"Engaged withdrawal" and dismissing direct action?

[Pawn Power]

Since a consensus wasn’t made on Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology in the study group I would like to bring up one of the more conspicuous concepts that were raised by Graeber for discussion, which I think most anarchist would want to dispute in someway.


The theory of exodus proposes that the most effective way of opposing capitalism and the liberal state is not through direct confrontation but by means of what Paolo Virno has called “engaged withdrawal,” mass defection by those wishing to create new forms of community. One need only glance at the historical record to confirm that most successful forms of popular resistance have taken precisely this form. They have not challenged power head on (this usually leas to being slaughtered, or if not, turning into some-often ever uglier- variant of the very thing one first challenged) but from one or another strategy of slipping away from its grasp, from flight, desertion, the founding of new communities.
(p 60-61, David Graeber)


It appears that he is advocating some sort of preemptive abandonment of capitalist and state controlled society. And while I think it is important and even vital to oppose capitalism and the state in a variety of ways, in which “engaged withdrawal” could be incorporated in some instances, it would appear this strategy is along similar lines as the pacifist strategy. The arrogance that those in power will allow something like this to materialize and the conceit of those to abandon others that are being oppressed seems to be fundamentally against the direct action anarchist paradigm.

Graeber appears to be very focused on changing the individual and their perception of authority and society, which again is ultimately imperative, however releases him of the requisite task of direct action and confrontation of those currently in authoritative possessions of power.

The rest of the pamphlet contained some interesting insights, particularly the final section on democracy and the role of anthropologist.

[blueeyedboy]

That is an intresting concept Pawn Power. The idea of an 'engaged withdrawal' sounds like a good idea on paper, but it remains to be seen how long a new community can last when broken away from the state and capitalism. In England, I don't think many people could break away from the state and form a community, because so many people depend on the state to simply just ignore it. In other countries, an 'engaged withdrawal' is a possibility, and if the new community can maintain itself, then I'm for it.

[YKTMX]

The proposition is ludicrous.

Practically, where exactly is this place (I assume it's a real place rather some kind of "mental" or "spiritual" space) going to be? Are we going to annexe a part of Florida? Or "take a bit" of the Brazilian rainforest or the Urals?

Secondly, what exactly would the response of the state be? Would we expect them just to throw their hands up and declare "fair enough". In the end, confrontation with the state is inevitable and you can either meet in a position of strength or one of weakness. You can meet it with class consciousness, the mass strike, the popular insurrection, autonomous organs or political power or you can "flee" to some Garden of Eden in the middle of nowhere.

These sort of ideas are no threat to capitalism because they don't threaten the modern basis of capitalist power - the bourgeois state.

In fact, I might even be willing to concede that before the emergence of strong nation-states and the complete victory of bourgeois forms on a global scale, such "autonomous" zones may have been possible - although they would not be called communist or socialist.

But to imagine in today's climate of hyper-globalization and complete bourgeois monopoly of violence on a global level that we can achieve liberation by "leaving" is just really silly.

[YSR]

I recently was part of a study group on this work too and I think that you're mischaracterizing Graeber's position.

As I recall in Fragments, Graeber also talks about the need for "counter-power." I think putting this concept next to the principle of engaged withdrawal is a more accurate representation of a solid anarchist platform.

Taking over the State will either fail or end up perpetuating the mistakes of the State mechanism (eg Bolsheviks). Rather we should withdraw from its systems of control ("withdrawal") while actively resisting ("engaged") to protect our autonomous spaces. We need to construct a counter-power to the capitalist hegemony, something which can only exist if we have intellectual and social space with which to do so.

I agree with Graeber that the simple "rise up, take over" model is simplistic and ineffective. As the saying goes, we need to create a new society within the shell of the old.

[Guild-soicalist]

Sounds like utopia to me....

[Pawn Power]

blueeyedboy and YKTMX:

Like Young Stupid Radical I also think you misinterpreted Graeber. The idea of "engages withdrawal" is not some sort of "flight" to the countryside or away from society, but creating autonomist pockets within the society we have today that will attempt, and are currently attempting, to act as independently as possible from the state apparatus and capitalism.

The aspect which I am skeptical of is Graeber's appeared reasoning that eventually these autonomist collectives will in time accumulate and capitalism and the state will just dissolve into their mass. While I believe as resistance to capitalism and the state grows, these spaces will proliferate (and are proliferating) however eventually the ruling class will take a stand when threatened. More direct resistance will have to come to protect ourselves and autonomist spaces, i.e. revolution. Graber seems to underestimate the ferocity of the ruling class and that somehow their power will just fall through their fingers like sand with no means to stop it.

This "counter-power" is the ability to function outside of capitalist hegemony and state authority. It must be kept in mind that the goal is not to act outside of these institutions but to ultimately eliminate them. Not participating in them with the stance that they are illegitimate and oppressive could be an aspect to resistance but sooner or later when those in power see their hold dwindling they will attempt to clap down and this must be prepared for.