Anarchy101 Q&A - Recent questions and answers

Do anarchists support the Peace Corps?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 02:32:33 +0000

State-run, but good for the world? Or not?

Answered: Will the environment still be monitored after the fall of capitalism and the state?

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:50:03 +0000

how did people "keep an eye" on things before there were state agencies?
what stops people from dumping sewage into rivers now?
the responses to these questions (how will society continue to work after some major anarchist change) always include the following themes:
a) you're assuming that things will continue in a particular way (pollution, deforestation).
b) you're assuming that the structures that say they're working for us now, do actually work (sewage goes into rivers all the time now - more because of centralization than is even necessary in some abstract future society of the same basic structure and numbers)
c) you're implying that people are not capable of taking -- or motivated to take -- action themselves for the things that are important. (if people see bad effects from someone's actions then they will act. there will not be any power in the sky that is supposed to be responsible for making change, that can be bought off, or can ignore the problem, etc).

Answered: why are revolutionary groups like the Zapatistas supported by some and opposed by others

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:36:56 +0000

I'll answer this question by focusing on the Zapatistas. The reasons will be slightly different but broadly similar with regards to other groups.

Many anarchists face a tension between wanting to see an increase in resistance and rebellion, and wanting that resistance to occur in an antiauthoritarian way. Every anarchist strikes a particular balance between these two desires.

When a struggle blooms in another country, it is hard to evaluate to what extent the struggle is libertarian, what is the likelihood it will create a new oppressive authority, and so forth. It is even harder nowadays that most authoritarian revolutionary groups have adopted a libertarian rhetoric since the discrediting of Marxism and the generalization of certain parts of a libertarian ethos.

Also, anarchists along with most other people tend to disagree on questions of cultural relativism: to what extent does a different cultural context justify behavior or politics that we would find unacceptable or disagreeable in our immediate surroundings? To what extent do we have a right to criticize practices that are born of a different historical and cultural legacy?

In the case of the Zapatistas, Marcos is an extremely effective propagandist and charismatic figure, which immediately elicits the profound distrust of some and the profound admiration of others. On top of this, in the years after 1994 most of the information to arrive in other countries from the Zapatista communities stressed how different this movement was from the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist guerrillas of the previous decades in Latin America. And in fact, Marcos has positioned himself far to the left of Chavez and Morales, something even many North American anarchists have refused to do, preferring like Michael Albert to build solidarity with tenured and salaried leftist politicians in South America rather than with proletarian and indigenous anarchist comrades who have been highly critical of these figures.

For example, I know criticisms exist of Zapatista authoritarianism and cronyism, but I would not know where to find published accounts of such criticism. Books in favor of the Zapatistas, on the other hand, abound.

So the question is not only one of different standards among anarchists regarding cultural relativism and necessary minimums of antiauthoritarians, but also of access to information. We all know the Zapatistas are not anarchist, and for most of us that's okay. What remains unclear is to what extent the Zapatista project is a state-building project.

Answered: Was Jesus an anarchist?

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:42:35 +0000

Jesus was not an anarchist, but I don't exclude the reality that some people have reached anarchist conclusions by following his (supposed) teachings, even if that anarchism doesn't quite look like mine.

As far as other religions, there are people who have done the same with other religions. In particular Buddhism lends itself nicely to some aspects of anarchist thought. The danger comes when people actually believe that Buddha was more than just human (that enlightenment was somehow holy), or that Jesus was the son of god more than anyone else might be (if we were to accept the existence of said god).

That is where the rub comes. If people are accepting the dictates of some god over their own desires, they are still enslaved. There is something to be said here about religion versus spirituality, but I don't have the energy in me right now, and I reject both religion and spirituality, so I might not be the best person for the job anyway.

Answered: Response to the recent critique of Black Bloc spearheaded by Chris Hedges and other "pacifist" liberals?

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:50:52 +0000

As stated, there are an abundance of anarchist responses to the Chris Hedges' piece. We're not supposed to link, so I will try to summarize:

Hedges turns himself into a cariacture of the frightened "Not In My Backyard" liberal at the first whiff of a little repression. Previously, he had published articles calling for much stronger tactics than those the Black Bloc in Oakland were using.

