Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Power, Subjectivity, Resistance

Expand Messages
  • Dan Clore
    News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo Power, Subjectivity, Resistance: Three Works on Postmodern Anarchism Review by
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

      Power, Subjectivity, Resistance:
      Three Works on Postmodern Anarchism
      Review by Michael Glavin

      Postmodern Anarchism
      By Lewis Call
      Lanham: Lexington Books, 2002

      The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism
      By Todd May
      University Park: Pennsylvania
      State University Press, 1994

      From Bakunin to Lacan: Anti-Authoritarianism and the
      Dislocation of Power
      By Saul Newman
      Lanham: Lexington Books, 2001

      "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry
      about," my formerly liberal father turned Fox News devotee
      said as if he were uttering a simple, elegant truth. "But
      Dad, my brother just bought me Postmodern Anarchism on the
      Internet, you don’t think that will show up as a blip in
      some government database?" With that my father looked down
      at his filet mignon and asked my younger sister to pass the
      butter.

      How did we get to this moment in U.S. history where this
      conversation could even take place? How can it be that
      "Total Information Awareness," the Computer Assisted
      Passenger Pre-screening System II (CAPPS II), and the
      Patriot Act are anything more than the fantastical writings
      of some hyperbolic science fiction writer? Postmodern
      theorists, especially Michel Foucault and Jean Baudrillard,
      have given us a critique of Western society where these
      programs of surveillance and control do not appear as an
      aberration, but rather as a logical unfolding of the
      Enlightenment. These theorists provide us with an
      understanding of power, identity, and resistance that
      resonates deeply with anarchism, yet, at the same time,
      undermines the very foundation of anarchist thought and
      practice.

      Todd May, Saul Newman, and Lewis Call have recently examined
      the intersection between anarchism and
      poststructuralist/postmodern thought, or rather, I should
      say, created intersections between these discourses. Each
      theorist tries to show the anarchism in postmodernist
      discourse and also tries to draw out the implications of
      postmodern theory for anarchism. They each focus on a
      different set of theorists and draw different conclusions
      for the future course of anarchism. Todd May in The
      Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism focuses
      on Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Jean-Francois
      Lyotard and calls for an ethical practice that would be
      consonant with poststructuralist anarchism. In From Bakunin
      to Lacan, Saul Newman draws primarily upon Gilles Deleuze,
      Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Lacan and puts forth
      "postanarchism" which he conceives of as an
      anti-essentialist anarchism. Lewis Call bases his work,
      Postmodern Anarchism, on Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean
      Baudrillard, and the cyberpunk authors William Gibson and
      Bruce Sterling. Call seeks alternative political, economic,
      and cultural systems based on radical gift-giving, the
      details of which are to be worked out by cyberpunks, "who
      have no need for this book." (1)

      The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism
      I will not spend time recounting May’s discussion of the
      failure of Marxism, because those failings are well known to
      anarchists, suffice it to say that May reads Marxism as
      being a "strategic" political philosophy in that it sees
      power as emanating from a single place -- the economic
      substructure; whereas, anarchism is primarily a "tactical"
      political philosophy which sees power as existing at
      multiple sites (e.g., the state, capitalism, the church,
      patriarchy). May presents an illuminating reading of
      anarchism by saying that a central theme of anarchism is its
      rejection of representation. "To the anarchists, political
      representation signifies the delegation of power from one
      group or individual to another, and with that delegation
      comes the risk of exploitation by the group or individual to
      whom power has been ceded." (2) Yet, he notes that
      anarchists do not reduce all oppression to the political
      realm, but rather see a network of "intertwined but
      irreducible oppressions." (3) These two central thoughts --
      the rejection of representation and the understanding of
      power as existing on multiple levels -- tie anarchism to
      another "strategic" philosophy, that of poststruturalism, in
      which these concepts become more fully articulated.

      Where May takes issue with classical anarchism, and I think
      rightly so, is its reliance on essentialism or naturalism to
      ground its political theory. The basic assumption of most
      anarchist projects, according to May, is that the individual
      has a good or benign essence. (4) State power from this
      perspective then is seen by anarchists as repressive of an
      innately good human subject and repressive of the natural
      tendency of society toward mutual aid, as in the case of
      Peter Kropotkin. Liberation is the removal of these
      unnatural blocks that restrict the free expression of an
      individual or group. Anarchism's naturalism serves as the
      ethical grounding for the anarchist project. It serves as
      the rationale for calls for human liberation; the individual
      or the group is to be liberated from the oppressive,
      external power of the state.

