We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Most of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

Review of Chaz Bufe's "DESIGN YOUR OWN UTOPIA"

by Makhno Saturday, Nov. 13, 2004 at 3:00 PM

Review of Chaz Bufe's "DESIGN YOUR OWN UTOPIA" - by Bob Black

DESIGN YOUR OWN UTOPIA



BY CHAZ BUFE & DOCTRESS NEUTOPIA
TUCSON, AZ: SEE SHARP PRESS, 2002. 20 PP.

reviewed by Bob Black
Green Anarchist #71-72
Summer 2004


The intellect can betray man more easily than his conscience
- Paolo Soleri

Chaz Bufe is an anarchist writer widely published by Chaz Bufe. His self-publishing history (as See Sharp Press) is ignominious. In Listen, Anarchist! (1986) Bufe issued what the Fifth Estate called a hysterical parody of authoritarian anarchism except that it was not a parody. In it he preached a literal Ten Commandments of moral rectitude to anarchists at the same time that he defended Processed World, a violent crypto-Marxist cult, which conspicuously violated nearly all of his pious prescriptions.

Bufe, a simpleminded atheist, is a sucker for cults, and not just Processed World. In A Future Worth Living: Thoughts on Getting There (1998), he touted an authoritarian German cult commune, ZEGG, founded on the sexual exploitation of women. He repeats the endorsement here. I suspected that his nominal coauthor, Doctress Neutopia, was a German on detached service from ZEGG. But from ZEGGs website it seems that her name is Libby Hubbard, although her being there does confirm the cult connection. Bufes first foray into utopianism was thus an embarrassing failure. We shall now take a look at his latest attempt.

Unenlightened and undeterred, Bufe is back. This time, Bufes idea is that it would facilitate utopian thinking to publish a detailed questionnaire to help would-be utopians figure out exactly what they want. Although its a silly idea, its a better idea than I would expect from Bufe. And sure enough, he is copying somebody else.

As Lewis Mumford and Marie Louise Berneri have observed, the classical utopias were mostly closed, static, and authoritarian. Typically - Plato and St. Thomas More, for instance - they combined political authoritarianism with economic egalitarianism. Now this combination is not really feasible, but the ideology, in distorted forms, is not greatly far removed from that of the Marxist-Leninist regimes which afflicted the 20th century and did so much to extinguish anarchist and utopian tendencies as historically effective.

As a self-important yet insecure pundit, Bufe feels the need to justify himself. Why design a utopia? There are several reasons, but Bufe can only think of one: utopian thought is essential to social change. Really? Is it assumed that social change is always for the better? Whose utopian thought was essential to the Industrial Revolution? Or the Neolithic Revolution, for that matter? The Highland clearances, the Tokugawa Revolution, the collectivization of Soviet agriculture, and 50 other phenomena - here were rapid, far-reaching social changes not informed by any thought that even Bufe would consider utopian. Or would he? For Bufe never defines utopia.

Bufe remarks, encouragingly, that utopian thought does not have to be applied on a global scale to be of value, if it inspires small-scale experiments - models - which can and sometimes do become the triggers for the adoption of ideas which, except for the models, would never have been adopted wholesale.

Perhaps they sometimes do, but I am not aware of a single example. There may be utopian ideas which have won some general social acceptance, or had some influence. But Bufe is claiming much more, that their influence was mediated by exemplary intentional communities which successfully implemented those ideas. But I am being unfair to Bufe. I am taking what he says seriously as if he knows what hes saying.

Bufe a district attorney trapped in the body of a businessman asks a lot of leading questions. To which I, a lawyer, say: objection!

II.3. Would individuals choose their own goals and values, or would their goals and values be those of your utopian ideology?

Right off the bat, Bufe just takes for granted a conflict and separation between individual and collective goals, although the very idea of a utopia is to transcend this dichotomy! He also takes for granted the persistence of ideology, which is something else a utopia might strive to surpass. And he takes for granted that the utopians are subject to rights and duties (III.4, 5) - in other words, law which is something else that should be an open question, not a leading question.

For the lay reader: a leading question is a question which suggests to the witness what answer is desired. A really good leading question, if the judge lets you get away with it, practically forces the witness to say what you want to hear. Here are two examples:

V.2. What sort of social and political organization would your utopia have?

A. Would it be based on political authority, with some giving orders and others obeying them in a vertical hierarchical structure, as at present [emphasis added]?

