In the present, how do we balance the need for money (for survival) with a refusal to bow to capitalist interests?

Question

Is the answer just "crime", straight-up? (Lemme go into detail before I answer my own damn question.)

Basically, capitalists control that whole "job creation" business. They are in no way compelled to set up shop in a particular city unless they deem it profitable to do so, and generally their deeming it profitable comes alongside such things as lowering minimum wage, labor rights, and other concessions of power to the capitalists.

So, a lot of people are dealing with unemployment and homelessness. It sucks. Here in Chicago, there's some shady-ass political group called the "Pro-Chicago" movement or some shit which is basically ripped straight from a corporate PR campaign. Their agenda deals mostly with getting rid of all kinds of restrictions on corporations and large businesses, in hopes of "economic development" and "job creation", which are both slick ways of saying gentrification and corporate expansion, of course.

But really - where should our strategy lie when it comes to increasingly slim prospects of getting money, and thus, basic tenets of survival? Organize worker co-operatives? Encourage mass theft and looting? Dive in a lot of dumpsters?

Obviously the bullshit capitalist dagger-over-our-heads line of "corporate deregulation creates jobs" is an absurd concept, so I'm really interested in anarchist perspectives. Especially if you have firsthand experience, because I am young and inexperienced and only have my little ideas.

Comments

I am really surprised to see this question At All, to be honest.
I am both a Laissez-faire capitalist and an Anarchist.
I think the important distinction lies between Capitalism and Corporatism. I touch on that in this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XoIRgKVdAI

Please watch, and don't be so hasty to be rid of your own individual property rights. We know the current way things are running are not the only way they can run.

---

You cannot be a laissez-faire capitalist and an anarchist. You and I will, one day, be on opposite sides of a barricade.

---

I can do both, and I do.

Answer 1

I can't really speak to this since I have no real experience with employment.

I would like to say this, though. I feel it needs to be said since no anarchists seem to ever say it—even the ones who clearly have it in mind.

I believe anarchists will have the power to overcome problems they experience as people who are burdened by a morally motivated disinterest in the competitive industriousness of the market, and the resulting problems of poverty (etc.), in the event that there is an unprecedented level of cooperation and—well—*mutual aid* among anarchists themselves. This would require a deep and wide-reaching release from the *political* competitiveness that anarchists are more than interested in. (I can distinctly remember someone recounting how anarchist-syndicalists in Canada had threatened to assault John Zerzan if he dared to show up to a conference of some description.)

It seems as if anarchists heavily involved in anarchist activism and organization are so enamored with the aim of exemplifying action and radical cooperation for non-anarchists that it comes at the dramatic expense of any action or cooperativeness within the milieu itself.

In terms of ensuring the well-being of any particular anarchist, I believe it is more important for anarchists to learn to take care of themselves and their closest associates—which, I imagine, often amounts to other anarchists—than dreaming up solutions for problems that are so beyond the scope of anarchists themselves that they can seriously propose plans of action that are truly absurd. (Encourage mass theft and looting? Most anarchists seem to be very tame. How does a tame individual convince another to become a criminal? Hell, how does a criminal convince another to become a criminal for that matter? It's a hell of a thing to ask of another.)

The following may very well still hold true for this anarchist-centric approach: “A proposed solution may never exceed the incomplete formulation of its selected problem.” …But at least with the milieu there is still a chance that you're working with a proportionately appropriate field of problems and relations. (At least if we go by a regional basis.)

Make sense?

Comments

We have to learn to take care of ourselves before we can go to others and commit ourselves to saying, "I have something important to show you. It will be of immense value to you and your choice to overcome the problem of your circumstances."

It is a matter of our smallness though, mostly. The milieu can be touched, I think. It could be a place to grasp if you fall. Obviously, nothing like this can be expected in the larger arena of society.

Answer 2

Crime, straight up.

And I'm not just talking about shoplifting food to eat, but that is important too.

There are a lot of crimes that can help you survive and that can be a part of overthrowing the state.

I recommend, Theft, Burglary, Robbery, Conspiracy, Arson, Riot, inciting to riot, malicious mischief, pedestrian interference, disorderly conduct, obstruction of justice, Trespassing, Assault, harassment, racketeering, black mail, embezzlement, treason, sedition, mutiny, piracy, assassination, kidnapping and others.

Get creative, and remember: anything can be conspiracy!