      An anarchist critique of power is thus a critique of power
      over others, a critique of power as a repressive force. A
      traditional anarchist critique of Total Information
      Awareness (T.I.A.) and the Patriot Act, therefore, would be
      that these programs further the concentration of power in
      the hands of a few individuals and authorize the type of
      state repression that we experienced under The Counter
      Intelligence Program (CoIntelPro). So what's wrong with this
      critique?

      Foucault does not deny the brutal repression that happens to
      individuals or groups at the hands of the state, but for
      Foucault, these incidents are only part of a broader
      spectrum of the everyday practices of power. As May points
      out, suppression is one of power's "modes of enactment" but
      suppression does not define the whole of how power operates.
      (5) Michel Foucault and other postmodern theorists would say
      that this critique is founded on an outdated understanding
      of power. Foucault has challenged the pre-Enlightenment
      conception of power as emanating from the top (the monarch)
      and suppressing a subject below. He shows that, with the
      spread of Enlightenment thought, power has come to operate
      in a much more insidious way on what he calls a
      "micropolitical" level through the technology of power
      called discipline. May points out that discipline comes from
      the French word "surveiller" which implies both conformity
      and surveillance. (6) "He who is subjected to a field of
      visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the
      constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon
      himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which
      he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle
      of his own subjection." (7) The technology of disciplinary
      power is focused on the individual and has been applied
      throughout society -- prisons, schools, mental institutions,
      armies -- to the extent that we now have what Foucault calls
      a "disciplinary society." (8) Thus, Foucault and other
      poststructuralists have taken the anarchist conception of
      power as existing on multiple levels and have extended that
      understanding to include practices throughout all of society.

      "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry
      about." What type of individual would one have to be in
      order to have nothing to hide? What constitutes what should
      be hidden? My father doesn't want to do anything that could
      be construed as "wrong" by a faceless FBI agent sifting
      through his credit card receipts; because he doesn’t want to
      do anything that he will have to hide, or explain later, he
      might take a pass on buying a new book on the IRA. His own
      self-policing takes the place of external repression. Of
      course, because "what constitutes what should be hidden" is
      not known, self-policing becomes an unending task that
      invades every aspect of life: e-mail, phone conversations,
      library check-outs, online activity. What a traditional
      anarchist critique of T.I.A. misses is that the effect of
      T.I.A is not so much the repression of radical groups, but
      rather, the construction of self-policing subjects. (The
      effect of jailing Sherman Austin, a Black anarchist
      webmaster, is that it makes people on the internet think
      twice about creating a website espousing their political
      beliefs.)

      On the flip side, May points out that for Foucault, "power
      creates its own resistance." (9) My "buying a book" becomes
      an act of rebellion. It isn’t illegal to buy a book, the
      form of power that is being exercised is not the power of
      law or suppression in a traditional sense, what is being
      exercised is the power of the norm. The norm sets both what
      is to be internalized -- not doing anything that could be
      interpreted as "wrong" -- and, more importantly, constitutes
      what is transgressive: buying a book on anarchism. It is
      observation itself that creates, in the subject, something
      to hide. The previously innocuous activities of daily life
      become split so that many practices become transgressive.
      T.I.A. will create its own resistance; it will create a new
      underground. It will foster the creation of fake identities.
      As activists are cut off from social movements and forced
      underground and the public space for social change is closed
      off, T.I.A. will create terrorists as transgressive
      subjects. To choose either horn of the dilemma is not to
      escape the play of power. Rather, transgression reinscribes
      the power of the norm. Transgression is reactive; the
      question for anarchists is how to become proactive?