B. Or would it be based on voluntary cooperation in a horizontal, noncoercive structure?

The lady or the tiger? Even a Platformist knows what hes supposed to say. The as at present language alone is leading (and misleading), since it compels dissent from (A) and assent to (B). In effect, Bufe is asking utopians if they are utopians. How would - how could - great utopians like Plato or Moore answer these questions? They were communists who sought cooperation within and between functionally defined social orders providing complementary services. They would protest that the literal answers to these questions - indeed to most of Bufes questions - would not only distort their visions in details but suggest fragmentation where they sought harmonious unity.

The writing of Bufe, as of some other self-published writers, suffers from a lack of editing. Each question is riddled with redundancy. In (A), political authority is expressly equated with order-giving and order-taking. But that implies a vertical hierarchical structure, surely? Besides, are there any horizontal hierarchical structures? I suppose ZEGG and Processed World might qualify. In (B), if voluntary is not synonymous with noncoercive, whats the distinction? Is there one? Has Bufe devoted even a little thought to the meanings of these words? Even the use of the feel-good word cooperation in (B) is tendentious. Why not, in (A), to be fair, refer to hierarchic coercive cooperation, as at present?

Bufe rounds out (V), Power & Politics, by asking what the utopias decision-making processes are, whether there is a constitution, and - How would officials and coordinators be selected? (V.3-5). Officials?

Bufe never asked if there would be officials. He takes authority for granted. Am I amiss in identifying these officials with the order-givers, the political authority already denied? Bufe concludes the section: How would you deal with abuse of authority by officials or coordinators? (V.6). Officials could not abuse authority unless they had it.

By omission and fiat, Bufe has already excluded from any possible utopian agenda the critique of ideology, the critique of law, and the critique of political authority. Naturally he next excludes the critique of work in the same way. He asks How would work be compensated? (VI3). Work and pay are posited, not open to question. Is it equal compensation for all, or more compensation for those doing dangerous or unpleasant work, or even communism, to each according to his needs?

I was surprised that Bufes list even included the anarcho-communist option - after all, its a bit radical. But I was reassured that it was the same old goofy Bufe when he went on to ask a subquestion about this question (but not about the first two, the work-affirming questions, which presumably are not problematic): If so, given present social conditioning, how would you prevent parasitism? (VI.3.C.a) In other words, how would you force slackers to work? The identification of the unemployed as social parasites derives from Stalinist rhetoric, but its cherished to this day by the worst of the leftist anarchists, including the worst of the petit bourgeois anarchists, Bufe and Woodworth.

Some critiques of work - mine, for instance - take issue with the institution of jobs. The lifetime restriction of a worker to one or sometimes two productive tasks has been denounced by utopians at least since Charles Fourier; and even by the young Marx, who was much more of an anarchist in the 1840s than Bufe is now. My point is not that utopians or anarchists are obligated to embrace a critique of work. My point is that a Design Your Own Utopia questionnaire should entertain, at the very least, a perspective which embraces a wellknown point of view with many past and present adherents. Indeed it was acted upon by numerous Fourierist American communes in the 1830s and 1840s. Zero-work was deeply implicated in the origins of American socialism.

But heres Bufe: How would people determine what jobs they do? (VI.4). What people? What jobs? Why jobs? I suppose it is superfluous to quote questions like: How many hours per day would your utopians work? (VI.8). When did you stop beating your wife? Who would do economic planning? (VI5) (!). Would you set aside time for play and creative pursuits? (VI.10) certainly not, in my dreamworld, Mr. Gradgrinds world, which, unlike all societies past and present, is all work and no play, and above all, no creativity! What a moronic question. Even Kim Il Jong would answer yes.

Bufe predictably bungles such topics as sex and sex roles (what with ZEGGs bastardization of Wilhelm Reich), science and technology (somehow his communes would sustain a space program), religion, food, etc. I will spare my patient readers the details. They have endured much. In every area, the questions are loaded, and some crucial areas are not interrogated at all - such as the moralism which infuses this and all other Bufe productions. And Bufe has even forgotten to ask about the role of the market.

Whether any questionnaire could benefit utopians is in some doubt. The very form of the thing - analytic, atomistic, reductionist - militates against the totalizing, harmonizing spirit of most utopias. Lewis Mumford wrote that a virtue of utopian thought is that the classical utopian works had all treated society as a whole, and had, in imagination at least, done justice to the interaction of work, people, and place, and to the interrelationship of functions and institutions and human purposes. Whereas our society, which is thoroughly anti-utopian, has divided life into compartments: economics, politics, religion, war, education; and within these larger divisions efforts at reform and improvement, or at invention and creativity, went on in even smaller compartments, with all too little reference to the whole in which they played a part. Bufes questionnaire is much better suited to fostering a society of specialization and alienation than a utopian community. It is intrinsically anti-utopian.