He demonstrated ignorance of the situation in Oakland and the role the bloc played.

He employed an extremely inaccurate and dishonest argumentative structure to build a strawman of some mythic black bloc ideology, based on an old article reprinted in Green Anarchy magazine.

He left much of the argumentation to a transparently bitter Derrick Jensen, who bashed anarchists in what is apparently a personal grudge against his former readership and fan base.

He inaccurately claimed the black bloc anarchists attack the Left more than they attack capitalism or the corporations, through his underhanded insults opening the way for anarchists to explain again the merits of a criticism of the Left and of journalists like Hedges.

His advocacy of nonviolence is hypocritical and incoherent.

Answered: Are insurrectionary anarchists at odds with revolutionary anarchists?

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:41:21 +0000

No. Fortunately these two categories are not well defined enough to allow for a schism between them. Many people define themselves as insurrectionary anarchists, but this category is not excluding of the category of revolutionary anarchists (see attached Ven diagram). There may be some people who have embarked on a project of defining themselves as revolutionary anarchists in opposition to insurrectionary anarchists, but they have not yet made a splash. Try again in six months.

Answered: Are anarchists for or against public schools?

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:36:21 +0000

I want to add that in general, anarchists are against the current construction of what is "public" (a social common formed and administered by the State) because they are against the State, but they may or may not embrace the service being provided by the State that in other situations could be provided through self-organization without government.

Some anarchists are in favor of institutional education and favor alternatives, such as the rationalist education of the Modern School movement (see Paul Avrich's book for more on this topic), others favor forms of learning that are removed from any institutional setting or age limitations and returned to the entirety of life.

In any case, nearly all anarchists will be in favor of unhindered access to education or learning resources, and specific anarchists have been very influential in movements of alternative education, from the aforementioned Modern Schools to ongoing Free Schools.

Answered: Why hasn't the situation in Greece evolved into an armed urban guerrilla insurgency?

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:13:09 +0000

I want to challenge your assumption that revolutions follow a unilineal evolutionary pathway (from heavy streetfighting to armed urban guerrilla insurgency) and your assumption that the "active stalemate plays into the power of the state".

Urban guerrilla insurgency could refer to a specific strategy of clandestine armed groups, which do exist in Greece, and are a minor but important part of the current struggle. Where such groups have been the main protagonists, the result tends to be total pacification of the struggle, or triumph of a new authoritarian regime.

Another possibility is open civil war. The situation has not yet evolved into an open civil war because most Greeks continue to reproduce the narrative of democracy and its idea of protest and social consensus.

As for your second assumption, yes, they are currently in a stalemate in Greece, and stalemates wear down on the comrades, but on the one hand they benefit from a tradition of heavy street fighting (in other words, that's a status quo beneficial to an anarchist struggle), and their continued "choreography" as you call it undermines the democratic credibility of the regime and limits the possibilities for investment, recuperation, and intensified repression.

Various comrades in and from Greece have opined as to why things have not gone further there. After December, many blamed television.

Answered: What are anarchist alternatives to the police?

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:56:06 +0000

Examples throughout history tend not to be "anarchist" in an ideal sense, but there are many antiauthoritarian examples and their imperfection provides good food for thought.

Stateless societies have generally used "diffuse sanctions" to respond to the forms of harm or grievance now categorized as "crime". This means everyone responded as they saw fit, in accordance with social norms that, not being codified and being invocable by all, were constantly in flux and subject to personal interpretations and challenges. The definitive difference between many of these societies and more hierarchically organized societies was the absence of a mechanism to unify or consense on responses to harm.

In Catalunya in '36, they formed neighborhood patrols. These were eventually incorporated into the re-established governmental authority and then abolished. In the transition phase, with the complicity of CNT leadership (e.g. Oliver, Montseny, Abad de Santillan), they accelerated into a form of martial law that manifested in the execution without trial of proles expropriating the bourgeoisie, including several illegalist anarchists who decided to continue using the exact same tactics against the exact same people as the CNT milieu had encouraged before '36.

In the Israeli kibbutzim, they noted that social sanctions--calling disputing parties or offending commune members to a general meeting--was enough to solve all such problems they encountered.

Answered: Why is North American anarchism such a fucking ghetto?