      This is a difficult question to answer because of the
      poststructuralist conception of subjectivity. Power does not
      act as an external force upon an essential pre-existent
      subject; rather, power constitutes subjectivity itself. If
      the subject is thusly constructed, through language,
      myth/ritual, disciplinary practices, etc., then the
      individual has no essence. There is no longer anything to
      "liberate." For May, poststructuralists continue the
      critique of representation into the realm of subjectivity
      and demonstrate that the subject itself, the subject of
      anarchist liberation, is itself a representation. It is an
      abstract concept that is a "stand in" for actual existing
      human beings. As an abstract notion, "the subject" is a
      product of an Enlightenment discursive practice and, as
      such, cannot serve as an anarchistic ground for resistance
      or as an object of liberation.

      On what basis then can anarchists fight against domination?
      May goes against poststructuralist thought by arguing that
      ethical discourse can legitimate anarchist practice. May
      sets constraints on this practice by asserting that ethical
      principles cannot be known beforehand and that ethics cannot
      be grounded in anything outside of ethical discourse itself;
      that in the end there is either common agreement among the
      discussants on at least one principle or there is not. One
      cannot appeal to anything outside of an ethical framework to
      solve an ethical dispute. (10) Unfortunately, although May
      articulates the poststructuralist critique of essentialism,
      he misses their critique of universalism, so that he ends up
      calling for a poststructural anarchistic practice of ethics
      that is "universal in scope." (11) May fails to be able to
      conceive of an ethical practice that is not universal by
      setting up a false dichotomy between universal claims and
      "mere personal reactions to situations." (12) This false
      dichotomy can only be articulated from the very standpoint
      that poststructuralism denies -- the universal subject position.

      Postmodern theorists have pointed out that claims of
      universalism have masked the specific interests of
      historically embedded subjects. (13) The practice of ethics
      also involves the play of power; moreover, it is very good
      at blinding its participants to that very play and lends
      itself to becoming a practice of domination. May himself
      defines ethics as "binding principles of conduct," and as
      such, ethics are directly linked to coercion. Ethics on an
      individual level involves constraining behavior to that
      which is consciously valued. Foucault’s concept of "care for
      the self" is an example of this
      self-constraint/self-formation. (14) In groups, ethics
      serves as legitimation for social control. It’s a form of
      social control where members subscribe to principles and
      willingly submit to living up to those shared values. What
      is the point of ethics when applied to those outside of
      one’s value system? In this case, the primary purpose of
      ethics is to make domination more palatable. When you "bind"
      someone to "principles" you hide oppression and legitimate
      domination.

      From Bakunin to Lacan

      The benefit of Newman’s text is his persistent questioning:
      how can anarchism keep from reproducing the very forms of
      oppression that it seeks to overcome? Since anarchism is
      based on Enlightenment notions of subjectivity, power, and
      liberation, how can we avoid furthering, in more subtle
      ways, the various practices that we oppose? Unfortunately, I
      think Newman misunderstands anarchism and misses the point
      of poststructuralism and thus his contribution stands as an
      example of how not to think through these questions.

      Newman starts off his text by conflating power and
      domination. He posits that anarchists oppose power as such,
      not state power, the power of the church, and the economic
      exploitation of capitalism, but rather, simply "power." One
      wonders how Newman can miss the anarchist calls for
      "decentralization of power" and the anarchist practices of
      trade unions, federations, confederations, affinity groups,
      collectives, syndicates, and credit unions, etc. These are
      clearly forms of power. Anarchists do not oppose power as
      such, but rather, as May pointed out, representative power:
      the exercise of power in the name of someone else. In
      Foucault’s terms, anarchists oppose domination defined as
      the codification of the power of one group or individual
      over another.

      How can Newman take this view of power as domination? It is
      only from the perspective of an extreme individualism that
      all forms of power, especially social power, can be seen as
      equally oppressive -- oppressive of the sacred individual.
      (15) Newman does well to dust off the individualist
      anarchist Max Stirner and bring him to the table to join in
      the discussion. Stirner provides Newman with a thoroughgoing
      critique of Enlightenment thinking. Stirner critiqued
      Enlightenment Humanism as a replacement of religious
      categories wherein "Man" has replaced "God." For Stirner,
      this abstract fiction called Man oppresses and "mutilates"
      the individual. The abstract category of "Man" denies an
      individual’s uniqueness. For Stirner, there is no human
      essence, there is only at base a "nothingness." It is from
      this nothingness, according to Stirner, that an individual
      can create his own identity.

