From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
Subject: AF/ATS: "Why Anti-Authoritarian?" by Larry Giddings
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:51:47 GMT

subject: "Why Anti-Authoritarian?" an essay by Larry Gidding
posted by: AF/ATS
--

     Larry Giddings was born on October 6, 1952, and has been an
anarchist revolutionary for his entire life. On August 21, 1971,
Larry was wounded during a shoot-out and arms expropriation with
four other comrades in Los Angeles. He was arrested and served 7
years in jail. After he was set free, Larry lived in a food and
prisoner support collective in the Bay Area and soon resumed
clandestine acitivities with the aim of helping to liberate
jailed comrades. On October 14, 1979, Larry was again wounded and
captured, along with comrade Bill Dunne (an anti-authoritarian POW
in Marion federal prison), during the liberation of a comrade
from a Seattle jail. Larry was convicted of aiding an escape, the
shooting of a police officer, conspiracy, and bank robberies (to
garner funds for clandestine activities). Despite serving two
life terms, Larry has remained an inspirational anti-autoritarian
political figure who continues to write and struggle for a better
world. The following is an essasy written by Larry which
describes his anti-authoritarian politcal outlook:


                    WHY ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN?

     From within the primal ooze of social-political labelling I
have, for a number of years, chosen "anti-authoritarian" as my
own. Those that prefer specificity have argued that this term is
not descriptive enough and does not declare a "particular"
poltical evolution. Bandits, rebels, street gangs, "free
speechers", Jeffersonian constitutionalists, untutored and
politically unsophisticated teenagers in rebellion, anti-
communists, undiscplined rabble, counter-culturists, libertarian
socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, council
communists, syndicalists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-marxists,
anarcho-communists, anarcho feminists... and more, can all be
considered "anti-authoritarian". Oh, just so you think I forgot,
anarchists, little 'a', and big 'A' are considered anti-
authoritarians. "Why can't I use one of the more 'acceptable'
labels, one with a more distinctly 'left' connotation?", they
ask.
     Unfortunately, I found the term - anarchist - lacking as
well. I'm not alone in this observation. The term "autonomist"
has appeared in recent decades as a response to the perceived
differences between "classical" anarchists, and younger more
contemporary anti-authoritarian activists. In Europe, the
original organizations of many thought to be extinct political
ideologies are still alive. Small, they may be, but they are
still around. So, younger anti-authoritarians/anarchists felt
compelled to develop different organizational methods and their
label. Similarly, having described myself as being part of the
anarchist persuasion during the early '70s, it has been a
circuitous route to the term anti-authoritarian.
     "Anarchist", is generally accepted to mean: without
authority, or without ruler. In that sense, especially - without
ruler - I am, most certainly, an anarchist.
     However, life isn't nearly so simple, and, as with most
other labels, the term - anarchist - has become "value laden".
Which means that when people read or use the term - anarchist -
they readily identify it with particular ideological, social,
historical images they have carefully or unconsciously filed in
their brains. For the unconscious, the greatest majority of
people, it represents everything from bearded bomb-throwing
radicals, to pipe-smoking armchair idealists. For those with some
political and historical knowledge, those who carefully file
their definitions, an anarchist is someone that doesn't believe
state power is the object of struggle with the dominant social
order but, a socially responsible and autonomous humanity - is -
the object of struggle.
     At this point, the waters become rather murky. There are
nearly as many definitions of anarchy as there are anarchists!
Labourists and syndicalists view the General Strike as the
jumping off point in the creation of a classless, racismless
society; to others, a committment to the removal of technology,
and anti-industrialism is the mark of a "true" anarchist. Any
support for a national group or "nationalist" movement precludes
one from being an anarchist, to others. Situationists, post-
Situationists, social ecologists, social anarchists, anarcho-
marxists, Christian anarchists, pagan anarchists - fill in the blanks. 
All definitions of "true" anarchists are based on good analysis.
     Excuse ----- me!!! As a poor, mostly self-educated,
imprisoned, non-dues paying member of any organization, or
adherent to a specific anarchist "program", I conceded. O.K.!!
Maybe I am not really an anarchist. Maybe, I should take a step
backward and, dipping into the primordial ooze of labelling, find
something not so insulting to true anarchists. So, I did. A
friend, some years ago, suggested that I was an "eclectic"
anarchist; since, I do believe that good ideas can come from most
