Turn of the century anarchists and al-Qaeda?

Kim, it’s dangerous to play the game of quotes if you don’t include all the quotes. I won’t do it. I just urge people to go over to the site and read the whole thing.
Perhaps you misunderstand my argument in my original post. I never said that the authorities reacted correctly at the time of the anarchist terrorism; in fact their panic and the authoriarian measures they brought in helped to precipitate things, until, as Prof. Coolsaet puts it, ‘one terrorist assassination too many started the First World War.’ What I was arguing for was the idea that the anarchists’ acts created a climate of fear, uncertainty and panic which opened the way not only for repressive measures but for the ideological tyrannies that followed World War One. As I’ve said in the original post, it’s an idea that isn’t of common currency; doesn’t mean it’s wrong(or right, for that matter.) I do feel that on the face of it, Prof Coolsaet’s book appears to be supporting the general thrust of my argument. He does not deny the impact of anarchist terrorism, and doesn’t think it should have been underestimated; but equally, he thinks that the reaction to it was misguided and led to disaster. He is using this overview as a warning to us; but he isn’t discounting the contemporary fears and understandings of people at the time.

Harry’s got a point, Sophie, though perhaps some of his frustration is showing.

Unless you post his whole book, we have to be selective.

My point was based on my reading of his website and the quotes were meant to illustrate what I found him to be saying.

Incidentally, his argument about the “root causes” of terrorism is more complex than you make out. He points out that the success of the working class movement and the political role of unions made the climate in which anarchist or syndicalist demands could be articulated more unfavourable by raising living standards and including workers in democratic processes. His argument is similar for Islamic “marginalization” – his word.

I think yr trying to make the Prof. into something he’s not – he has quite an interesting position which you really oversimplify and distort by articulating it to your assertions about anarchism.

Sophie, but you linked Coolsaet’s book back to your earlier argument.

Perhaps Harry wasn’t civil, but I don’t see that you can claim that you haven’t had a fair hearing – people engaged with your arguments on the other thread – disagreement is not the same as unfairness or incivility.

Surely the point of a blog is to get feedback and have your ideas sharpened through engaging with debate? That’s what Ken is always saying.

But who am I to know? Perhaps you see the role of blogging differently from most others.

Sophie, but you linked Coolsaet’s book back to your earlier argument.

Perhaps Harry wasn’t civil, but I don’t see that you can claim that you haven’t had a fair hearing – people engaged with your arguments on the other thread – disagreement is not the same as unfairness or incivility.

Surely the point of a blog is to get feedback and have your ideas sharpened through engaging with debate? That’s what Ken is always saying.

But who am I to know? Perhaps you see the role of blogging differently from most others.

The “what is an anarchist” issue is clearly fair game for open but civil debate given that it was integral to Sophie’s original post and was again raised by this one. But I don’t think the “diddums” stuff was very helpful at all, or some of harry’s earlier comments either. It certainly wasn’t in the spirit of civil discussion.

To be productive, civil discussion desirably stops short of nailing your opponent’s hide to the wall and sneering “nah nah nah, you were wrong”. It’s useful to know when you’ve made your point and that it might be appropriate to give your opponent room to save face and withdraw graciously. Do you really need to grind her into the dust to gain a knockout win?

It might well have been desirable for Sophie to have conceded that her usage of “anarchist” was loose to say the least, but equally I think there might be some valuable insights in her observations. I certainly hadn’t realised how extensive anarchist violence was during this period, and I think Sophie’s right that we ought to place considerable weight on a terrorist’s self-evaluation as “anarchist” even if we concede that labelling by others clearly took place indiscriminately.

I confess I don’t really understand why an initial observation that struck me as interesting but hardly earth-shattering should have generated such acrimony. The points have been made. Let’s all agree to disagree.

Maybe part of the problem is that Sophie is a creative artist who develops ideas intuitively, impressionistically and by association. That isn’t in any sense to decprecate the depth of research she brings to her task, but the artistic sensibility and approach is different from that of the academic specialist. I suspect that many of the commenters here are academics (or would-be academics) of one sort or another, and bring to the discussion a level of precision bordering on nit-pickery that tends to be alien to the creative sensibility. That isn’t to say that creative people shouldn’t be held to account for errors, but that we should give each other some elbow room and allow for differing styles and sensibilities. Sometimes creative intuition leads to a flash of insight that no amount of dogged academic rigor could achieve, so both ways of approaching the world of ideas should be respected. We can all learn from each other.

Ah but Sophie –

you are not campaigning politically, but you are doing something very interesting, if I understand you correctly. You are trying to research a fiction book set in the real world of the late nineteenth century.

That sets up a particular problem which is faced by anyone who is imaginatively active in putting facts into stories – it is similar, for instance, to the research activities in television documentaries. You bring the authority of an imaginative writer, not the professional expert in the particular territory.

My experience of this is that it creates a whole lot of surprising and sometimes unpleasant moments, when people have smacked me upside of the head for not getting the point when I am working really hard to cotton on. But those moments when people have turned on me are the most valuable, because they tell me I am missing something important. When I do get it, my whole perception shifts and I see the territory in more sophisticated ways.

This is one of those places where the technical world of professional academics needs to be porous in ways which are not under the control of the experts. It is being used for a different reason.

It is useful because a really good historical novel is very illuminating and of course spreads ideas beyond the academic. The trouble is, it is important to be subtle and accurate.

Genre here I suspect is a bit of a snare, as is the general form of the television documentary, which is increasingly populist. Think SBS and the Middle Ages. The risk is, we are asked to hunt for some good characters, a few baddies and goodies, and a rollicking scarey story. Doing that and being accurate is pretty tough.

Here I reckon these threads have been useful. I wonder what Wen thinks?

Serendipity and synchronicity are hallmarks of the ‘sphere, David!

Sophie, I’ve read Gray’s “Al Qaeda and What it Means to be Modern”. Gray’s a very interesting (though not uncontroversial writer). I think you’ll enjoy it. I discussed aspects of his other work in an earlier Troppo post:

http://troppoarmadillo.ubersportingpundit.com/archives/007579.html

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Kim, but you’re getting senile :) I think that was before you started commenting regularly – maybe you read the thread and thought of a comment but you hadn’t yet taken the step of dipping your toes in the ‘sphere…

I agree – Gray is interesting. I thoroughly agree with his thesis that Al Qaeda is the product of modernity and globalisation rather than some sort of traditionalist reaction.

Sorry if this is a tad OT.

Q. How many discussions of anarchy does it take to change a thread?

A. Any of ’em.

Here, Nabs, should you wish to address these claims:

http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/03/30/farewell-civility-i-loved-thee-well-once/#comment-673

Ok, apologies for being OT! Will stop now.

Ahem.

Anyone for Scuba?

Yes, Fyodor – why shouldn’t harry go scuba-diving? You never know – he could find himself falling through the currents of ocean, surrounded by beguiling swordfish, playfully butted by inquisitive sharks, until he reached the ocean floor, lined with the detritus of the ages, and walked the spongy surface, dancing across a charming submarine field of…..broken razor blades……

Oh dear, I’m coming over light-headed. Must be those 12-hour shifts.

I think Sophie’s original idea was an excellent one – put forward in an appropriately tentative way. Now I think Sophie wrote the post with a certain animus towards ‘anarchists’ which is entirely fine and she was happy to defend herself with that animus largely in tact. At that stage we got lots of agro about definitions of anarchism, by those reacting to Sophie’s animus.

But the basic idea is independent of and much more interesting than what spin gets put on the word ‘anarchist’. As I read it, I thought it definitely cast the strange and swift change in the mood of our own times in an interesting new light. Because terrorists have murdered less than 4,000 people, countries have been invaded, people have been shipped off to third countries for torture, people disappear in the United States. And we have a bunch of people running the US who their recently departed Secretary of State described as ‘crazies’.

This moment feels to me like one in which things could easily spiral out of control as they did from apparently relatively benign circumstances in 1914.

The MOOD has changed mightily.

How to explain this? Well I’ll be buggered if I know. Will we find out from a bunch of social theorists? Do they tell us more about how Hitler did what he did than Sebastian Haffner tells us in “Defying Hitler” a contemporaneously written explanation of what it was like to live in the Third Reich? I could never quite understand how it was done till I read that book.

I hope I hold debate in as high regard as most people here. But what Sophie is saying is highly speculative – as by implication is any disagreement with her. In that circumstance, the idea that the truth or falsity of Sophie’s musing being ‘tested’ and so reduced to its essence to yield its ultimate worth