"Why Anti-Authoritarian?" an essay by Larry Giddings

published by: Arm The Spirit

--

 

     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                          Arm The Spirit

PO Box 1242                             PO Box 57584, Jackson Stn.

Burlington, Vermont                     Hamilton, Ontario

05402-1242                              L8P 4X3

USA                                     CANADA

 

e-mail: aforum@moose.uvm.edu            FAX: (416) 527-2419