      The idea that an individual does not have an essence, that
      s/he is essentially nothing, is important for Newman because
      as he states: "The lack that Stirner finds at the base of
      identity will allow the individual to resist this modern
      subjectifying power." (16) Newman fortifies this position by
      using Jacques Lacan and his concept of "lack." For Lacan,
      the process of subjectification is never complete, there
      always is a gap between the individual and its
      representation as a subject. (17) It is this "empty space"
      that Newman thinks will provide a ground for resistance. (18)

      So what’s wrong with this conception? Newman valiantly tries
      to construct a subject who has nothingness as its center and
      from this nothingness can create who one wants to become --
      sui generous ex nihilo. But who is the subject that can
      create his own subjectivity? This conception of subjectivity
      is itself an historical product arising out of Western
      philosophic, and I might add, Enlightenment discourse. It is
      the very practices of socialization based on Enlightenment
      principles that Stirner and Newman critique that make this
      individual possible. What’s more, Newman takes this product,
      "the individual," and posits him as existing prior to this
      socialization process, and then claims that the
      socialization process (which produced him) is oppressing him.

      Moreover, I think that Newman misses Foucault’s point about
      the positivity of power -- that we are created as subjects
      from practices. This creation sets both the limits as well
      as enables us to take action. I would agree with May’s
      reading of Foucault that "we are subjects," "we think of
      ourselves as subjects," "we act as subjects." (19) Why do we
      need to ground our resistance in an "empty space" when we
      can ground resistance in our own particularity? As
      anarchists, we have been constructed in opposition to the
      dominant values of our society. We already are resistant;
      there is no need to look elsewhere.

      This is not to say though that we have only been constructed
      as anarchists. I would agree with May’s reading of Deleuze
      and before him Nietzsche and Kropotkin, that what we call
      the individual is a multiplicity; the individual is the site
      of multiple subject positions. In our conflicted society, we
      have been constructed in many different and conflicting
      ways. Each subject position is a reflection of a discursive
      practice. However, this is not to posit a subject behind the
      various subject positions choosing among them, as Newman
      would have it. The individual is this multiplicity.

      The sea change in my father from liberal to neo-conservative
      was not the result of his own construction of a new
      subjectivity out of nothingness. Rather, it can be seen as
      the overtaking of one subject position by another under
      particular historical circumstances; specifically, the
      period following 9-11. My father was and is both a liberal
      and a neo-conservative. However, his neo-conservative
      subject position has won this internal struggle, swayed by
      the events of 9-11, and has, for the moment, won the right
      to say "I."

      Postmodern Anarchism

      As I cracked open another crab leg, I wondered about the
      dilemma my discussion with my father presented. How could I,
      how could we as anarchists, move beyond the either/or of
      being either a self-policing subject or a transgressive, and
      thus, reactive subject? Luckily, I would later read the book
      that started the debate in the first place: Postmodern
      Anarchism. Although this work is filled with hyperbole and
      strange characterizations of theorists, Lewis Call, after a
      misstep, does help us think through at least one way in
      which we can become proactive anarchists and he puts forth
      an example of a proactive practice.

      Based on the work of Deleuze, Call advocates a politics
      based on desire asserting that desire is inherently
      revolutionary. (20) However, I would agree with Newman that
      desire in Deleuze achieves a metaphysical quality operating
      functionally as a replacement to modernity’s essentialism.
      Instead of power repressing a benign individual essence,
      power in this conception is repressing an inherently
      revolutionary desire. (21) Moreover, I would argue along
      with Foucault that desire is also a social construction.
      There is nothing inherently liberatory about our desires. As
      products of our societies we are filled with conflicting
      desires, many of which are bound up in domination. (22)

      Call does admit internal conflict in his conception of self,
      similar to May, wherein the individual is the site of
      multiple subject positions. Call goes on to argue that the
      goal of postmodern anarchism is to "reprogram or redesign
      ourselves." (23) But Call does not tell us upon what basis.
      I would argue that any creation of a "new identity" is going
      to be based on one’s already internalized identities. They
      will either be an extension, negation, or blending of who we
      already are. However, it is through the mediation of this
      conflict that the creation of something new can occur. I
      think this is how we can become proactive at an individual
      level. (24) Call, though, denies "human intentionality" and
      free will. What I think he means is that there is no
      meta-subject, no subject behind the subject positions freely
      choosing between them. Agency lies in the acting out of
      these subject positions, but I would argue that individual
      freedom exists in the mediation of their conflicting
      tendencies through creative action.