I would be willing to see the questionnaire idea fairly and intelligently tried - but that would have to be done by somebody else. It could do no harm. But its hard to imagine that this ostensibly practical text would be of use to anybody except its author. The tract is designed, not to assist the reader in clarifying her own ideas, but to induce her to embrace Bufes ideas, which are set forth explicitly toward the end of the pamphlet, Our Vision. These are mostly the ideas of the ZEGG commune/patriarchal sex cult (http://www.zegg.de - see for yourself).

Amusingly, Bufe, in setting forth his Vision, does not even answer the questions he has pressed upon the rest of us - because answers to all of the above questions would take up considerably more space than the questions themselves. No doubt! But if thats a good reason for Bufe not to answer his own questions, its an even better reason for everybody else not to answer them. It also suggests that he has something to hide. Wed love to hear from those of you, he says, who have similar visions. He doesnt want to hear from those of us who dont.

Bufe first sketches A Small-Scale Utopia, an intentional community identical to ZEGG. Although these pages are replete with laughs, I shall move on to the finale, A Global Utopia, which would in many ways mirror our community utopia. As the questionnaire has predetermined, Bufes global utopia, like his smallscale utopia, is not anarchist. It involves imposing on the whole world democratic decision-making, according to the democratic, egalitarian system set forth in Michael Alberts Looking Forward. Even so oleaginous an opportunist as Michael Albert does not pretend that what hes peddling is anarchist. In fact he polemicizes against anarchists.

Bufes tenderness toward Albert might have something to do with the fact that Alberts Z Magazine published, according to Bufe himself, the only favorable review of his execrable Heretics Handbook of Quotations (1992, 2001).

Most modern utopians not only anarchists, but various socialists and Marxists (except Murray Bookchin) - have called for the dispersal of urban agglomerations and the erasure of the difference between city and country. Even Marx did. But not Bufe. Our cities would be very different from those at present: they will involve more high-density living. That doesnt make them very different.

Here Bufe follows the quack urbanist Paolo Soleri, whose Arcology (1969) is a deservedly neglected masterpiece of 60s totalitarian mysticism. Soleri faults the modern city for not being crowded enough, since lack of compactness is lack of efficiency. He calls for what he ludicrously labels the miniaturization of the city, an urban solid of superdense and human vitality. Soleri suffers, one might say, from claustrophilia. His city would be a closed system, like a space station, although its closest ancestor is, he says, a passenger liner - hardly an anarchic or even a democratic model (recall the class-stratified Titanic where the working-class passengers in steerage drowned like rats).

The only thing Soleri says specifically about the political structure is in two murky paragraphs which seem to say that the political burden of the past will impede the arcological reconstruction of the city. No doubt! Lets hope so! The governance of the arcological city will apparently take care of itself somehow. Its the province of some sort of group mind, a superorganism of a thousand minds that will ecologically cradle such persons. I swear Im not making this up! This is Bufes guru talking!

The organization of mans life, quoth the seer, subtly directed by the machine, which is organization, is going to reach forms unheard of. Jacques Ellul and John Zerzan never put it any better. Man will submit in other words to a situation that carries coercion without a reason behind it, if one excludes the notion of randomness. Soleri also espouses, in impenetrable gibberish, the cosmic evolutionary mysticism of the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, what Soleri calls the estheticogenesis of matter. It may not be true that all roads lead to Rome, but this one does: Is there any difference between the aim of the city and the aim of the Roman (universal) Church? They are one and the same. Bufe the atheist is indeed superdense if this techno-Catholic Orwellian madness is his idea of utopia.

Exactly, or even inexactly, how Bufes participatory democracy is to be implemented in high-rise highdensity cities with millions of inhabitants, he does not say. (The best real-life approximation of Soleris highrise city is the authoritarian city-state of Singapore, whose regime herded the entire population into high-rise apartments each of which receives, twice a year, a visit from a policeman taking a thorough survey.) Soleri, as we saw, is, as to politics, and much else, vacuous, incoherent and above all indifferent. Even Murray Bookchin noticed that there was a problem here, although his solution is preposterous. Bufe does not even seem to be aware that there is a problem.

This insoluble conundrum conclusively refutes Bufes notion that a regional, national or international society could be modeled, in most important respects, on a local commune. Higher levels of coordination must involve representation and/or bureaucracy. None of Bufes questions addresses extralocal representation. None of his answers do either. Yet Bufe specifically calls for a resumed and expanded program of space exploration. That would require labor, resources and coercive coordination on an even wider scale than would the administration of major cities. Utopian? Maybe Ayn Rand or Robert Heinlein might have thought so. But anarchist? Impossible. What we have here is high-density dogma.

