This article is a response to a blog post written by Alex Hundert titled "A Response to Judy Rebick: The Black Bloc and the 21st Century anti-Colonial Movement at the Olympics" I originally wrote it as a comment on Alex's post and it's presented here with minor edits.

First, let me be clear and say that this is not a response to Hundert's position on the black block in Vancouver. Rather, I feel the need to respond to the way Hundert chooses to dismiss Mick Sweetman's position on the black bloc.

So, Alex, it’s one thing to disagree with someone’s position on the issue and for most of the article you stick with engaging with the various points of view out there (though I do think you needlessly personalize things like when you attack Rebick due to her “celebrity”.) But what really concerns me is that you start off with what looks like a very “old fashioned” sectarian attack on all anarchist-socialists just because you disagree with Mick’s position on the black bloc in Vancouver.

Instead of engaging with Mick's argument directly, you set up a false dichotomy between old and new or “21 century” ideas and whatever you don’t like you dismiss as outdated. But are anti-statism and anti-colonialism really “21st century” ideas or have they not existed since the rise of the modern state and modern colonialism. And do ideas like radical democracy, equality, feminism and others that emerged prior to the 21st century, no longer have value simply because they are “old”? Has the world really changed so much that theories, strategies and tactics developed throughout the 500 year history of anti-capitalist, anti-colonial, anti-state, anti-hierarchy struggles no longer have any value? Is fetishizing the perceived “new” not falling into the cultural logic of neoliberal capitalism? What are these ideas that you speak of that are unique to the 21st century? Is this really anything more than a rhetorical ploy to dismiss ideas you don’t agree with? I have to think so.

And why do you then go on to create a straw man to criticize anarcho-socialism as a whole? Do you really believe that social anarchism is statist and that it only concerns itself with industrial workers? I mean, statist? Really? By all accounts the founding moment of social anarchism was when the anarchists left the First International because their socialism was anti-state.

And even at the height of industrial worker struggles prior to WWII social anarchists were organizing mass rent strikes, alternative social services like daycares and schools, mass peasant movements, mass anarcho-feminist organizations, and, you might be surprised to know, anti-colonial struggles in South Africa, Korea, China, and elsewhere. The Spanish anarchists who called for an anti-colonial uprising in Morocco certainly could make the connection between anti-colonial struggles and the struggles of the urban poor.

You even seem to imply above that anarcho-socialism is white supremacist! I really hope I've misunderstood something or that this is some kind of mistake because it is a slap in the face of the tens of thousands of social anarchists who died fighting fascism and who today continue to die fighting it in places like Russia and elsewhere.

I really hope all of this is simply due to ignorance and not a sectarian attack. Maybe you’re just blowing off steam after what must have been an intense time in Vancouver. Maybe you don’t know very much about anarchist-socialism. Maybe you are just repeating what you’re read elsewhere and have not actually looked into this history. In that case, I hope you’ll make the Black Flame book tour and pick up a copy of this book.

Maybe you have not really taken a look at what today’s social anarchists are doing, many of them involved in the exact same struggles you’re involved in. In that case, maybe check out the recent articles that just went up on Common Cause's website. I’m sure you don’t think the struggle at Barriere Lake or anti-sprawl and anti-gentrification struggles are so “yesterday”.

There are definite differences between social anarchism and whatever you choose to call your politics. And we can and should debate and discuss these. But if you value solidarity and mutual understanding, which I think you do, drop the caricatures, and empty rhetorical gestures and really make an effort to understand where us anarcho-socialists are coming from. Or if that is too much work, stick to debating specific positions not entire political philosophies as rich and diverse as mass anarchism.

With a heated debate like the one generated by events in Vancouver, it is important that we don't personalize the issue and resist the temptation to not only dismiss your opponents position but their entire political philosophy.

A healthy movement requires a healthy culture of debate. When debate gets heated mistakes will happen and things will be said that should not have been said. In this case, building a healthy culture of debate means recognizing and acknowledging when we've crossed a line. To his credit, Mick did this when he apologized publicly for using the word "idiots" in his original post. I think you owe the same to anarchist-socialists in Ontario and everywhere else.

In solidarity,

Alex
Common Cause Hamilton
(written in a personal capacity).