      On a societal level, Call puts forth an example of one
      proactive practice, one that revolves around the concept of
      the gift and its radical potential. In tracing the concept
      of the gift starting with Mauss, moving through Bataille,
      and ending in Baudrillard, Call raises the struggle over the
      sharing of information on the internet to a potentially
      revolutionary status -- one that falls outside of the logic
      of capitalism. In paraphrasing Baudrillard, Call writes,
      "the symbolic violence of the gift without return is the
      only violence which has any chance against the omnipresent
      semiotic codes of political economy." (25) In other words,
      the capitalist system is based upon the logic of commodity
      exchange; a gift without return -- as a unilateral principle
      -- cannot be accounted for within that logic and so disrupts it.

      Call takes this concept in the direction of computer
      discussion boards where individuals give the gift of advice;
      however, Call’s insight can also be taken in a more literal
      way -- the sharing of information including software, music,
      and text. In the capitalist system commodity exchange is the
      norm (theft and piracy are transgressive) and thus the gift
      without return (Open Source Software) is a proactive
      practice that escapes capitalism’s binary logic. The Open
      Source movement is an articulation of the strong
      anti-capitalist ethic in regard to the internet, summed up
      by the hacker credo: information is free and should be
      freely available. It’s easy to see the revolutionary
      potential of file sharing on the internet, not just in its
      own right, but additionally because of the logic that it
      introduces. When people engage in these alternate practices,
      they create a different power articulation. The practice of
      sharing information freely, without expectation of return,
      runs counter to capitalist practices. This is not to say
      that the internet will overthrow capitalism, but rather, the
      internet has opened up a space where non-capitalistic
      practices can be played out. Call demonstrates the value in
      trying to further these practices. (26)

      Call’s notion of the potential of the gift without return
      can also be applied to the offline world as well where the
      practice of gift giving without compensation already happens
      in scattered, fragmented ways: soup kitchens, libraries,
      charity groups, non-governmental aid organizations, etc.
      What if these practices were networked so that one could get
      all of their goods and services from a gift-giving network?
      If a woman had a baby, she wouldn’t register at a store, she
      would put out a call to the network and receive everything
      she needed: clothes, diapers, a crib, shoes, babysitters.
      What if such a network grew to become the dominant mode of
      exchange in our society?

      For Call, following Baudrillard, power is less stable than
      indicated by Foucault’s rendering. Power exists through
      signs and symbols and is thus open to reinterpretation and
      quick reversals. All the prisons, gulags, and monitoring of
      citizens could not prevent the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Call
      notes that the collapse of the Soviet Union, which seemed as
      if it only took a few minutes, demonstrates what Baudrillard
      says about the unstable nature of power. "Baudrillard is
      attempting to unmask the state’s deepest, most closely
      guarded secret: that its power is unreal, that the state
      exists only as simulation." (27) Call quotes Baudrillard
      here: "The spectacle of those regimes imploding with such
      ease ought to make Western governments -- or what is left of
      them -- tremble, for they have barely any more existence
      than the Eastern ones." (28) If anarchists could cultivate
      practices that move beyond the norm/transgression dichotomy,
      so that they circulated as common currency throughout
      society, there is the potential that one day Western
      governments will disappear as quickly as their counterparts
      did in the East despite "Total Information Awareness."

      Conclusion

      If we accept the postmodern worldview, we are at the same
      time humbled and empowered. Postmodern theory takes the
      anarchist insight that we cannot speak for others and
      furthers it to include even speaking under the guise of
      "universal emancipation" or an ethics "universal in scope,"
      no matter how well intended. In doing so, we must give up
      our ethical grounding. Our principles are not "objectively
      true;" they are our values. They are that which defines us
      as a group, or as an individual. They come from our culture
      and our particular historical location. This is a conception
      of ethics without grounding and without universal claim.
      This however does not negate the principles of anarchism but
      rather limits their implementation and leaves them open for
      debate and modification. Our principles would then not be a
      ground, but a beacon that enables us to decide the best
      course of future action.