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:46:08 +0000

Perhaps (inasmuch as the assumptions behind this question are even correct) because North American society itself is so ghettoized.

The assumptions of "accessibility"--that our own attitudes determine our currency with the masses--are flawed. Some anarchist circles behave in a completely closed and exclusive way, others are extremely, even excessively inviting, most are in the middle, and all of them are isolated from society at large, with only minor degrees of difference. This is because all individuals, and society itself, is isolated from society at large, in North America more than in most places.

The masses constituted by capitalism have been atomized and banished from the streets. The only remaining mass is virtual. In social terms, anarchists tend to be less isolated than the average American. They can often count more relationships of trust and their friendships tend to be more supportive materially and emotionally than the ideal middle class citizen.

To question another of your assumptions, I must say that ghettos are sites of resistance and togetherness cordoned off by a repressive order. The walls currently are not made of concrete and barbed wire, but they are still there. I suspect their principal ingredient is electromagnetic, the same stuff that moves through iPhones and youtube.

Answered: Stance on egoism (rational/ethical) vs. altruism?

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:14:30 +0000

I am not satisfied with the paradoxical assumptions of subjectivity that support the concept of altruism. But, I am also not satisfied with a constrained concept of subjectivity/self/ego/"I" (from now on just "ego"). This is all tied up in the way that I understand subjectivity to begin with. That what we recognize as the ego is an expression of complicated cognitive processes which make it possible for the boundaries of ego to fluctuate: that the ego is capable of identifying with, appropriating, connecting, or otherwise expanding to include other minds, bodies, objects, and images. From the studies in developmental psychology that I've read, it appears that the ego shrinks through development as theory of mind develops, as a sense of self recedes from an undifferentiated identification with all that is perceived. And from other studies of subjectivity the ego appears capable of redefining its boundaries to various extents: whether as a transcendental experience, a psychotic break, consummate love (sometimes), empathy, and/or less powerful experiences of identification with others.

So, if the ego is more of this sort of concept, then egoism is also less bound. If my sense of self can expand to include you (or at the very least, my self-image and the image of you are intricately bound up with each other), then my behavior is no longer towards you... but towards myself. At the same time, if my sense of self doesn't expand to include you and I regard you as an other, I would enter into a self-other relationship and be more or less considerate. I could reason that my self-interests include the happiness of those around me and wind up with an 'enlightened self-interest' or I could reason that it's better to be calloused towards the conditions of others and wind up with a ethic like Ayn Rands.

If the ego is fairly amorphous and an ethics rooted in a static ego is embraced, is that being true to the ego? Even worse, if the ego is the expression of more fundamental psychological patterns that use it for their unknown fulfillment... is it really the ego that can be the grounds for an ethics? What if ego and environment are so intricately entangled that it would make more sense to comprehend them as shades of a common experience and not actually separate beings?

Why not choose Ayn Rand's Objectivism? who the fuck wants to live in a world filled with miserable people?

Why put others before the self? interdependence... my existence depends upon some others to such an extent that there is no clean cut in our reciprocal relations.

Is altruism possible? only to the extent that it includes the ego, even if that inclusion is through some sort of identification.

Who thought of the idea of "cycles of struggle?"

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:07:44 +0000

I often hear people talk about 'cycles of struggle,' or, often, 'deepening cycles of struggle.' I think this means that resistance movements tend to happen in clusters or waves, perhaps in response to specific historical crises, or perhaps just because one group or city or whatever will inspire/embolden several others, causing momentum to build.

I wonder if anyone can elaborate on this. Who thought of this idea? Were they talking about a specific set of events? Are there any strategic/historical implications I'm missing? (I'm guessing there are...)

What 'values' does post-structuralist anarchism have?

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:22:39 +0000

I'm coming from post-structuralism myself and I'm confused about what positive values or ideals, if we can call it that, are held. I can think of nothing more than horizontality, a practice of non-hierarchy. Any others?

Answered: Why do some anarchists downplay or deny contemporary anarchist violence when arguing with liberals?

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:17:58 +0000

This is a pretty good question. Or maybe it's not a good question, just a good argument.

