Add new comment

Simple schemas are always just that, simple schemas. A lot of the ones we use a lot have power to abbreviate conversations, or else we probably wouldn't use them. They're shorthands for "sides" in various conflicts, mostly - mostly cultural and political struggles.

You may not be able to explain all of global history, or all of local political factionalism, using a simple left-right schema. But I can probably talk, about say, a "left faction" of the U.K. Labour Party and a "right" faction, and more or less be understood. Or I could talk about the kind of person who is likely to show up at a given rally or whatever as a leftist or a rightist, and you might get me.

An anarchist analysis should, presumably, be deeper than a shallow conversation of some news story about a clash between people in the streets of some major city, and it should be able to account for far greater complexity than any simple schema can by itself. But, the idea occasionally cropping up among anarchists, that we should "go beyond" the left-right spectrum, seemingly out of some idea that it "obscures the truth", seems like a mystifying idea in itself.

A simple schema like left-right (or again, like intersectionality) doesn't hide the truth so much as it doesn't show all of it (or even much of it, as the case may be) - because ideas and society are not simple, geometrically representable concepts, haha

I say that the idea of getting rid of "left-right" is mystifying because it misdentifies the source of misunderstanding and/or shit-talking in a sort of Bad Thought that we need to get rid of. I don't think we need to get rid of it all (again, limiting our ability to use useful shorthand); we just need to strive to be personally smarter than people who, say, understand the world through binary equations and clichés