In prerevolutionary Russia, the Socialist Revolutionaries
divided into two
factions, the radicals and the moderates.
The former were known as the
Maximalists, the latter as the Minimalists.
I want to appropriate this
terminology in order
to identify two general tendencies within
contemporary anarchism. Anarchism already encompasses
a broad spectrum of
positions: individualist, communist, mutualist,
collectivist, primitivist
and so on. The focus of this essay is not on the
variations and shifts in
emphasis which result in the differentiation of
these positions. Rather,
the aim remains to aid clarity, to provide
an interpretive grid, a map
which will allow individuals to make sense of
the field of anarchism and
situate themselves within it.
Maximalist anarchism encompasses those forms of
anarchism which aim at the
exponenetial exposure, challenging and abolition
of power. Such a project
involves a comprehensive questioning of the totality
-- the totality of
power relations and the ensemble of control structures
which embody those
relations -- or what, for shorthand purposes, I
call the control complex.
Power is not seen as located in any single institution
such as patriarchy
or the state, but as pervasive in everyday life.
The focus of maximalism
thus remains the dismantlement of the control complex,
of the totality, of
life structured by governance and coercion,
of power itself in all its
multiple forms.
Given power's pervasiveness and its capacity to
insinuate itself into all
manner of relations
and situations (even the most intimate and
depoliticized), the maximalist stance involves
a relentless interrogation
of every aspect of daily life.
Everything is open to questiona and
challenge. Nothing is off limits to investigation
and revision. Power, in
all its overt and subtle forms, must be rooted
out if life is to become
free. Maiximalism remains ruthlessly iconoclastic,
not least when coming
into contact with those icons that are vestigesof
classical anarchism or
earlier modes of radicalism (e.g. work, workerism,
history) or those icons
characteristic of contemporary anarchism (e.g.,
the primitive, communitiy,
desire and - above all - nature). Nothing
is sacred, least of all the
fetishised, reified shibboleths of anarchism. Maximalism
entails a renewal
and extension of the Nietzshean possibilities
for new ways of life, in
short anarchist epistemologies and ontologies.
In contrast, minimalist anarchism encompasses
those forms of anarchism
which have not made the post-Situationist
quantum leap toward the
maximalist postions outlined above. from the revolutionary
perspective of
maximalism, minimalist anarchism appears reformist,
unable or unwilling to
make the break with the control complex in its
entirety, or inadequate to
the project of freeely creating life through the
eradication of all forms
of power, and thus doomed to failure. maximalism
remains radical in the
etymological sense of getting to the root
of problems, while forms of
power it finds convenient or unwilling to
confront. Minimalism remains
stalled in the nostalgic politics of 'if
only...', whereas maximalism
proceeds to the anti-politics of the very science
fictional question of
'what if...?'
The urgent priority of maximalism
constitutes the development and
implemantation of an anarchist
psychology. Other dimensions af the
anarchist project remain subsidiary to this aim.
Abandoning the baggage of
Enlightenment rationality, maximalism needs to
recognise that human beings
are first and foremost creatures of passion and
irrationality, and only
secondarily reasonable beings. Central to the
emancipation of life from
governance and control remains the exploration
of desire and the free,
joyful pursuit of individual lines of interest.
But in the world defined
and deformed, limited and channelled into forms
which maixmise profit and
social control.
In order to combat this process, maximalists
need to be able to answer
Perlman's fundamental question: Why do people desire
their own oppression?
This is essentially a psychological question, concerned
with the issue of
deciphering hidden (or unconscious) motivations
-- motives hidden by, for
and from oneself and others by power. The
flipside of this question is
equally significant: What makes some
individuuals into anarchists or
radical anti-authoritarians? Anarchism will not
proceed in any substantial
fashion until these issues are
addressed. And as these issues are
psychological in nature, the project of developing
a distinctly anarchist
psychology remains prmary. Maximalistm
needs to foster psychological
understanding of the mechaisms of oppression and
liberation in order that
the process of human (and concomitantly
ecological) regeneration can
gather
pace. There aer precedents for this project in the
anarch-psychological critique of Stirner, Nietzche
and Dostoevsky sketched
by Jon Carroll in Break-out from the Crystal Palace,
and continued -- not
as Carroll thinks, by Freud -- but by the
anarchist psychoanalyst Otto
Gross. This tradition needs to be renewed and reformulated
to address the
intensified and integrated
forms of control that have emerged in
contempoary techno-managerialist mass society.