I think it's not too hard to understand why some people would downplay anarchist violence - they don't support it or participate in it, and they believe that it's important to focus on what will 'play' well in the press. Possibly, some of them genuinely don't notice a tremendous amount of anarchist violence going on and/or they tend to re-narrate it as something else (ie "apolitical").

I like what you say about anarchism being violent since it puts the responsibility on people to defend themselves (and each other!) in a violent world. I think that's a good way to put it. I would add though that at least in my understanding anarchism proposes to get rid of a lot of forms of systematic violence whereas people of other political persuasions are content to leave these intact.

That said, the examples you mention are mostly not that big of a deal. I mean, you included a pie-ing! It seems to me that unfortunately US anarchists Don't do that much political violence. We do more than e.g. David Graeber says we do, but we do a heck of a lot less than anarchists in the 1890s did...

Answered: Is anarchy just about staying on the cutting edge of fashionable radicalism?

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:55:05 +0000

no.

Answered: lotus sutra idea could take place of police with regard to anarchism?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:56:34 +0000

I don't expect prisons will be "replaced" with anything in an anarchist society. Perhaps more accurately, I expect prisons will be replaced by a multitude of responses on the part of those directly connected to those conflicts currently mediated by the state. I imagine some people will respond to conflict through Buddhist peace and mindfulness practices; other people will get in a fist fight.

Answered: Anarchist stance on universal health care?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:47:59 +0000

Anarchist perspectives are going to range widely on this from that put forward by Iconoclast to people who reject the idea of universal health care as an outright expansion of state control and authority. I tend to fall towards the latter personally.

I want to be clear: I believe that all people should be able to access the things they need to survive, but I do not support creating more infrastructure and bureaucracy to do so. In particular the model that has been put forward by the Obama administration is really troubling to me in that it uses economic coercion to create the conditions necessary for it to work - you can't opt out. Anything the government (or the workers, or whatever) forces upon us is anathema to my conception of anarchism.

In addition, I am actually wary of any health care that looks like that we understand as western medicine - invasive medical procedures that rely on experts, the spread of super viruses and antibiotic resistant diseases, the increased reliance on technology to prolong life, and so forth make me extremely uncomfortable. To my mind, much of what passes for health care in our society is really trying to fix the problems of industrial civilization through more industrial civilization, as well as being founded on an overwhelming desire and drive to avoid death. At. Any. Cost. Essentially this point boils down to: jettison industrial civilization, and we likely jettison many of the current health problems people face. Sure, some things that are now easily treatable will be more deadly, but, to my somewhat dependent on the medical-industrial complex self, that trade off seems worth potentially exploring.

Answered: How do anarchists intend to enact effective disease control measures against pandemics?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:40:11 +0000

Hopefully you will, because I am not on top of this at all.

Answered: what will happen to our homes and supplies after the revolution?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:38:18 +0000

Well, I am not personally very concerned with whether you keep living in your family home. If you're self-sufficient, then you won't have any need to join a collective you don't want to "after the revolution." I am not sure you will have much of a problem.

Any prospect of massive social change involves unpredictable horror. Maybe your house will be looted. Who can say? However, anarchy lacks the coercive institutional structures necessary for mass forced collectivization or re-location of unwilling families into communes. In this sense, your house is more in danger of being seized by the state to pay down national debt than it would be in an anarchist society.

All that being said, the revolution will not be a moment in time that washes away private land ownership. How you end up relating to your neighbors in the absence of capitalism and the state would have a lot to do with what happened in the process of their abolition. Obviously, no one is in a position to predict that with any accuracy, but being on good terms with them before the state crumbles could help.

Answered: Does anyone have a concise analysis of the connection between capitalism and homelessness?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:16:45 +0000

Capitalism involves buying and selling houses. Those who can't afford buying a house, or renting from someone who owns a house, do not get houses.

Are you looking for deeper or more complicated connections?

Answered: Where do mutualists and "anarcho-"capitalists converge and diverge in theory and practice?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:06:37 +0000

Both mutualism and capitalism involve a market form of distributing goods and services. There is little else that the two hold in common.

Mutualists and capitalists disagree fundamentally on what a legitimate property claim is. Capitalists believe in private ownership of land and the means of production, including as a method of profiting off the labor or needs of others. Mutualists believe in the individual's right to the product of their own labor, but not the labor of anyone else.