The arts and the media, Bufe says, would no longer be the province of corporations and the gifted few. Bufe would naturally espouse this opinion, since nobody ever thought for a moment that Bufe was one of the gifted few. For him, the only options have always been self-publication or no publication. I think he is mixing up two different matters. One is a muddled mood of resentment of his intellectual and creative superiors. The other is, maybe, a complaint about media concentration and monopoly. But even if they were decentralized, his mediocrity would persist.

In his previous pamphlet, Bufe observed that most people dont think very well. In certain cases, such as his own, thats an understatement. It is probably not just his density which makes it so regrettable that Bufe went in for radical publishing instead of something more suitable, like the Army or the ministry. (I almost added tabloid journalism, but then I recalled Karl Krauss definition of a journalist: No ideas and the ability to express them. Bufe lacks the ability to express them.) It is rather his combination of density with a near-pathological incapacity for irony and humor which leaves the thus doubly disabled Bufe bewildered by the world as at present and incapable of imagining alternatives. And so, for security, he clings to cults and gurus and ideologies to structure his confusion. He read the wrong books by Wilhelm Reich. The one for him, and about him, is Listen, Little Man!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


LATEST COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
Listed below are the 10 latest comments of 1 posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by the website visitors.
TITLE AUTHOR DATE
and the battle rages on more rational Sunday, Nov. 14, 2004 at 3:25 AM

Local News

Woolsey Fire: Worst News of 2018? J01 12:18AM

Oppose Environmentally-Harmful Development D10 4:03AM

Oppose Environmentally-Harmful Development D10 3:58AM

OUR HOUSE Grief Support Center Presents Night for Hope O30 5:38PM

Marshall Tuck’s racist dog whistle O27 5:01AM

Marshall Tuck’s ethnocentrism contradicts Californian values O27 4:32AM

Contra Costa-Hawkins O25 3:48AM

Debunking Some Anti-Prop 10 Propaganda O12 6:56AM

Why Should California Choose De Leon Over Feinstein? O10 9:55PM

Change Links September 2018 posted S02 10:22PM

More Scandals Rock Southern California Nuke Plant San Onofre A30 11:09PM

Site Outage Friday A30 3:49PM

Change Links August 2018 A14 1:56AM

Setback for Developer of SC Farm Land A12 11:09PM

More problems at Shutdown San Onofre Nuke J29 10:40PM

Change Links 2018 July posted J09 8:27PM

More Pix: "Families Belong Together," Pasadena J02 7:16PM

"Families Belong Together" March, Pasadena J02 7:08PM

Short Report on the Families Belong Together Protest in Los Angeles J30 11:26PM

Summer 2018 National Immigrant Solidarity Network News Alert! J11 6:58AM

More Local News...

Other/Breaking News

FARCELONA.2 J20 7:18PM

FAKE NEWS POR SOROS J20 6:11PM

Chemtrails and Prince J20 2:43PM

Wages For Housework J20 2:41PM

Tutelle comportementaliste J20 9:18AM

A Mistake: Jesse Jackson-Toyota deal-in Lexington -Ky is .8 billion over 10 years 2018 J20 1:17AM

If Trump Declares a AantionalEmergency, He'll Be Breaking the Law J20 12:47AM

Jesse Jackson's Sneak Attck on Toyota Lexington Ky and it's workers 2018 J19 9:12PM

Video: Chris Herdges in Eugene, 1 hr 24 min J19 5:37PM

FAKE NEWS J19 2:31PM

MACROTHSCHILD.2 J19 11:03AM

Judge Delays Ruling on Puerto Rico Debt Deal White House Opposes Island's Food Assistance J18 6:04PM

BATACLOWNS J18 9:28AM

FALSAS VICTIMAS J18 9:22AM

Paraphysique de proxémie guerrière J18 7:59AM

MACROTHSCHILD J17 9:38PM

FARCELONA 8.17.2017 J17 3:23PM

DEAD MAN LIVING J17 10:46AM

DIARY OF A CON MAN J16 10:40PM

PR Debt Cancel, Judge Reviews Cofina Debt J16 9:04PM

Réseautage, fragmentation du capital J16 4:20PM

Paraphysique de manipulation mentale et sociale J15 9:51AM

The Global Justice Project and Human Survival: We're Badly Off Track J15 5:08AM

The Global Justice Project and Human Survival: We're Badly Off Track J15 5:08AM

The Global Justice Project and Human Survival: We're Badly Off Track J15 5:08AM

Markets as a Fetish, Globalization, and Dissent Management J14 1:03PM

State Debts - The Primal German Fear J13 5:09PM

Sans liberté, sans égalité, sans fraternité J13 8:09AM

More Breaking News...
© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy