Haaretz Interview with Uri Gordon
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1040570.html
Last update - 18:11 24/11/2008
A conversation with Uri Gordon
The author of 'Anarchy Alive!' says the economic meltdown is a sign
capitalism has reached its limits and explains why he won't be voting or
serving in any army
By David B. Green
Over the telephone Uri Gordon does not sound like he's gloating, but for
an anarchist such as himself, the earth-shaking economic developments of
the past six weeks have to have provided some satisfaction. After all,
today's anarchists are certain of the wrong-headedness of the modern
capitalist system, with its inevitable march toward a greater
concentration of the world's wealth in an increasingly smaller number of
hands. Most also see the need for a radical change in humanity's
relationship with the environment, an understanding that seems to have
been adopted by at least much of the West in recent months, as the
effects of oil depletion and climate change become felt.
Gordon, 32, is the author of "Anarchy Alive!: Anti-Authoritarian
Politics from Practice to Theory" (Pluto Press, 183 pages, $26.95/16
pounds), a somewhat high-brow analysis of contemporary anarchism. Raised
in Haifa, Gordon received his doctorate in political theory from Oxford
University in 2005; his thesis served as the basis for the book. But as
he describes in the book's introduction, he arrived in the United
Kingdom in the fall of 2000, after the anti-globalization movement had
begun to draw tens of thousands to its demonstrations, and shortly
before the huge protests in Europe against the imminent allied invasion
of Iraq. He soon found himself spending as much time on the barricades
as in the library. He resolved the apparent conflict, he writes, when he
realized that "I could easily construe my activism as fieldwork, and
actually gear my academic work to the needs of activists."
"Anarchy Alive!" deals with most of the big questions curious readers
might have about the movement: its connection to the violently
revolutionary anarchism of the early 20th century, and the views of
today's anarchists on violence; the attitude of anarchists to technology
and to environmental issues, and why it is that so many of the
protesters against Israel's West Bank separation barrier seem to be
anarchists -- part of a general discussion of anarchism and the question
of Israel/Palestine.
Gordon describes the integral concept for anarchists of "prefigurative
action," which in the simplest terms means that they are not waiting for
a revolution in order to begin living according to their beliefs. Since
another major tenet of the movement is the need for decentralization of
all aspects of life, it makes perfect sense that many anarchists live in
small communities, and try to achieve a level of sustainability. Gordon,
for example, is a resident of Kibbutz Lotan, up the road from Ketura,
where he teaches politics and ethics at the Arava Institute for
Environmental Studies. (He has also contributed several opinion articles
on environmental themes to Haaretz English Edition.) He spoke to us from
there.
***
How did you happen to become an anarchist?
I grew up in a left-wing family, although my parents were not
politically active. I did my army service in Army Radio, and reported
from the West Bank during 1996-1997, covering the redeployment from the
cities. I became interested in environmental issues after my release,
when I picked up a book, "Our Angry Earth," by Isaac Asimov and
Frederick Pohl. It helped me realize that this would be the defining
issue of the coming century. I started studying politics and economics
at Tel-Aviv University, looking at environmental issues from a
philosophical and economic perspective; I also became involved with
groups like Green Action and in the struggle against the Trans-Israel
Highway. It became clear to me that exploitation of nature by humans is
intimately connected with the exploitation of humans by humans.
How would you summarize the basic tenets of anarchist beliefs?
We object to centralization of power, to hierarchical structures in
society and to the institution of the state. We're opposed to capitalism
and social classes, to school systems designed to produce obedient
workers and citizens, and to most forms of organized religion. We
believe in horizontal forms of organization, in voluntary association
and mutual aid, and believe that decisions should be made at the
smallest or most local level possible.
Does this mean that you won't vote in the upcoming election in Israel,
or wouldn't serve in the army today?
I probably won't vote. In principle, I don't want to signify my consent
to be ruled, or my acquiescence to a system whereby we get to choose who
pushes us around. Elections give people the illusion of democratic
participation, but as the famous Jewish anarchist Emma Goldman said: If
voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. And no, I wouldn't
serve in any army of any country. If everyone were an anarchist, there
wouldn't be armies and there wouldn't be wars.
You seem to be ignoring the basic characteristics of human nature. Given
the choice, societies -- even the kibbutz -- seem to prefer capitalism,
inegalitarian as it may be. And humans also seem to be naturally
aggressive, no?