To use an example, in a mutualist system I might own the land on which I grow food to feed myself, but I could not own a massive estate on which I paid others to grow food for sale. Any form of rent is similarly precluded by mutualist economics, since no one could claim ownership of a house that they did not personally live in. Modes of production that required the labor of multiple individuals, such as industrial factory production, would be owned collectively by the workers involved. Financing new economic initiatives would be handled by zero-or-low interest loans issued by public banks.

Distribution of goods, in both mutualist and capitalist economies, would occur through market exchange, although the implications of market exchange are very different in the two systems. Mutualist economics notably lacks "profit," at least in a capitalist sense of the term, because workers directly control the product of their labor rather than being paid a wage which only reflects a portion of its value. This is something of what is meant by the phrase, "Cost [should be] the limit of price," credited to American individualist anarchist Josiah Warren.

(Let it be noted that my answer is based on a fairly surface-level understanding of mutualist thought. An actual mutualist could surely answer the question better than I can.)

Answered: What happens when anarchists fundamentally disagree?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:28:32 +0000

I doubt anyone here agrees with your premises. Nevertheless, depending on the circumstances, anarchists express disagreement or dissent by:
-separation by time ("taking turns")
-separation by space ("voting with the feet")
-decision by game of luck
-withdrawing participation
-withholding support
-ad hoc discussion
-formal debate
-arbitration by mutually-agreed upon third-parties
-arbitration by community assembly
-arbitration by ad hoc peer council
-immediate recall of delegated roles or tasks
-disruption/heckling
-ridicule/mockery
-attacking reputation
-disruption/obstruction
-shunning
-consensual duels
-feuding & pranks
-banishment
-property destruction
-combat

When did black bloc youth stop identifying as revolutionary anarchists?

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:14:47 +0000

And start identifying as insurrectionary anarchists?

Reading the Black Bloc papers it seems that most anarchist youth in the 90s to early 00s identified as revolutionary anarchists.

At some point it seems the favorite label switched to insurrectionary (despite if folks have affinity with contemporary insurrectionary anarchism from Italy, etc)

I get the sense it is a label that just is used to say "we really mean it" ...

Just wondering what folks who've been around the bloc for a few years think about this, or have noticed.

Anarchy doesn't vote right?

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:45:41 +0000

it just a matter of curiousity really...

Answered: Do Greek anarchists have guns?

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:23:29 +0000

I'm sure many of them do, but most do not go out into protests brandishing them as some kind of threat...yet. When any group opposing the current state brings explicitly deadly weapons, such as guns and high-explosive bombs, the state will use that as a "good" excuse to slaughter any that oppose it. However, I wouldn't doubt that most of them will start packing heat if the country takes a dramatic turn towards revolution, or if they happen to be walking through a Stalinist neighborhood..

To what extent were anarchists involved in the 2005 Toledo riot?

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:13:19 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Toledo_Riot

This riot was in response to a planned NSM rally and march. The march was to be through a black hood and to ostensibly protest black gang violence.

I've read conflicting reports on whether the rally and march happened or were canceled, but I know they were planned. The planned march was to be unpermitted, and may or may not have happened, yet it was said to be accompanied by Toledo PD apparently because the chief of police is an actual Nazi himself. What is known is that a riot jumped off, the police came in hard to the black hood, and the police were repelled until pig reinforcements arrived.

Fiscally poor blacks looted a grocery store and burned down a bar frequented by police and city government. There is grainy YouTube footage of the police running over one kid in the street, the looting, the arson, and the rocks and bottles thrown at police. There is also good footage of tear gas CLEARING THE FUCK out of the street like I've never seen at a demo. Apparently that shit works on actual civil disturbances even if it is much less effective on professional anarchists.

It later came out that an FBI informant was an organizer of this NSM action. He was paid ~$20,000 by the FBI and policing the riot cost an estimated $300,000. No telling how much the arson and looting cost capital.

When the Nazis returned a few weeks later for a permitted rally they were outnumbered 4:1 by counter-demonstrators. Nazis + counter-demonstrators were outnumbered 3:1 by federal, state, and local authorities said to number 700. There were ~20 arrests of counter-demonstrators; no arrests of Nazi who were bussed in an out by the authorities. Toledo was described as being in a state of martial law for the day and the right of public assembly was restricted for two weeks after this.