anywhere and good people even moreso. Then, there is the term
"autonomous". "Autonomous", in the European sense, has been used
to describe non-communist party dominated socialist and communist
groups, as well as the ever more popular "autonomes" of Germany.
The autonomes include many perspectives in its non-ranks. The
term - autonomous - is still largely unknown in the u.s. So, anti-
authoritarian was the term that seemed to work best.
     Like most of us, my journey began as a "rebel", pure and
simple. Against family, against school, against "adults", against
most anything that got in my way of achieving some personal
enjoyment and development in life. I left "home", left school,
and dropped-in to the world at a large, to find all the
impediments multiplied. Firstly, I recognized "ageism" as a
repressive cultural force. Secondly, I left the "family", as an
incubator of the state, was the most repressive institution.
Thirdly, the state, the enforcer of economic disparity and
manager of all other institutions, the inhibitor of change, was
the target of my rebellion.
     Within the structure of the state, I swiftly recognized the
police and "criminal justice" system as the immediate arm of
state authority. I was very clear on this when I was 14, 15, 16
years old. I had read lots of history, been active in street
actions in Germany and preparing for armed action in the u.s.
from 16 to 17 years of age. There was no doubt in my mind that
armed revolution was needed to affect any real change in this
system. I had learned, all too well, as the son of a career army
sergeant, that force was the only thing that the state
understood. Living near Washington, D.C., Baltimore and
Annapolis, I witnessed - all too often, the results of "peace
demonstrations" and sit-ins, and civil rights marches, not to
mention anti-war demos. Discussion was out of the question. I
wasn't willing to lay down and let the state, or anyone else,
beat me bloody, attack me with its dogs and shoot me, without
fighting back.
     My less than perfectly executed expropriation of arms, to
pass out to liberated prisoners and a good number of 16-18 year
olds, much like myself, in L.A., in 1971, landed me in prison for
7 years. I spent those years evaluating myself and my actions and
my goals. I had recognized a youth movement, armed youth
including Black Panthers, Brown Berets and American Indian
Movement (A.I.M.) activists, and others, and headed in the same
direction. But, I had not worked closely with any of them.
Mistrust between groups of activists, separtism: political and
cultural, active campaigns by various police agencies (including
the F.B.I.'s COINTELPRO program), served to support our already
deeply taught "need" to function as separate communities. Except
for fairly isolated events, such as the occupation of Wounded
Knee, this idea of the necessity of racial/cultural separtism
remained a dominant theme, especially in the armed
revolutionary communities. Ideologically, I proclaimed anarchism
as a goal. In practice, I operated nearly as separately as
nationalists. Still, I rejected dictatorships of any kind.
     In prison, from '71 to '78, I read, like a lot of prisoners.
Amongst that mass of printed words, I began to read "feminist"
literature. It was easy to identify with many issues raised by
feminists. As the oldest son of working parents, I had been
responsible for the care and keeping of house and brothers. Don't
you know I hated being trapped, both as a servant and as a
youth, with virtually no rights in this society. Children were,
and still are, "property" of their parents, genetic parents or
otherwise. The "law" treats them equally shabby. This study of
women's writings and political analysis led me to recognize
"gender" as a special category of social/political relations,
other than economic class and age. Likewise, feminists pointed
out, correctly, that it had been women who have provided the
backbone and sustenance of nearly all movements. In the anarchist
community, ecological issues, childcare and education, healthcare,
the anti-war/anti-nuclear movements, anti-racism and prison
abolition have been issues fought for - daily - by women. As the
numerically largest class of poor, single women with children -
of all races - bare the brunt of the state's oppression. They
struggle with these issues, whether they are "popular" or not.
While men often "struggle" for a short period of time, and then
abscond, women, especially those with children, have no choice
but to continue to confront the state in all its forms. Also the
women's movement of the '60s and '70s reaffirmed and expanded the
concept of the "affinity group", an anarchist form of
organization, in which small groups of compatible people function
in a largely egalitarian manner - without hierarchical "command"
structures.
     In prison, I swiftly observed racial separation as a
constant source of misunderstanding, and felt all such
"separatism", national, or otherwise, as divisive. We could not
change this society, as anarchists, or anything else, while
observing and participating in tacit agreement with social and
cultural apartheid - u.s. style. It was in these years I
