An interview with Paul Cudenec, author of
The Anarchist Revelation, has been published on the internet.
It was originally published on the
Vast Minority blog site but has since also appeared at on
UK Indymedia and
Indybay.org.
Here's the text:
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.
