A Few More Words on Doris Lessing and The Good Terrorist

I was going to type a few more words about Doris Lessing but wasn’t sure, and then a post on another blog made me more certain that I would do this.  But more on that in a minute…

What I wanted to say about Ms. Lessing (which is somewhat related to my answer to the other post) is that I in no way admire her for her opinions about politics these days.  I recently read an interview that reminded me how much I could disagree with her political views of the present, although her views are somehow so unclear, it’s hard to know exactly how I should disagree.  (I may actually bring up this interview and quote it for a revision of this post sometime later - but right now, I wanted to write a briefer and quicker comment than that.)  One problem is, Doris Lessing is someone who grew disillusioned with the Communist Party (of Great Britain) back when she was a member some 40+ years ago, and she chose to dismiss the whole idea of communism or Marxism because of this, but she never exactly explains why she thinks the Marxist analysis itself is wrong.  She merely dismissively says that all these leftists during and after World War II were mad with the idea that a new and perfect world was on the horizon.  She says rather flippantly that it doesn’t matter that she was a communist decades ago because ”everybody was a communist back then.”  Like so many people who got caught up in communism as part of a world trend sometime ago (who more likely than not supported Stalinism in some way), Lessing looks back on it as some passing fad inappropriate for the present day…because, I would guess, the groups and governments that were supposed to achieve communism, or claimed that they would or had, failed in that mission in the eyes of the world.

It’s fair enough to say that a huge movement that claimed to be communism failed to achieve what it had ostensibly set out to do (after a brief and troubled attempt over a period of 70 years - a tiny period of time compared to capitalism’s destructive reign)…  But the part I disagree with is the idea that the Marxist analysis itself has proven to be irrelevant.  That’s because it appears to be far more relevant in the present day than it might have some 40 to 60 years ago, as capital and the world economy have, in recent decades, fit the patterns predicted by Marx more than they did during the post-WW II boom.  And as we get further into the 21st century, and as all the compromises of the post-World War II era continue to disintegrate, capital becomes more global and at the same time consolidated, inequality increases, the world once again witnesses the prevalence and growth of sweatshop-type exploitation and the most barbaric examples of primitive accumulation by advanced powers, etc., etc….it’s looking more and more as though Marx’s critique of capitalism was quite correct.

Now, I haven’t read Lessing much recently, but it seems to me as though she doesn’t have much to say about all this stuff.  She opposes the war on Iraq and she has a solid interest in human rights (as she always had), but her political analysis in many ways doesn’t seem so deep, and she is certainly no ally of the left, nor has she been for some time.     

Although, admittedly, I say this as someone who hasn’t read that much of her recent books, more from evidence in her comments and interviews, and reviews and comments from others about her work… 

Nonetheless, she’s been with many of the characters whom one will find in left-wing groups and seems to know about the problems and conflicts that might plague people, especially young people, drawn to a movement that is politically and/or culturally radical.  And she obviously had some idea, when she wrote The Good Terrorist, what it was like to deal with a bunch of mixed-up young rebels living in  in a squat.

Which brings me to the comment at Inveresk Street Ingrate.  (And, I should add, I would have liked to answer this comment on the blog itself, but Darren still has the comments section set to accept only people registering through Google/Blogger.  I might still be technically registered with them, but I lost my password to that service long ago and don’t care right now to go take the time and trouble of finding it again - assuming I ever will be able to.  So, I will post my answer here, since I was going to write more about Doris Lessing anyway.)

Now, here’s the pertinent chunk from Darren’s post that I wanted to comment on::

It depicted a pocket of time and a group of people that I simply couldn’t recognise. They rampaged across the page like a rogue branch of the RCG who had swapped the writings of David Yaafe for a xeroxed copy of The Anarchist Cookbook, and I remembered being irritated at the time with the thought that Lessing was being given a free pass with this book because of her membership of the CP thirty years previously; Lessing supposedly knowing the psychology, motivations and dynamics of the left because she was once part of it. That’s where Richard’s post comes in.

