A Few Comments On "The Rebel's New Clothes"

"Some people are scared by the prospect of  waking up in the morning
and wondering what in the world to do. They relieve themselves of the
problem by becoming careerists, drug addicts, parents or
revolutionaries."  (P.13) 

So declares "Claudia" in her latest pamphlet The Rebel's New Clothes,
Ostensibly a critique of some of the "escape routes" (P.36) modern
society has on offer. A good deal of the pamphlet is specifically
targeted at "revolutionary activism" (P.29) considered as an escape
route and details the author's own progressive disillusionments with
various political milieux and the personality types attached to them.
Lefty paper sellers, anarchists, feminists, pacifists and animal libbers
all come under fire for being "petty tyrants" (P.15), wife beaters,
middle class poseurs, patronising moralists, social inadequates or all
of these things and worse. The pamphlet is full of valuable and amusing
insights, and as an antidote to the pretensions of political
grouplets/individuals, is a hundred times more revolutionary (in its own
way) than an issue of Wildcat for example. However, for reasons of
brevity, this review will concentrate on criticisms of the pamphlet.

SQUAT THE ROT

An initial criticism might be its system of classification of
activists/subcultural types, is not very accurate: 

"Today's typical young revolutionary graduated from Winchester school
to a squat in Stoke Newington.  Sensitive to plebian mockery, he lowered
his braying tones to a mumble, and gleaned some rhyming slang from
'Minder'. he imagines he is spitting at bourgeois values by sticking
myriad rings through his ears and arranging his hair in dreadlocks. he
supports himself on handouts from worried Mummy and Daddy, while
disguising the fact by pretending to live off the proceeds of
despatch-riding." (P.23) 
Here, for example, although it presents us with a good (if
Sunday-supplementesque) joke, the passage might be even funnier if it
was a description of today's typical young revolutionary". Unfortunately
it is more a description of today's typical young middle-class squatter,
who is just as likely to be into veganism or mysticism as politics, and
might not, even by his own flimsy set of criteria, identify with the
label "revolutionary". This passage is fairly typical of many in which
distinctions between different sorts of revolutionary/rebel/subcultural
type either aren't made when they should be, or are made only to be used
inconsistently, thus we often aren't sure whether the author is talking
about Stalinists, feminists or militant animal libbers. the author, of
course, might reply that such distinctions are unimportant as all
these different groups can be subject to the same criticisms, but this
would at best be partially true for certain of her criticisms are
completely inapplicable to certain groups that her terms would seem on
the face of it to apply to. In this respect her slapdash use of the
term "revolutionary" is particularly annoying. Another example of this
is as follows: 

"Revolutionaries see their whole lives as a political statement. They
make it their mission to hector those around them on the "correct" way
to speak, eat, dress, have sex and earn a living."  (P.23) 

Here we want to say that there are people who desire a revolutionary
transformation of society who, far from "seeing their whole lives as a
political statement", think that an individuals mode of the day to day
prospects for its supersession, that in their terms, no
"revolutionary" worth his/her salt would  associate themselves with
the above perspective, which is specifically that of the lifestylist.
Indeed, as an indication of how loose and ill-fitting Claudia's
categories often are, we might add that Claudia herself seems to have
more in common with such lifestylists than the "revolutionaries" to
which we refer, for arguably her whole pamphlet, replete with photos
of herself looking alternative and numerous autobiographical details,
is little more than an attempt to present her life as an
(anti)political statement. A second point might also be made in
connection with the exclusion of a certain type of revolutionary from
the implied definition of "revolutionary", namely that this is a
reflection of a more general concentration on the most obviously
spectacular manifestations of opposition in this society. Thus, for
example, the only clearly demarcated political alternative to Leftism,
is anarchism. Moreover the latter, when it isn't associated with nutty
lifestylist types, is identified with Class War (P.18), and this, one
feels, not because they are seen as epitomising all that is most
ideological, cynically populist and role-bound in the "revolutionary"
arena, but conversely because they made the most noise, and so they,
if anyone, are deemed most worthy of attention, (like attracts
like?). 

