself in an
anarchist society. Personally, I can’t see that a post-capitalist
world would be industrial in any way, because industrialism is
capitalism.
The capitalists are right when they say
that without the profit incentive, we wouldn’t have what they call
“progress” – it’s the forces of money and power, feeding off
each other, that have spawned the industrial hell in which we are all
forced to live today and the moment that there is no more capitalism
there will be no raison d’être for factories, oil refineries,
nuclear power stations, shopping malls and so on.
I don’t have to argue too much with
other anarchists about what a future anarchist society would look
like, though. Firstly, because it’s not my call – or theirs.
Secondly, because I know, in my own heart, that an anarchist society
would not be an industrial one. It will all unfold in due course. And
in the meantime, before the Anarchy Threshold has been reached, our
only aim should be to work towards that point with a diversity of
tactics and a respect for each others’ personal visions.
Q: Isn’t that a bit naïve, to think
that anarchists could all work together happily ever after?
It’s not naïve to think we should
all work together – or at least not snipe at each other. If we
can’t, then perhaps that’s something to do with the egos of
individuals concerned (not just inflated egos, but fragile ones as
well) – and that is something that can be addressed by an
individual spiritual approach that is a microcosm of our social
struggle, as I describe in the book. It’s about rediscovering our
strength and clarity, both individually and collectively.
Q: The language in your book can be
quite academic at times – do you feel that this can create a
barrier to people understanding what you’re saying and limit the
numbers who are going to read your message?
Firstly, I’m not a professional
academic and I try to make my meaning clear to readers. It’s
difficult, though, to express complex ideas without using the short
cut of a certain vocabulary – otherwise the end result would be
both long-winded and a little patronising.
Secondly, when you’re quoting writers
like Herbert Marcuse or Karl Jaspers it would be strange if the
surrounding text was in a completely different register – the flow
wouldn’t be there. Thirdly, part of theme of The Anarchist Revelation is the lowering of the intellectual level and the denial
by the narrow positivist mindset of people’s ability to think
clearly and profoundly. Dumbing-down the language in which that sort
of argument is expressed seems to me like something of an own goal!
It’s not just a question of
vocabulary, but also the way ideas are expressed. Everything doesn’t
always have to be compressed into soundbites. I do take on board the
criticism to a certain extent, though, and I would like to work on
ways of communicating these ideas in a way that they can be more
readily absorbed.
Q: Finally, your book draws on the work
of a whole range of writers, many of whom are not anarchists. How
would you respond to criticism that you risk diluting the anarchist
message and confusing it with unrelated strands of thought. Is this
some kind of “post-anarchism” that you’re serving up?
No, it’s not “post-anarchism”. If
anything, I’m trying to unearth an “ur-anarchism”, a primal
force behind the philosophy, hence my foray into the worlds of
hermeticism, alchemy, Sufism and Taoism.
I think it’s a mistake to imagine
that anarchism is, or should be, some kind of self-contained bubble
of consciously-limited political analysis. It’s not airtight, but
porous. Anarchism influences the world around it and it is, in turn,
influenced by that world. The fact that an idea is expressed by a
particular individual does not make it “their” idea anyway; it’s
all drawn from the common cultural resource of humanity.
So if a writer expresses something that
seems valid and interesting to me, I don’t have to agree with
everything else they ever wrote or did in order for me to make use of
it in my work and acknowledge where I read it. To me, it’s actually
exciting to find anarchist ideas bubbling up in unexpected places, as
it makes it clear that our vision is not as peripheral as the
thought-authorities would like to make out.
Anarchism is the political label we
give to a massive underground river of suppressed thinking that is
flowing under the streets of our materialist capitalist civilization,
waiting to rise up and sweep away its factories, prisons and city
halls. Ultimately, it’s the life-force itself and as such it’s
unstoppable.
Paul Cudenec’s new book The Anarchist Revelation is published by Winter Oak Press.
Paul Cudenec is a writer, poet and activist living in the south of England. His previous writing includes Antibodies: Life, Death and Resistance in the Psyche of the Superorganism and We Anarchangels of Creative Destruction. For more information and contact details visit paulcudenec.blogspot.co.uk
Related articles
* New Book on Anarchism: The Anarchist Revelation: Being What We're Meant To Be by Paul Cudenec
Paul Cudenec is a writer, poet and activist living in the south of England. His previous writing includes Antibodies: Life, Death and Resistance in the Psyche of the Superorganism and We Anarchangels of Creative Destruction. For more information and contact details visit paulcudenec.blogspot.co.uk
Related articles
* New Book on Anarchism: The Anarchist Revelation: Being What We're Meant To Be by Paul Cudenec
(Source)
-----------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL LINKS
OFFICIAL LINKS
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Movement Central Group (N-AM)
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Earth & Animal Activism Network
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Permaculture Information Network* Facebook: National-Anarchist Earth & Animal Activism Network
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Survivalist and Preparedness Circle
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Spanish Speaking Resistance
* Contacts: N-AM Links