Dumpster diving in the trash bin of history

Abstract

While there is much to like in Simon Springer’s article, in this commentary I would like to re-examine several concepts that Springer consigns (much too prematurely, in my view) to the dustbin. Two of these he identifies quite explicitly—vanguardism and revolution; a third by implication—important dimensions of the state.

Questioning authority

“…The methods of Anarchism therefore do not comprise an iron-clad program to be carried out under all circumstances. (Goldman, 1969 [1910]: 69)Žižek famously told Occupy Wall Street, ‘Don’t fall in love with yourselves,’ arguing that all movements eventually need leaders, if they are going to ‘succeed’ (2011: 68; see also Waterstone, 2014). The occupiers refused his advice.…”

“…Some of the responses (Mann, 2014; Waterstone, 2014) to Springer’s (2014) initial essay can fairly be called hostile (to differing degrees), and these give weight to Springer’s impression that anarchism is uncritically dismissed. They both raise concerns with Springer’s representation of Marx, Marxism, and Marxists, which they find uninformed, outdated, and lacking rigor.…”

The limits to Marx

“…Why am I blamed for perpetuating ‘paranoid nonsense’ simply because I’ve raised a series of questions about the limits of Marx and suggest it is time for a reexamination of the anarchist roots of radical geography and an exploration of the promise that anarchist geographies might hold today? The dismissive and derisive responses I’ve received from Marxists aren’t exactly indicative of brotherly love (Mann, 2014; Waterstone, 2014), and the idea that there shouldn’t be an ongoing conversation about how the left is organized seems highly apolitical. Harvey speaks to openness but then closes the door in my face through his liberal use of satire.…”

“…Throwing down the gauntlet was an attempt to compel Marxists to listen (and in turn for them to ask me to also listen) and thereby open a renewed dialogue , hence the publication of my original article here in Dialogues in Human Geography . To my chagrin, I naively didn’t anticipate the ridicule and attack from some Marxists that followed (Mann, 2014; Waterstone, 2014), and it remains unknown to me why some feel the need to defend Marxist thought to such an absurd and self-defeating extent. If in this response I’ve been extremely critical of Harvey, it is only because I view him as a worthy adversary with something very important to say.…”

“…Had he read this other essay, he might have noticed that it preemptively answers most of his criticisms about horizontalism, decentralization, and prefiguration, which makes his response all the more curious. Perhaps most confusing of all though is that he also ignores the rest of the dialogue that my original essay spawned (Clough, 2014; Gibson, 2014; Ince, 2014; Mann, 2014; Waterstone, 2014), including my final response (Springer, 2014a), which, again, already answers some of his critiques. All of this suggests that Harvey hasn’t really taken the anarchist position in geography very seriously at all, thus making it particularly difficult to think about the possibility of ‘fertile collaboration’ between Marxists and anarchists that he speaks to in concluding his essay (2017: 249).…”