      One of the most important lessons to be learned from
      Foucault is that since all practices involve power, the
      practice of anarchism must admit that it is also a power
      formulation. Anarchists need to get over the self-delusion,
      in which Newman participates, that anarchists "oppose
      power." Anarchism is based upon its own exclusions; e.g.,
      participatory democracy is a form of political organization
      in which the individual participant is beholden to the will
      of the majority. Participatory democracy offers the most
      opportunity for all of its members to directly affect the
      decision making process, but it is still a practice of
      power. Anarchists need to focus on creating new power
      formulations that reflect our principles. The practice of
      the gift without return is one such practice, but others are
      awaiting discovery or creation.

      Poststructuralists have also shown that what anarchism takes
      to be inherent in all human beings is a fabrication of
      Enlightenment discourse. Postmodern theory puts forth a
      conception of the individual as the site of a multiplicity
      of subject positions in conflict with one another. It is
      through mediation of this conflict in creative action that
      we can escape the dilemma of being either a self-policing or
      a transgressive subject and become proactive anarchists.

      As my conversation with my father spanned the history of
      U.S. foreign policy since WWII -- the Vietnam war,
      Iran-Contra, the death squads in El Salvador -- I could not
      help but think about my sister who was sitting there
      absorbing every word. She has entered a world where, on the
      one hand, she expects to freely give and receive information
      through the internet, and on the other, these practices are
      becoming criminalized and her private information will be
      freely available to the state and corporations. There is a
      struggle going on now to determine who will control the
      digital representation of who she is. How these conflicting
      logics play themselves out through her future practices, and
      the practices of her generation, will determine to a large
      extent the society that is to come.

      Endnotes:

      1. Lewis Call, Postmodern Anarchism (Lanham: Lexington
      Books, 2002), 139.
      2. Todd May, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist
      Anarchism (University Park: Pennsylvania State University
      Press, 1994), 47.
      3. Ibid., 54.
      4. Ibid., 63.
      5. Ibid., 68.
      6. Ibid., 102.
      7. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the
      Prison (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 202-203.
      8. Ibid., 216.
      9. Ibid., 73.
      10. Todd May, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist
      Anarchism, 154.
      11. Ibid., 119.
      12. Ibid., 119.
      13. Friedrich Nietzsche in Genealogy of Morals exposes many
      universal claims of morality as being rooted in the
      particular interests of those initially espousing them.
      14. Foucault discusses his conception of “care for the self”
      at length in: “On the Genealogy of Ethics” in Michel
      Foucault, The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon Books,
      1984), 340-372.
      15. Saul Newman, From Bakunin to Lacan:
      Anti-Authoritarianism and the Dislocation of Power (Lanham:
      Lexington Books, 2001), 59.
      16. Ibid., 60.
      17. Ibid., 138.
      18. Ibid., 153.
      19. Todd May, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist
      Anarchism, 79.
      20. Call, Postmodern Anarchism, 124.
      21. Newman, From Bakunin to Lacan, 109.
      22. Call admits as much when he pleads, "kill our inner
      fascist" (Postmodern Anarchism, 53). But he cannot tell us
      why because to answer that question would lead us away from
      desire as a simple revolutionary force and straight back to
      the realm of ethics.
      23. Ibid., 52.
      24. Ibid., 131.
      25. Ibid., 97.
      26. Whether or not the people involved in struggles in
      cyberspace call themselves anarchists is less relevant than
      the fact that they are organizing in anarchistic ways and
      acting according to anarchist principles. Recently at a
      hackers convention in New York, H2K2, Jello Biafra was the
      keynote speaker and many of the workshops concerned
      anti-authoritarian themes: The New FBI and How It Can Hurt
      You, "I Am Against Intellectual Property," Face Scanning
      Systems at Airports, The Patriot Act. This is fertile ground
      for anarchist organizing not because these individuals would
      be open to anarchist ideas, but because they are already
      practicing anarchism. The combination of off-line anarchist
      organizers and anarchistic cyber-activists could be a very
      potent force.
      27. Lewis Call, Postmodern Anarchism, 109-110.
      28. Ibid., 110.

      --
      Dan Clore

      Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
      http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
      Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
      http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
      News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

      "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
      *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
      -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
      _Detective Comics_ #608
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.