These incidents, taken together, are an interesting scene of antifa action in the US and I'd like to know more of the story. Wikipedia makes it clear that antifa and anarchists were involved to some extent, and I'd like to hear about the efforts to organize the proles of color against these Nazi fucks. I'd also like to hear more about the opposition black community managers made to antifa organizing and how those attempts at management were overcome/subverted.

Answered: Is there a "social" and "anti-social" anarchism? What are the distinctions?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:21:58 +0000

I think social anarchism has to be seen as a position which puts forward a social organization alternative to the current societal forms. And so it gives a collective answer and it is associated with anarcho-syndicalism, bakuninist collectivism and anarcho-communism. As far as "anti-social" anarchism, that has not been an important term within anarchist discourse although I have read it in insurrectionist and individualist texts but is wasn´t a central term where i read it.

A false dichotomy in a sense. Even egoist anarchist adresses towards society and other people so it is not a "Robinson Crusoe" dream and so there has been many individualists who have participated in anarchist trade unions and large Anarchist Federations such as francophone Federation Anarchiste and spanish and italian FAIs.

On the other hand Murray Bookchin wrote a book called "Social anarchism and lifestyle anarchism: an unbridgeable chasm" which accused everything that didn´t go along with his particular view of "social anarchism" as being "bourgoise". The word "social anarchism" was proposed by the more marxist like anarchists who wanted to establish an important difference between their "class struggle", platformist and economicistic approach and the more "lifestyle" and/or humanistic approach of individualist anarchists such as Emile Armand or the outlaw "violent" frame of mind of the illegalists and propaganda by the deed insurrectionists. Because of this Sebastien Faure and Voline proposed pluralistic and anarchism without adjectives "synthesis anarchism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_anarchism as an organizational alternative in which anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists and individualist anarchists could collaborate and fit in. It seems to me synthesis anarchism in a way wanted to go beyond the bad effects of the dichotomy "social" and "individualist" and so large pluralistic synthesis federations exist until today in mediterranean countries but also anti-organizationalist insurrectionalists and individualists and on the other hand cuasi-marxist platformist organizations.

I think philosophically best "middle ground" that I have read is the position of Emma Goldman. She was an admirer of both Nietzsche and Stirner and also an anarcho-communist. I think that can be called "egoist communism" and these anarchists from San Francisco wrote a whole lenghty book about that:

The Right To Be Greedy: Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything by For Ourselves
http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/For_Ourselves__The_Right_To_Be_Greedy__Theses_On_The_Practical_Necessity_Of_Demanding_Everything.html . French individualist anarchist wrote on a concpet central to hims which was one of "social individualism" but I don¨t think anything by him has yet been translated. Bontemps was a humanistic individualist and so social individualism most likely has to do with the individualist side of humanism but also with the "altruistic" side of humanism which advocates, friendship and empathy towards others while retaining individual autonomy and freedom of association which those more like oneself.

In the end the problem here is the vagueness of the words "social" and "anti-social". A word like "anti-social" sounds interesting in a romantic sense and a poetic but it seems to me for conceptual clarity it is too wide and unclear. The word "social" can make one think both of "society" and of "socializing". "society" can be a local society, a society of a country of state and globalization propagandists even talk of "global society". On the other hand "socializing" can mean talking with just one person and so misantropic or egoists by just talking with another similar type of person are already socializing.

Answered: What is a good text on what an anarchist world/society would look like?

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:48:40 +0000

I suggest this text by Peter Kropotkin http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Petr_Kropotkin__Communism_and_Anarchy.html . What is interesting about it is the fact that he criticizes small communal experiments of the past in order to project a truly libertarian alternative in contrast to religious or ideological experiments.

Answered: Anarchist thoughts on Martyrdom

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:12:32 +0000

Yes. Many anarchists have seen themselves as and other anarchists as martyrs. An examination of the manner in which anarchists in the late 19th and 20th centuries (and still) talk about the Haymarket affair provides plenty of examples of elevating others to that level. When People talk of a willingness to die for the cause, the ideal, or whatever else you want to call it, I hear the language of martyrdom. Accepting that death could be a potential outcome of engaging in struggle is one thing, but to speak of it as if one who would not willingly run towards it is somehow not anarchist enough is, to be frank, just stupid.