Despite the fact that the novel is set in Britain and relates to a ficticious Leninist group, Richard could see parallels with the scene that he was a part of in Philadelphia in the early eighties, and more recently with the anarchist circles he was moving in a few years back in New York. Those self-same circles that Richard moved in had a low opinion of the novel, and Richard’s take is that: ” . . . . part of the reason for their [his political friends] dislike of this novel was that its satirical depiction of dysfunctional leftists hit a little too close to home. Moreover, her character study obviously applied across sectarian divides . . . “

I’m still not totally convinced by that line of argument, but I’ve never moved in the same sort of political circles as Richard.

Unfortunately, I fear that Darren has failed to get the reason why I appreciated this novel and other people might also misunderstand my comments on it in the same way.  I wouldn’t claim (and haven’t) that The Good Terrorist is an accurate depiction of the politics and tactics of an informed contemporary far-left group, whether Leninist or libertarian socialist.  What I liked about the novel was its great (I think) and funny depiction of a dysfunctional community of marginal young people living in a squat, rebelling against a world, claiming to have, or thinking that they have, a mission to help correct the world’s problems when they wouldn’t know the first thing about correcting some serious problems within their own little group. 

And when Lessing got into the characters and the dynamics between them, that’s when I saw some awfully familiar - and darkly hilarious - stuff.

I read this book sometime ago, and time doesn’t permit me to reread passages and quote from it right now - not, especially, if I want to give a quick enough answer to Darren’s comments (such is the nature of blogging, especially when there is a dialogue involved, especially if we have jobs, etc., to run to and we’re not paid blogger hacks).  But as I recall, time and again, the characters she depicted and their symptoms of dysfunction reminded me both of my punk rock days in 1980s West Philly (in an area that would actually become an anarchist center of sorts 15+ years later) and my encounters with anarchist types in the late 1990s.  Not so much because of politics, but because of characters.  And, especially, if you took the book as satire - which is what Darren touches on a little later in his post, when he says:

Perhaps it would be better to approach it again as a satire that could equally apply to the secular political extremism of the 60s and 70s (see above with Cathy Wilkerson) or even today where in some small quarters a religious political extremism has taken grip.

Except that I don’t think that The Good Terrorist, as I recall it, really dwelled much on “political extremism.”  The kids who were the main subject of this novel may have admired some extremists (such as the mysterious guys who lived in the IRA house down the street), but their fall into “terrorism” was quite accidental, their attempts to build a bomb and carry out its delivery fumbling and bumbling (somewhat reminiscent of the Weather Underground, discussed earlier in Darren’s post), and their ideological critique and mission quite vague and confused, driven more by personal rebellion than by a clear radical philosophy.

This might seem like a slightly exaggerated or unfair portrait, especially if it’s taken as a generalization about the far left.  But I saw a lot of familiar things in it, and I appreciated the skill with which Lessing drew those characters, as well as the brilliant (I think) way she moved the plot along, as a writer who was able to create something that was at the same time suspenseful drama and dark satire.

And though it’s not at all a flattering portrait, I think it might be appreciated by at least some radicals who are able to laugh a little at their collective selves. 

I once would have included myself in that group, but I have removed myself quite a bit from those circles, and I admit that I may have something in common with Lessing , as a disillusioned former communist (or anarchist) type.  However, I am still a type of communist, where that category meets a type of anarchist.  My problem is not wanting to deal with the groups and scenes that I encountered when I was more deeply involved.  (Although, one might argue that that’s all a moot point because in 2007, it’s impossible to be deeply involved in an anti-capitalist movement the way some of us were back in 1999, at least here in the U.S.)  So, maybe I can agree with Doris Lessing somewhat in her critique of these character types, but there’s no way I’m about to discard a 160-year-old social-political-economic critique of capitalism that seems to me, at least, to be incredibly pertinent right now.  (Plus, there are elements of Marxian philosophy that might interest me even more than the critique of capital per se.  And I doubt the types depicted in Lessing’s novel ever get to reading that sort of stuff.)