I don't agree. If you ask people, do you want to take orders or do your
own thing, to compete or to cooperate -- I think that if they had the
choice to think about it, rather than being indoctrinated by a society
based on competition and hierarchy, they would choose cooperation.
Anarchists always say that their forms of organization are not novel.
Most human relationships are naturally horizontal and cooperative.
There's a difference between order and hierarchy. Anarchy is also a form
of order, but it's based on agreement, rather than command. On agreed
rules rather than enforced laws that protect the privileged from the many.
But just look at the way people behave in Israel, driving -- and parking
-- as if there were nobody else on the streets.
People behave the way they do because of their culture and their mutual
expectations. It's not surprising that in a culture that educates us to
compete with each other and either to command or to obey, you'd get
people trying to elbow their way around and do as much as they can for
their own benefit. Anarchism also calls for a revolution in
consciousness and culture, one that will allow free rein to human
sociable instincts, to mutual aid.
It all sounds good, but what if everyone really were an anarchist? Would
we have institutions like hospitals, universities, or even airlines?
Centralized economies aren't the only way to organize production and
services. In an anarchist system, any form of productive activity would
be owned and run directly by the workers, rather than by private bosses
or the state. Production would be for need, not for profit. Various
workers' enterprises would coordinate between themselves to perform any
larger scale tasks. The basic idea is that, if you leave people to their
own devices, they will organize quite well, and that top-down,
centralized forms of organization are in place to maintain existing
systems of privilege and domination, rather than in order to get things
done.
Look at Catalonia, during the high stages of the Spanish Revolution, in
1936. There was a well-formed anarchist system. The peasants owned the
land, tram workers ran the trams, and everything functioned -- and this
was in middle of a civil war. The original kibbutzim were also
anarchistic, even if they didn't call themselves that. In Degania, the
founders said, we are trying to create a society without exploited and
exploiters. We want direct democracy, from each according to their
ability and to each according to their needs.
You say you wouldn't serve in the army today. But what if every Israeli
said that -- surely you don't deny that Israel has genuine defense concerns?
I think that occupation creates terrorism, and not vice versa. If all
Israelis had the political consciousness to refuse to go to military
service, we would have already arrived in a revolutionary situation. It
would mean that they had all shed their artificial, drummed-up fears and
risen up against their exploiters. In general, though, when people
discuss politics, they put themselves in the place of the politician and
imagine what they would do. But people like you and me aren't being
asked what we think the state should do. Whatever agreement the
political elites end up signing is not going to be the end of the
conflict. It's only the beginning of the peace process. What matters at
this stage is building ties of binational solidarity and cooperation, to
have grassroots movements that seek to show and demonstrate with their
own acts and lives that another Middle East is possible. You don't have
to be an anarchist to agree that it's through everyday relationships
that peace is accomplished. So when my friends and I go to villages of
Palestinians whose lands are being confiscated for construction of the
segregation barrier, we are showing with our own bodies that something
is stronger than the perpetual threat being projected by parties on all
sides of the political spectrum. We are showing that we have values that
transcend all forms of separation.
Do you see the economic meltdown as a vindication of your beliefs?
I think the current global financial crisis is definitely a strong
indication that capitalism is reaching its limits, and so I am convinced
that various efforts to "buy time," in this sense, are not going to cut
it. On one hand, we are reaching the limits of the finite planet that we
live on -- of the resources we can extract, and the pollution we can
emit -- and on the other, a system of capitalism based on speculation on
future debt is no longer managing to function. The way out is not for
governments to bail out the banks, but for people to begin creating
grassroots structures that are self-sufficient, and that will allow them
to detach themselves from both capitalism and the state.
We're talking just before the election in the U.S., but it occurs to me
that you probably don't care who wins it.
Actually, I want Obama to win, because I hope that when he breaks
everybody's hearts, people will then wake up to the fact that it doesn't
matter whether it's a blue or red puppet in capitalism's hand. At the
same time, in the short term, we've had eight years of a very right-wing
administration in Washington, which has dragged the whole world into a
very bad position, and just the relief from that will make a difference
in the lives of many Americans, and many Iraqis, hopefully, and
Palestinians and Israelis.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"