WANKERS & POSEURS

Such criticisms, however, are perhaps incidental to the main thrust of
Claudia's argument which would seem to be that all politicos, however
they are categorised (and including the ones she would say she
happened to leave out), are poseurs or wankers, or are in some way
deficient, and furthermore that their political activity is an "escape
route", a means of avoiding real life or difficult questions about
themselves. 

If this is her position, then, what are we to make of it? The first
part seems pretty uncontroversial. most politicos might well be
poseurs/wankers/casualties of some sort, though they aren't
particularly in this. As for the second part - that political activism
is merely an escape route like any other - this can only be accepted
with reservations, for though it might be true that anti-Capitalist
politics can fulfill the same role in someones life as stamp
collecting, the difference in content is not arbitrarily determined.
people are involved in political activism because there is a
Capitalism to be active against: moreover, some of the "real life" to
be had or "real questions" to be answered, can only emerge in the
struggle against Capital (even if those who play the politically
active role are not themselves engaged in this struggle to a greater
degree, or even as much as many others). the question here is whether
Claudia acknowledges such reservations or whether she thinks that the
possibility of using political activism as an escape route is itself
sufficient grounds for dismissing the struggle against capital in any
form. it seems that, aside from one reference to the "seductiveness"
of mass action" (P.19), the latter is the case: 

"Even if the whole edifice of the State were to come tumbling down,
there would always be aspiring leaders and guardians of public order
waiting in the wings for a chance to have a crack at the whip." 
(P.19) 

The basis for this logical jump - from thinking that revolutionaries
are wankers looking for an escape route, to thinking that the
revolutionary project is unrealisable - appears to be twofold. Firstly
it is grounded in a paradoxical sort of vanguardism. The argument, at
least, in certain passages, seems to be that any successful revolution
is dependent on the action of revolutionaries, but since
revolutionaries haven't  got as big willies as their rhetoric
suggests, and since if they did have they'd use them to seize power
anyway, revolution is impossible. This vanguardism, it should be
noted, is assumed rather explicitly formulated. Thus, for example, she
asserts (in the sentence preceding the above given passage): "The
police represent ((!)) oppression; rioters, like terrorists, believe
that by targeting symbols of viciousness, they will act as catalysts
for the masses to rise up against their oppressors." (P.19) 

Here she imputes to "rioters" beliefs that are only true of
(vanguardist) "revolutionaries", thus the term "rioters" is seen as
synonymous with the term "revolutionaries", thereby implying that they
are the most significant element in a riot, that a riot without
revolutionaries is inconceivable. (Moreover, as noted earlier, a
certain sort of "revolutionary" - specifically that sort who doesn't
imagine him/herself as a "catalyst" for the "masses" - is left out of
the picture, along with the proletariat.) 

REAL SELFS

This vanguardism however, is only able to get off the ground as part
and parcel of a general emphasis on the Individual and Individuality,
to be found in Claudia's pamphlet, which threatens to develop into
full blown Individualism i.e. The presupposition that revolutionaries
are the only ones capable or desirous of revolutionary activity is
coupled with the presupposition that since revolutionaries as a matter
of fact tend to be wankers outside of revolutionary situations, so
their conduct at revolutionary moments is irrelevant because it is not
true to their "real selves". The "real self" - who an individual
"really" is - is the unquestioned "given" in Claudia's analysis, the
category of more significance than any other; and a person's real self
is manifest in the behaviour they "normally" exhibit. From this
perspective Claudia is enabled to argue that: 

"It is odd to assume that someone is a thoroughly fine human being
because they put a brick through the window of the shop you want to
loot." (P.19/20) 

as though what is at issue in a riot situation could ever be whether
or not the person helping you loot a shop is "really" a thoroughly
fine human being. In as much as such an idea makes sense we want to
say that yes, in so far as someone put a brick through the window they
are a "thoroughly fine human being". The situation which provoked what
turned out to be an act of solidarity has, for all intents and
purposes, made the human being a "thoroughly fine" one, even if they
lapse into their old ways once (or before) the strike/riot/whatever
paters out. The best outcome, of course, would be the creation of a
situation where it has become impossible for people to return to their
alienated old ways. 