So, there’s my answer to Darren’s post and then some.  Although I should bring up one more point:  The people I was referring to when I talked about people on the left who disliked this novel were not a specific circle of friends, they were just people whose comments I had seen or gotten over the years.  And, in fact, Darren was one of them.  A few years ago, when he first saw my profile back when I was at blogger, he saw that I had listed The Good Terrorist as one of my favorite books, and he mentioned in a note to me that he thought the book was awful.  So, Darren, when I wrote that part of my post, I was actually at least partly thinking about you!

One Year After the Murder of Brad Will

As people who’ve been reading this blog for a year or more know…  Brad Will was a guy I worked with (along with many other people) on some activist projects sometimes over a period of at least seven years, mostly during my heavier activist and anarchist days.  I can’t say that I became close pals with Brad, but he was good friends with people whom I was pretty good friends with for a while, and after some awkwardness over a few years (which I felt with quite a few people in his circle), I did get to like the guy.  Plus, all along, I had to respect him for his commitment and the skills in activism that he had learned - which he was so glad to teach others as well.  Later on, there was no denying his commitment as a journalist. 

I’ve parted ways with the New York anarchist scene as I knew it, for the most part anyway, and I’ve lost touch with people (or certain people completely lost touch with me - for whatever reason).  So, even though I thought maybe I’d attend some kind of memorial for the one-year anniversary of Brad’s death, since nobody mentioned it to me, I’m sorry to say that the one-year point (and any local commemoration that might have gone with it) completely passed me by.

But I’m in New York City, and it looks as though the real memorial was in Oaxaca anyway…  It was interesting to see at a WordPress blog called Mexico Reporter that 20,000 people marched in memory of Brad Will, and in protest of the fact that a year had passed since his murder and no justice had been done.  (No surprise there.)  They also remembered a teacher named Alonso Fabian who, as the blog notes, “was shot dead the same day during clashes between teachers and members of the APPO, and municipal police and government forces.”

It’s good to see such a strong response to at least two such injustices.  If we saw this kind of reaction to a bunch more of the so-many murders that are committed by governments and their agents against activists and journalists (or people just involved in social action or journalism) …well, at the very least, things would get more interesting.

Brad’s death both shocked and depressed me, but I know of several people for whom it was probably far more devestating…  Not only among the people whom I had known before his death, but also during the year since it happened…  I actually met or corresponded with some more people whom Brad had affected in a personal way, whom he had inspired or helped or consoled in troubled times, and I have to say, that was impressive. 

There are the people who will use Brad as some symbol for their cause, try to turn him into a saint or martyr or the next Che Guevara, and I have some distaste for that sort of thing.  (That could be one reason that I didn’t go to the big memorial last year - though I know it’s not a good excuse.)   But for the people who knew him well, for whom this loss was so personal…well, I hope it’s at least a little consolation that so many others are remembering him as well, for his commitment and the awful sacrifice that he made.

And no, I don’t think that dying for a cause or in the line of duty, whether as activist or journalist or revolutionary, is a great thing.  Frankly, I think it stinks.  All the more reason to hope for some kind of justice when this kind of thing happens to someone - though justice can be a rare thing.

From the Mainstream News: “Nearly three-quarters of people blamed work and money as the main sources of stress in their lives…”

I love these surveys that give us a great revelation that could be absolutely no surprise to anyone…  Though, who knows, maybe it is a surprise.  So often, the individual American is convinced that his or her worries are just a personal problem, not something that could be affecting almost everyone…

So, this survey got mentioned in an article in Yahoo/Reuters with a first line that says, “Worries about work and money are causing one-third of Americans to suffer from extreme stress, driving them to overeat, drink, and smoke.”  That’s certainly something worth mentioning, even though it’s sort of something that we already knew.  But even better, I think, is the information that it gives about THREE-QUARTERS of Americans:

Nearly three-quarters of people blamed work and money as the main sources of stress in their lives, followed by workload and children.  Low salaries, too much work and a lack of opportunity were the main reasons for stress at work.

