Apolitical ‘direct action’ creates political relativism---it conflates Bernie and Trump and can’t meaningfully distinguish between slavery and abolition because all are tainted by ideologies of power.

(Gregory, “Radical Intellectuals and the Subversion of Progressive Politics,” p. 134-137)

For the neo-anarchist, the object of critique is not an opposing political ideology. Neo-anarchists try to "supersede" ideology in the name of alternatives. Rather, their enemy is institutions: the economy, the state, representative government, etc. Aside from references to neoliberalism, little is actually said about political ideologies and their influence in shap- ing institutions. The rhetoric is mainly that of a populist and "inclusive middle." New anarchism focuses on the creation of some authentic form of democracy. True democracy, according to the new anarchist, relies on direct participation. State and representative democracy stand in the way of its realization. Political actions—whether Occupy Wall Street, the Zapatistas in Mexico, or the assemblies in Argentina—are supposed to be expressions of this true form of democracy: "The organization of these actions was meant to be a living illustration of what a truly democratic world might be like, from the festive puppets to the careful organization of affnity groups and spokescouncils, all operating without a leadership structure, always based on principles of consensus-based direct democ- racy." 42 The emphasis on consensus building is seen as a way of over- coming ideological differences and, hence, rendering them irrelevant.43 Consensus building "requires the ability to listen well enough to under- stand perspectives that are fundamentally different from one's own, and then try to find pragmatic common ground without attempting to con- vert one's interlocutors completely to one's own perspective. "44 Despite the mainly left-leaning orientation of the new anarchism, its point is that political differences do not really matter. Much as the social scientific and analytic work of the intellectual is, by its nature, elitist and complicit with power, political ideologies are manufactured by divisive elites. The new anarchists, in effect, present themselves as beyond political differences. "This point is crucial because it is an essential complement of the other three characteristics I have discussed. It is the emotions and feelings of the individuals that matter. As such, each has to be given an equal hearing and their views are equally important. If the true nature of individuals is to cooperate, then political distinctions do not matter. If political distinctions are categories created by academics, utilizing them is a form of subjugation. It is taken for granted that all individuals have a shared and common commitment to some form of direct democracy. Political distinctions, as much as the state, the economy, representative democracy, and the academy, only serve to distort this purported fundamental commitment to direct, cooperative democracy. The Left— running the spectrum from welfare liberals to Communists—participates in the stifling of this democracy by participating in the creation of a hier- archical and bureaucratic society. "The reformist, cerebral Progressives in early twentieth-century American and, oddly enough, Lenin as well believed that objective scientific knowledge would allow the 'administra- don Of things' to largely replace politics." 45 While there is truth to the critique of technocratic society, this view becomes overly simplistic when it divorces technocratic politics from the more nuanced question of who is governing. There is a difference between a right-wing technocracy and a left-wing one. They set different agendas and policies that affect the lives of citizens. These differences are glossed over. Given that the new anarchists pit themselves against all forms of politi- cal institutions regardless of the political ideologies that govern, they can present themselves as beyond Left or Right. They are, to adopt a phrase from the historian of fascism Zeev Sternhell, "neither right nor left." 46 The influential Italian political theorist Noberto Bobbio asserted that such distinctions matter precisely because of their real-world implications. But the new anarchists write as though such distinctions are the creation of elites. Graeber asserts as much when he states, "The church of liberals is the university, where philosophers and 'radical' social theorists take the place of theologians." 47 Political ideologies are the creation of elites. These elites are disconnected from reality and serve their own interests. In this vein, the anonymous French radical group, the Invisible Committee, has stated, "The sphere of political representation has come to a close. From left to right, it's the same nothingness striking the pose of an emperor or a savior, the same sales assistants adjusting their discourse according to the findings of the latest surveys."" Parties are sectarian and close off the possibility of creating a new form of cooperative society. Speaking of different strains of Marxism, Graeber claims, "We see all the same sectar- ian habits: of reducing other positions into hostile caricatures so as to be able to plug them into some prefab set of categories, each representing a type of ideological error; of treating minor differences as if they were moral chasms." 49 Political theoretical positions are the enemy of the kind of democracy the new anarchists envision because democracy is about unity through consensus and not about the conflict between contending ideologies. New anarchists write as though ideologies are irrelevant to the lives of those who are not in the university or in positions of political or economic power. Whatever differences exist can be overcome through consensus-building. Part of why ideological differences cease to matter is because the new anarchists insist that a political and social rupture has occurred. "The very presence of the movements that Graeber and Sitrin continually reference is meant to emphasize that a new form of politics that forms a new kind of individual is on the rise. Certainly, they have an old pedigree insofar as Graeber identifies communities in Madagas- car and Sitrin and Dario Azzelini write, "Many of the 'new' practices wc describe . . . in fact have long histories, especially in Latin America."" Rather, what marks the "new" is the fact that such practices are purport- edly spreading across the globe. The "new" is now a global phenomenon. The "new" kind of politics that the neo-anarchists write about is entirely about conduct and not content. This is why Occupy did not have to make any political demands on the state. Purely by virtue of the fact that tents were set up in Zuccotti Park and elsewhere in the United States, Occupy had its political legitimacy. "new" was a "new togetherness."51 Legitimacy came entirely from the practice and not from any kind of con- crete political motivations. Emphasis on practice and conduct is, in part, what shields neo- anarchism from having to articulate political positions. Establishing political positions poses the threat of alienating supporters, but, for the neo-anarchist, what is worse is that it seems to bestowoOne set of politi- cal positions, desires, or aims with greater authority than others. This means buying into the traditional way of doing politics in which distinc- tions between ideologies matter. Writing of Occupy's slogan, "We are the 99%," Jodi Dean argues that it "erases the multiplicity of individuated, partial, and divided interests that fragment and weaken the people as the rest of us."52 Neo-anarchism is beyond the divisions fomented by politi- cal interests. The conflict of interests is manufactured by representative democracy. For the neo-anarchists, the enemy is structure. Structure creates divi- siveness. state and capital are not opposed because they are expres- sions Of political interests, whether based on ideology or class, but because they are structures in themselves. Something beyond structure has to be established and this is what the neo-anarchists mean when they rely on vague conceptions of "newness." The "new" is a rupture with the past way of doing politics as the representative democracy of elites. It promises to do away with political difference. At the same time, neo-anarchists, like Scott, talk about the way the state homogenizes individuals. So, the "new" has the dual task of abolishing sectarian differences as well as individ- ual and cultural homogenization. Both are the consequence of political structure. Both are the consequences of representative democracy. Neo- anarchism, therefore, cannot reconcile its tendencies to look forward to some postideological future as well as look backward to forms of political organization that evade the modern institution of the state and represen- tative democracy. It simultaneously promises freedom through consensus and through uncompromising individualism. The purported solution to resolving this contradiction is a new society that does away with conten- tious democracy. In place of the old contentious democracy, there is the utopian promise of democracy through consensus, reconciliation, and unity, which, at the same time, affirms a role for unsullied self-expression and emotion in political discourse.