rediscovered a favourite historical period of mine. Instead of
just an isolated period of "history", my experiences led me to
realize the deeper social and political significance of the
"Seminole Wars" of the early 1800s. This committment to a
consciously multi-cultural, non-nationalist struggle, rather than
an amorphous anarchism, propelled me to enter a collective that
reflected that committment upon my parole in 1978.
     This collective held property in common, supported prison
abolition and prisoners' needs, women's struggles, and members
were from a variety of cultures and races. Study of revolutionary
political material was a constant and reflected the various
origins of those involved. Anarchists, Marxists and socialists of
several varieties, lived, worked and struggled for individual
growth and with each other, as well as against the state. It was
an "eclectic" community.
     Twenty months after parole, I was captured in Seattle, for
the attempted liberation of a prisoner. Once again - I was in
prison. My time on the streets had gone much too fast. While
recognizing other groups and struggles as necessary, I had
focussed on a fairly narrow spectrum of activity. No strong
alliances had a chance to grow in such a short time. The
continuing destruction of the small armed "left" groups in this
country and my personal experiences, caused me to look more
closely at the relative isolation of many peoples and struggles.
An anarchist, global revolution against the nation-state
formation, must begin somewhere. It must survive to struggle. I
began to re-evaluate my thoughts, actions and focus. Once again,
I returned to the study of the Seminole formations. In doing so,
I found a greater commitment to Indigenous, Native American,
Indian struggles was necessary.
     Recognizing genocide, colonialism and ongoing destruction of
Indigenous People and their ideas as a historical fact, is one
thing, implementing that knowledge in a meaningful way - is
another. Rather than just acknowledging that genocide and
colonialism exist, we need to actively struggle against it, now.
Many Native Americans may not call themselves "anarchist", but
many are, clearly, anti-authoritarian in views and practice.
Instead of relying on European historical example, they rely on
their long Indigenous history. Recognizing that much of what
modern and 18th and 19th century activists call - anarchism - is
in a large way a result of interaction between European
intellectuals and Native American societies - is of paramount
importance in this process. Closer interaction with and support
of Native struggles clearly added "self-determination and
autonomy" for Native people to my list of goals, along with the
recognition that they have historical reasons for wishing to
organize separately.
     Feminism, Women's Studies, gender as a special category of
oppression, led me to identify and accept struggle against other
specific forms of oppression as valid. Recognition that Black/New
Afrikan, Puerto Rican, Mexicano Peoples, and others also share
specific and different historical, intellectual and social
realities, swiftly followed. This recognition, in other than just
an abstract way, is not "truly" anarchist, I have been informed
on many occasions.
     However, I would hold that the Seminole struggles were
anti-authoritarian in practice, and perhaps even anarchist
in reality. Rather than a mere ideological/philosophical position
of "globalism", or a theoretical "anti-capitalism", or
"alternative economy", or "utopian" multi-racial/multi-
culturalism, -- they actually practiced, lived, loved and fought
with those principles in the real world. Unlike many European
based anarchist, and anti-authoritarian movements and struggles,
which attempted to deny their own cultural imperatives, those
that struggled in the Seminole way acknowledged and accepted
their own special relations and histories. Rather than a false -
universalism - one which excluded those that sought autonomy
within their own movement, they practiced a true one.
     Rejecting a "romantic" view of Native American struggles is
a requirement before learning the lives and struggles of People
as real. If, we tear away the mythology and romantic view of
"Indians living with nature", we find a revolutionary movement in
the Seminole. A movement evolving out of the "Red Stick" movement
shortly preceding it, as well as the social political struggles
of Europe in regard to wars, growing industrialism and the social
theories and movements in England and France, there can be little
doubt that the Seminole knew of these struggles. Seminoles had
alliances with every class of people in the young united states,
especially among the anti-slavery/abolitionist movements, allies
in Europe, and the Caribbean. Furthermore, Florida was still a
Spanish colony, though, in reality, the Spanish dominated only a
few towns and some coastal areas. A number of Seminoles fought in
battles and struggled with others as far north as Connecticut.
Native Americans had been kept as slaves in Georgia and the
Carolinas, at some points it was considered "illegal" to have
Afrikans enslaved, but "legal" to enslave Indians. Their legal
status shifted back and forth. But, the link between the
"cimmarones" (Spanish for: wild and runaway), Maroon communities
and others became stronger as they helped more and more people to
escape from bondage and build a new society, one which might
eventually be able to free territory in other areas, including
Central America and Venezuela. Cimmarones became known as
Seminoles.
     De-centralized, participatory communities, multi-cultural
and separatist communities, autonomous decision making and plans
of action, caused the Seminole allies to be an incredibly
committed and versatile foe to the u.s. The u.s. government's
actions against this grouping was the most costly ever fought
here, except for the Civil War of the 1860's. Some bands, ones
that refused to submit, still exist. Others fled to the islands,
migrated and mixed in with local populations, or were removed to
Oklahoma, as members of the Seminole People. Still others escaped
the reservation and fled to Mexico, where they waged a running
war with the u.s. for decades more. Some bands still live in
Mexico.
     In my attempts to translate these events and my own
experiences, I have observed the following: whether I recognize
non-anarchist, nationalist, separatist struggles, or not, they
are in existence. By ignoring their existence, because of some
principle of - pre-agreement, a requirement that these struggles
reflect my own notion of a non-nation-state future and multi-
cultural struggle, I am ignoring history and the reality of their
day to day lives. By ignoring their existence, and ignoring their
struggle against what are most often our mutual oppressors, I
ignore my own desire for a non-nation-state future. "Globalism",
de-centralized social and economic systems, non-nation-state
formations, will only come about through struggle. Through
struggling together, trust and confidence in our ability and
commitment to our dreams, is communicated. "Globalism", must come
about through mutual understanding. It will not be imposed. A
culture of anti-authoritarian struggle is necessary.
     Anarchism, as a body of literature and activity which
opposes centralized state domination of social political life, is
growing ever larger. In recognition of the vastness of the sea of
material available and the swamp of views represented, I have
used the label - anti-authoritarian - to keep the door, so to
speak. There is every reason to allow people to grow and learn
and make additions to anti-authoritarian theory and practice. If
we narrow our movement to some narrowly defined "true" anarchism,
we have excluded many of those we wish to, or claim to wish to,
communicate with. Young people, in particular, are much more open
to the need for a multi-cultural practice than those of my own
generation, for instance. It matters less, to me, that young
activists understand every nuance of the struggles between
historical anarchism and marxism, in its intricacy and confusion,
than their day to day practice of an anti-authoritarian nature.
None of us, not one, were suddenly endowed with all of this
information. To expect young, or old, activists, to suddenly
understand what took many of us decades to compile, or even to
agree with it, is ludicrous, to say the least. In fact, it is
from this new generation of activists that a new language of
global struggle will emerge. The assuredly "Euro-centric"
language and practice of anti-authoritarian/anarchist theory, is
in for a very healthy, and long-overdue, infusion of life.
     In effect, I would rather be called anti-authoritarian and
spend my time and energy struggling to build a non-nation-state
world, than to argue to infinity about the definition of a "true"
anarchist. Either -anarchism- has the ability to retain an
evolutionary approach to problems, analysis and struggle, or it
will be rejected by yet another generation of activists, in
favour of quick-fix, short-term, pseudo-democratic and
authoritarian alternatives. Those that wish to trap themselves in
an ideologically suicidal classicalism, may do so. I, for one,
reject that crystalization of thought and practice, which would
doom the fertile and living body of knowledge and experience we
call anarchism, and, yes, anti-authoritarian.
     Let us practice globalism. Let us be real, sincere, and
effective allies to each other. Whether active in anti-nuclear,
ecology, anti-racism, squatting, prison abolition, anti-
colonialism, cultural movements, women's movements or others it
is time to recognize each other. Practice the knowledge we have
confidence in. Confidence. A lack of fear that contact with
"others", somehow - unlike ourselves, will destroy us, or take
away our knowledge, change us. Confidence will build flexibility.
False confidence and fear, create rigidity. Can we reaffirm
anarchism's roots by becoming anti-authoritarian? I hope so.


Write to Larry:

     Larry W. Giddings
     #10917-086
     PO Box 1000
     Leavenworth, Kansas
     66048    USA



--
                     autonome forum: aforum@moose.uvm.edu
                          "solidarity is a weapon!"
--

Xref: sparky alt.activism:14792 misc.headlines:5600 soc.rights.human:3055 alt.desert-storm:1689