I’ve bolded/emphasized the last line, because that is something we really ought to remember.  So often, we are given this misinformation that Americans are content with their financial situation, that we’re this prosperous country that merely suffers from too much privilege and opportunity.  I see this information coming even more often from people on the left than on the right.  And I suppose that most of us are better off than the  majority of people in the world, who suffer from extreme poverty.  But that doesn’t mean we’re really well off, or that we’re content with our economic situations and our jobs.  Especially worth noting is that line about “lack of opportunity.”  It kind of contradicts so many myths and so much propaganda.

But the most amusing line in the whole article was the first line of the last paragraph:

Newman advised people to take a closer look at what is causing stress as a first step to dealing with it better.

Then it goes on to say that:

About half of people who participated in the poll conducted by Harris Interactive found reading, listening to music and exercising useful in relieving stress.  Forty percent said spending time with family and friends helped, and 34 percent prayed. 

But does that have anything to do with what it says in the first sentence of this paragraph, about taking a closer look at the cause of that stress?  The paragraph seems to go somewhere else.

It seems obvious to me that the cause of that stress which they need to take a closer look at is the stuff that the article talked about so much above:  work (especially too much work, with low salaries and lack of opportunity) and money.

That causes stress in three-quarters of Americans, but there’s a smaller number who aren’t really plagued by such problems.  And why’s that?  Could it possibly be because the overwhelming majority are suffering more in part so that they, the smaller number, can suffer much less?  Doesn’t seem exactly fair, does it?

How do you deal with these these problems of work and money that three-quarters of the population can’t get away from?  There isn’t exactly anywhere to go if a lack of opportunity is a big problem too.

And obviously, you’re not going to solve the problem for real by exercising and listening to music…  Or doing any other little activity on your own.

What is the cause of work (as we know it) and money, and what should be done about that cause?

Hmm…

Moving More Toward an Anti-Voting Stance…

Some of my old anarchist comrades might be pleased to know that I’m leaning more and more toward not voting in the election of ‘08 and even joining some vocal opposition to voting that year.  Assuming the anti-vote crowd could actually get it together to make any vocal opposition…

Earlier this month, I received a message from someone in e-mail (ironically, through a group that meets and talks about “Noam Chomsky and Anarchosyndicalism”) that we should all make sure to register to vote by October 12, the deadline for participating in next February’s primaries.  The person who wrote this insisted that the primaries were “where the power is.”  I thought of writing a critique of that statement, but I don’t think getting into that argument would have helped anything, especially since I never actually met with this group.  Besides, I have often taken the side opposing those who always set out to criticize voters based on anarchist dogma.  My approach has always been, if we have this chance to vote for strategic purposes or even to register a (weak) protest, why not just go ahead and do so, if we can put aside the time?     

But I really didn’t have the time or energy to re-register with a party that I dislike intensely (almost as much as that other party), just so that I could cast another useless primary protest vote for Kucinich, who’s going to instantly throw his support to whover gets nominated at the convention, no matter how awful that person is.

And as for voting in the next general presidential election, that might be a bigger waste of time than ever. 

This time around, we don’t even have Ralph Nader running or anyone filling that role (at least not yet).  Back in ‘04, Ralph was someone whom I could vote for to defy a fake-oppositional “Democratic Party” that had done everything possible to suppress the democratic right of someone to run as a third-party candidate.  And Ralph was also kind of inspiring in terms of the way he raised issues (to a relatively large public) that the notoriously invertebrate John Kerry would never dare to  go near.  (Yeah, maybe that guy Kerry was some kind of war hero once(?), but by 2004, he had already become the guy who would later  be famous for looking the other way while a student attending one of his appearances was being given electric shocks by police storm troopers for exercising the right to free speech.)  This year, at least, there is not anyone like Ralph Nader even on the horizon.  (Certainly, there will be other parties on some ballots, but hardly anyone will be able to see them at all.)  But maybe this time, the politicians are getting dogged a little bit more by the idea that a lot of people don’t want to throw any support behind any of them.

I don’t know if it’s just me, but it seems to me that there is some real concern on the part of politicians and their media lackeys about the possibility of a low turnout and/or complete disenchantment with the “leaders” in both major political parties.  Polls are showing again and again that the vast majority of people have equal contempt for both the Republicans and Democrats, as Bush and the Congress compete to achieve the lowest approval rating of either branch of government in the history of the U.S.