Suggestive as the ideas of
Freudian Marxism are managerialist ideallogies
and thus completely at odds
with the anti-idaolgical
struggles of maximalist anarchism.
Maximalism can only make prgress
if it recognises the inutility of
political and political philosophy discourses
as a way of articulationg
and communicationg anarchist concerns. Politics,
'the science and art of
government'. has little or nothing
to do with the anti-politics of
liberating life from the control complex. political
discourse has at best
a very limited role to play
in this project. In light of the above
discussion of psychological issues, it becomes
apparent that maximalism
needs to make use of the discourses and practices
of the art s if it is to
reach out and communicate with people. in the process,
art itself will be
transformed -- realised and supersedded,
in Situationist terms -- into
something completely different than its
current alienated, commodified
condition.
The rationalist discourse of Enlightenment political
philosophy can only
hope to address the rational faculties.
For many people, these remain
undeveloped, blocked or coded as off-limits,
and thus communication at
this level remains stymied and ineffectual. Anyway,
as indicated earlier,
such faculties remain of superficial or limited
interest in the process of
creating free life. If anarchism is to touch
people then it must reach
into their unconcsious, and activate their repressed
desires for freedom.
This is not at all the same process as the psychological
manipulation of
unconscious desires, fears and anxieties as in
fascism, but an opening up
of avenues of authentic communication and a prompting
of individuals to
recognise and acknowledge their own
desires through the Nietzschean
process of self-overcoming. In other words, it
involves a life-affermative
existential asssertion of one's self and desires
over and against social
programming which incultates obedience to the
codes and routines of the
control complex. The arts, due to their capacity
to bypass inhibitions and
connect with or even liberate unconscious political
discourse as a means
of promoting
and expressing the development of autonomy and
anti-authoritarian rebellion.
A key focus of anti-totality struggle remains forthright
analysis of and
combat directed against micro-fascism. Rolando
Perez's On An(archy) and
Schizoanalysis is an excellent and accessible introduction
to this crucial
area of struggle.. Fascist and other totalitariansim
systems -- including
the liberal totalitarianism of democratic capitalism
-- are based on the
micro-fascisms which structure, shape and
inform everyday life in the
control complex. Given that maximalism entails
an exponential eradication
of all mechanisms and forms of power from the largest
through to the most
intimate and mundane, the focus
on micro-fascism remains far more
fundamental than those relatively superficial anti-fascist
struggles where
fascism is merely understood
as an organised political movement.
maiximalist anarchism remains resolutely anti-political,
anti-idealogical,
anti-sytemic and anti-autoritarian. In its struggle
against micro-fascism,
it remains anti-capitalist, anti-communist, anti-socialist
(in both its
twin forms of national and international socialism),
and anti-fascist, but
above all revolutionary.
On the constructive, life-affermative side, maximalism
remains committed
to direct action, the insurrectional
project, and hence -- given its
rejection of all forms of power, authority
and order -- illegalism.
nothing less than an all-out assault on every front
of the control complex
remains necessary. Maximalism
means a renewal and extentin of the
individualist anarchist project
of war on society to encompass the
entirety of the control complex.
Everday life remains the site of
conflict, but every aspect of daily
life needs re-evaluating from an
anarchist perspective (which does not mean that
every aspect of daily life
and interactions will necessarily be changed, but
it does mean that every
aspect needs to come under scrutiny). But
maximalism also involves the
posing of alternatives. Maximalism means conducting
experiments, freely
chosen in line with desire, imaginaation
and interest, in all areas of
everyday life, including
language, modes of thought, perception,
behaviour, relationships, action and interaction.
Anarchist maximalism is
the optimal means to create our own lives free
of the controls excercised
by power, authority and order.
by John Moore