Comments

We obviously have very different definitions of the word Anarchy..

---

In your version of 'anarchy,' do people follow the law?  What are you talking about?

I included half of these because they are crimes I have been charged with or convicted of, and the other half are there because they have a long history of being used in revolutionary struggle.

The way the state codifies and criminalizes certain actions is of course ridiculous, but we should hopefully agree that our struggle for liberation will often be classifiable within these codes.  
As crime is something inherently defined by the state, anarchist should, of course, undermine and destroy the concept of criminality.  This will include encouraging people in general and ourselves to not see the criminality of an act as a reason not to do it.

The question is not what needs to be done, but how to do it.  I encourage people to get creative and try new things.

Yes we do have different definitions of Anarchy.  Anarchy is not just a lofty idea of what should be, it is also an endless struggle to bring it about.  Anarchy means attack.

---

I agree we shouldn't hesitate to commit an action just because of how the state labels it. I agree with that. My thinking is.. well, just read my question "How can you support Anarchy for only yourself?" It's easier to say that than to retype it all.

Answer 3

The answer is not only CRIME.
Committing crime doesn't mean being Anarchist.
Robing  woman, who has a baby, and taking her money, means leaving her baby without food. That's not being Anarchist.

Why can't I work somewhere and at that time, be anarchist? I don't see any problem. We're living in capitalist world, and we need to survive. Working doesn't necessarily mean that you're exploiting someone. Of course , you can't be anarchist and CEO of some big company at the same time, but to get some job - doesn't mean that you're not anarchist any more.

Comments

I have nothing against people who work to survive, only people who are satisfied with the situation.  Anyone who is comfortable with their job and position in society is a collaborator.  However, if you work a job, and struggle against your job, that is entirely different.  Many people combine work and crime by stealing from their boss or hooking up their friends with free shit, or whatever.  And that's not even getting into criminal workers unions, wildcat strikes, boss kidnappings, and sabotage.

And what's with examples of crime being acts of bullying?
Solidarity means no broke on broke crime, obviously.

---

That's another thing. I agree with you, that bourgeoisie is our enemy. And ways of survival are different. After all, we're anarchists and we know that bourgeoisie must be destroyed, so, getting resources from them "illegally" isn't wrong, after all.

---

>> Solidarity means no broke on broke crime, obviously.

which also means one must have sufficient knowledge of the target of their "crime" to know that they are not "broke". right? and of course, everyone (esp the mostly middle-class anarchists in the us) will have their own interpretation of who is "broke".

too easy...

---

Do you know  anything about crime?

---

both solidarity and crime are terms i have issues with.

as an anarchist, "crime" is a useless term, since it implies an *authority* that determines what activities are "criminal", and then punishes those who carry out those activities (if they are caught). of course, we live in an authoritarian world, so acts defined by those authorities (and their believers/followers) as criminal happen all the time. from tagging a subway car to raping and killing a 4 year old (just as extreme examples). to me the only context in which the term crime has any meaning is in how my own behavior might be considered such by the authorities, and therefore how i can continue to behave according to my needs and desires without losing what little freedom this shithole world allows me.

solidarity is, imo, a term that is FAR too loosely used. i can have some vague sense of solidarity with someone who acted in a way that somehow furthers my own desires, but that is very different from the deeply rooted solidarity i  feel with someone i know and care about personally, who acts in the same way. i have a hard time feeling solidarity with some labeled group (eg, "the proletariat", "womyn", etc). even if i have some perceived commonality with that group's "identity".

---

I think it's funny that you say the term crime is "useless" while simultaneously saying that it's context surrounds us.  (authority)

I agree with your overall sentiment, as I said before, "The way the state codifies and criminalizes certain actions is of course ridiculous, but we should hopefully agree that our struggle for liberation will often be classifiable within these codes.  
As crime is something inherently defined by the state, anarchist should, of course, undermine and destroy the concept of criminality.  This will include encouraging people in general and ourselves to not see the criminality of an act as a reason not to do it."

There is no thing that I oppose because it is a crime, but certainly some things that are classified as crimes that I do oppose, however, when most people say "crime" they are talking about crimes against property which I always support.

I have no idea what you are trying to say about solidarity.

---

Perhaps the distinction funkyanarchy is making is between what I would term "solidarity" and "affinity"?

I dunno, because I am not funkyanarchy, but reading over this thread, it seems possible.