I’m not somebody who thinks much about taking political opportunities, but this does seem like one time when there is going to be a bigger political opportunity to emphasize the fact that our “leaders” are giving us no choice at all, and that the whole presidential election is just a big joke.

This is especially true if we are stuck with the major candidates who seem to be the front-runners now.  And I have to say that, because I’ve lived most of my life in New York City (also the place of my birth), I am particularly dreading the appearance of a Clinton-Giuliani race.  It’s bad enough to suffer the embarrassment of being an American these days, with a presidential administration that is probably the most despised government in the world…  What are so many of us going to feel about being a New Yorker with these two jokers who have functioned as our ”leaders” waging a battle on the national stage?

We’ll have one guy with an extremely authoritarian personality, representing the authoritarian wing of the corporate class, running against a woman who’s merely a slicker and more conniving representative of those same corporate interests, a chronic triangulator who makes her husband Slick Willy look like a man of strong principles.    

And, as far as I can tell, there is extremely little difference between the real political beliefs of the two.

If there’s any time in the present era to wage a visible, vocal boycott of the presidential election, now might be it.  But the anti-voters have to get it together to make a little more noise about what they’re doing, to explain why staying home on election day might actually be the right thing to do even for people who are deeply politically invovled.   And that noise has to reach a little beyond your friends at the infoshop. 

Doris Lessing - One Nobel Prize I Don’t Mind

I don’t give much credit to the Nobel committee and their prizes and, as far as I’m concerned, most of the money that’s been awarded in these prizes over the years could have been much better spent somewhere else.  But I’m kind of glad that Doris Lessing got the prize in literature this year.  I don’t read or write much fiction these days, but in earlier times, through my 20s and early 30s, when I was writing a lot, she was an influence. 

I particularly enjoyed her novel The Good Terrorist, which I read shortly after it was published, in the mid-late ’80s.  In fact, it was one of the biggest influences on a novel that I started writing and got going for about 150 pages during the late ’80s and early ’90s.  (Although I was no novelist - I much preferred writing short stories, which I put much more effort into over the years.)

My novel was sort of a satirical horror novel, different from Lessing’s (although Doris Lessing also did write a few borderline horror novels in her time, as well as lots of science fiction), but The Good Terrorist definitely lurked behind a lot of it. 

The story of the dysfunctional Leninists in The Good Terrorist and the dynamics among them reminded me quite a bit of a rebel punk rock house in West Philadelphia that I had been part of during my last year in college (1982) - which experience itself was also a big influence.  But Lessing’s novel rang even truer for me when I reread it in the late 1990s, when I was heavily involved in the anarchist scene.  I’ve spoken to a few radical leftists and anarchists who really didn’t like it.  And I’m almost certain part of the reason for their dislike of this novel was that its satirical depiction of dysfunctional leftists hit a little too close to home.  Moreover, her character study obviously applied across sectarian divides (otherwise, maybe those critics would have been able to laugh a little more at the black humor, considering that the people she was satirizing were Leninists, not libertarian socialists or anarchists).   

I also read her breakthrough novel, The Golden Notebook. a long, long time ago (like when I was about 22 or so), and enjoyed the writing quite a bit.  A little later, I read a collection, African Stories, which impressed me even more.

Ms. Lessing has written some stuff that left me with mixed feelings as well.  I remember, about 10 years ago, reading this somewhat odd memoir that she wrote in support of the courageous “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan, which was full of endless complaints that the West was not sufficiently supporting the Afghans against the Soviet Union.  It struck me as rather odd that, somewhat like Ronald Reagan, she seemed to be making heroes out of the muhjahidin.  (My memory of the timeline is getting a little shaky now, but I should add that I think she wrote it in the late ’80s, about ten years before I read it.  I don’t know if that had anything to do with my impression of it.)

Of course, her story wasn’t just simple propaganda; it was more complex than that, and much of her sympathy was justified.  The Afghan people were suffering a very bad plight (as they often have during their history), and there was a lot of compassion and humanism within Lessing’s story, deserving praise.  But I did consider her book in some places to be politically rather…questionable.  It would be interesting to read it again now and see what I think of it in the present context - or ask other people to read it and see what they think about it… 

There is a very interesting Wikipedia entry on Doris Lessing, with some good external links at the end of it.  I recommend going to it if you would like some more information or brushing up on information about this usually fascinating author.  I intend to visit there a few more times myself.

A Little Irony in the Callout for the “Autonomous Gathering”

OK, so there is a Northeast Autonomous Gathering  from October 11 to 14 in Quebec.  I don’t think it has anything to do with the autonomist spinoff from Marxism; it seems to be more about autonomous survival - combined with a little anarchism, I guess.  Anyway, the call begins by saying, “A lot of talk happens these days about an impending social collapse or apocalypse. This could be due to peak oil, climate change, etc.”  Later on in the call, under discussions, it mentions, “Alternative communication and transport (anarchist traveling/mailing networks, free radio, non-motorized vehicles, DIY biofuels, other ideas?)” and ”Roadless urban travel and re/claiming urban space (guerrilla gardens, shanty towns).”  The address that this call gives is “Auberge (hotel) Val Margarita 4350 Route 147″ and in the second call/reminder which appeared this week, it gives directions like this: 

From New York/Montreal:
Take 87 North through to Canada onto Autoroute 15
From 15, take Autoroute 10 East toward Sherbrooke
Split off onto Autoroute 55 South
Take the exit in St. Catherine de Hatley onto Rt. 108 East
Follow 108 until it merges with 143 North
After a couple minutes, you’ll see signs for 147 South, turn right onto 147

It gives similar kinds of directions from several different locations, telling you what highway to take, where to turn off the highway and, sometimes, even where to park.

It gives the most detailed possible directions on how to get there by driving a car.

It doesn’t give any hint about any other possible kind of transportation one might take to get to this.

Maybe it’s just me, but I couldn’t help reading this without being hit by the irony in a big way.  Maybe it’s because, unlike a lot of other people, I actually notice whether people drive, or are required to drive, fuel-consuming, polluting, environment-destroying cars.  I mean, I’m not a big green type, but I’m proud to say that I never even learned to drive.  And back when I used to work on anarchist or radical benefits, they were held deep in the innards of the city, with directions on how to get there through several means other than car.

Back to the Music Blog - and Back to Thoughts about Politics and Music Blogging

I’ve gotten back to working on my music blog.  For some reason, I have just, finally gotten hooked on YouTube, and I’m starting to post a whole bunch of videos.  This is something I should probably have done from the start.  Maybe if I manage to overcome my technological laziness a little more, I’ll also get into posting mp3s, as any music blogger should.

I’ve posted YouTube videos of M.I.A., Natacha Atlas, Blondie (strangely enough), Monsoon and Sheila Chandra…  I’ve also just written a bunch about Sheila Chandra too.

Some people might expect that my music blog would be more political in nature and/or maybe would get into more political bands (or a larger number of political bands).  But that’s not how my musical tastes go, especially not these days.  My love of M.I.A. came about not because she is political, but because she does stuff that appeals so well to my tastes in music - and manages to make some very interesting political comments on top of that.  (Of course, there are other factors also, but never mind.)  And I probably could say the same about Natacha Atlas, and a few other people whom I might focus on.

Many people in the U.S. who consider themselves anarchists or radical leftists still seem to have some interest in anarcho-punk.  Unfortunately, at least when it comes to the music, I have no desire to go there at all these days.  In England and Europe, there seems to be more of a history between anarchism or other radical politics and hardcore techno, which is closer to some of my musical tastes in recent years.  But in the U.S., the anarcho-punk associations remain much stronger and, once again, I just can’t bring myself to start blogging about that stuff, not even about old CRASS.  

Fortunately, there are interesting bloggers out there who are still willing to cover that terrirotry - such as Transpontine, over at History Is Made at Night.  (And, maybe because this is a British blog, he also discusses an old anarcho-crusty gabber scene and assumes most people will know what he’s talking about.)