Claudia, however, is unable to conceive of such an occurrence, for
her standpoint precludes a priori the possibility of a change in social
relations entailing the abolition of alienation: "A society run by
women instead of men, or by the proletariat, would make no difference
to my own feelings of separateness." (P29) 

she confidently asserts (again, just as she blurs all differences
between political types, she is unspecific about what being "run by"
any other group, e.g. women - this is either dishonest or another
example of vanguardist presuppositions.) Here we have, clearly stated,
the bottom line of her individualism (a la Stirner), that whatever
happens to society my inner core, my fundamental separateness, will
remain unchanged. The atomistic individual is not seen as a product of
a particular mode of social organisation but as supra historical
entity only contingently social. 

Not surprisingly this individualism is hostile to concepts like
"solidarity" or "class consciousness". Thus she writes:

"The true appeal of rioting, like football hooliganism and war, is
that is allows souls to find camaraderie in banding together against a
common enemy."
(and later) 

"Belonging to a side generates a spurious sense of closeness to ones
fellow humans."  (P.19) 

"Camaraderie", here, is seen as a sign of weakness, offering benefits
only to those "lonely souls" (to admit to loneliness must be the
ultimate hearsay for an individualist) unable to see how "spurious"
their sense of closeness to others really is. The naked anti-sociality
of this position, however, becomes partially concealed because there
is no attempt to distinguish genuine community from other alienated
forms of mass activity. All forms of "taking sides" are seen as
equivalent - which they are to the individualist - whether one is
"taking sides" with the proletariat, with a football team,  or in a
nationalist war. A possible reply to this might be that "taking sides"
with the proletariat is unlike any other form of taking sides because 
rather than being grounded in an acceptance of the alienating roles
that Capital allots to us, it involves actively seeking to abolish
them. We are taking sides with our "real selves" as social beings, in
an attempt to creat a state of affairs where the desire to arbitrarily
identify oneself with an alien entity no longer occurs. 

We might add too, with reference to the above passage, that it is
misleading to suggest that riots occur because particular individuals
decide to have the, outside of any other context of events. most
riots, apart from the dismal ones, are relatively unpremeditated and
arise out a concrete need to respond to the latest police atrocity.
One underway, however, other possibilities emerge, possibilities which
include the practical supersession of the category of the alienated
"individual" so beloved of Claudia. 

Claudia's individualism, then, does not leave her with much time for
revolution.  In those passages where political concerns are not seen as
a dishonest front for egoistic enterprises, they are seen as an outlet
for pointless altruism. "It took me until my mid-twenties to realise
that I did not have to live for others" (P.14). She says at the
beginning of a passage which surpasses any lefty ideologues
outpourings in its overly romanticised description of how Brazilian
workers will cheerfully take their lives in their hands everyday for
fuck all wages.  They're happy so why shouldn't "we" be, is the implied
conclusion. 

'FASCINATING'
Mirror imaging the poses of those "revolutionaries" she berates for
concealing personal motives behind a political  agenda, she implies
instead that personal problems are the only real problems. She
suggests that everything would be alright if only politicos "sorted
themselves out" (29) and stopped craving "distraction from the selves
they can never escape" (36). Yet we suspect that such "solutions" are
given, at least in part, as a means of bolstering her own ego and the
ideology which is its expression, for her whole position (and sense of
identity?) depends upon her being able to continue to differentiate
herself from "most people" who "fear life like I fear flying" (36). 

If we were to take her "solutions" seriously it is difficult to see
where they might lead. presumably she sees herself as someone who
rather than seeking an "escape route" is trying to live life
authentically, so perhaps we should look to the text for clues to her
lifestyle? The "postscript" tells us she has a "fascination with life"
(36) (a wilfully alienated stance if ever there was one). The preface
tells us that. Claudia has lived in, visited and travelled around over
forty countries in the Americas, Europe and Asia. She feels at home in
most big cities given a ready supply of books and alcohol. (About the
Author) 

So, travelling around, getting pissed, reading a few books, and finding
it all "fascinating", this is the key to everything? But if life under
present conditions can be so satisfying why waste so much of it writing
pamphlets for us plebs who persist in saying it's miserable? Perhaps
one cannot be true to one's individuality without an audience.

Phil(Hackney)

From Here & Now 13, Glasgow, autumn 1992
