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