The veneration of those who have been killed or executed carries in to modern times, Carlo Giuliani being one example, or the manner in which people sometimes speak of William “Avalon” Rogers. We tend to venerate those who die in struggle, making them almost beyond criticism. Which is not to say that the death of a comrade is something to be belittled, that we shouldn’t mourn, or that there isn’t much to respect about those who are killed fighting against what they hate, it just means that we should also not elevate them to saint-hood.
I also see a sort of martyrdom frequently in more activist-oriented anarchists, and certainly I have fallen prey to this myself at times. What I am talking about here is subsuming my own desires and pleasures for “the cause,” as if any cause beyond myself could be worth my subservience. It is a fine line, as I am not an outright egoist, and I am more than happy to compromise when it seems appropriate and suits my needs, but I have known many people who tend to act as though, if you aren’t willing to sacrifice everything of yourself for “the cause,” you are not truly down. There are two most often unspoken implications to this: 1. You are not as revolutionary as the individual making said statements, and 2. “The cause,” as defined by this individual is more important than whatever you might prioritize. The conclusion to be drawn from accepting this line of reasoning is that we all need to do more. Always. At whatever personal cost.

This can be limiting to people unable to engage in the forms of struggle most often legitimized by people that adopt this kind of thinking. And that is bullshit.

Answered: Can police or some form of community protection exist in your ideal anarchist society? What about jails?

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:34:23 +0000

Since you ask about "your" ideal anarchist society, I'll answer this question personally, with the understanding that no one assumes this to be a standard or majority anarchist answer.

Hopefully all anarchists would agree that there would be no police or jails (although no doubt there are some who do not). To get more specific, I would prefer to leave the ruins of a couple jails so anyone can wander through them, peer into the few remaining cells, and shiver at the brutality of a society that forced people to live inside them.

I agree with dot that the term "community" needs to be problematized. I do not think that any of us currently have communities, and contemporary forms of responding to harm based on "community accountability" strike me as, at best, an optimistic euphemism, and at worst, a total sham and power play.

In the future community I imagine, in which people are socially and materially interdependent but also as mobile as they choose, the community would sure as shortcake defend itself. We would have the recent, shared memory of banding together to overthrow the government and defeat the very worst psychopaths imaginable (cops, politicians, landlords, etc.) We would still have our guns and our determination to never be ruled again, and I seriously doubt we would be vulnerable, even with the absence of any specialized protection service.

Forms of harm that arise within this community would be dealt with chaotically, by different people in different ways, some offering support, some trying to mediate, some criticizing and pressuring those they see as wrong to change their ways, some breaking connections, and some taking revenge. This is what anthropologists refer to as "diffuse sanctions." The question as to whether this "works" cannot be taken seriously, as it is the most common method in human history. The question for anarchists would be, is this what we want?

As for the truly gruesome acts that are today punished as major crimes, I think it should be said that it is a much healthier dynamic if someone reacts from the gut and kills the other person as an act of vengeance, triggering more conflict in the community as to whether or not that was really okay, than to force everyone to agree on one sanction for the offender, and hide behind a curtain of social legitimacy, excusing in advance as "justice" whatever brutal punishment is agreed upon. The practice of justice is much more oppressive than the outrages committed by people taking things into their own hands.

And no, societies lacking a centralized mechanism of deciding on and dispensing justice did not fall apart in internecine warfare and feuding, so please avoid that Hobbesian fantasy.

HOW CAN LEADERS BECOME LEADER IN ANARCHY

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:56:33 +0000

HOW CAN A ANARCHY LEADER BECAME A LEADER?

Answered: Is there an egoist newspaper?

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:08:45 +0000

The papers in question are "The Sovereign Self" from Tacoma's Highwayman Press, and "My Own: Self-Ownership and Self-Creation against all Authority" which is being published by Apio Ludd. That said, there are trends of egoist thinking that run through several publications, most notably in North America, AJODA.

While I haven't seen "My Own" yet, I am looking forward to doing so. "The Sovereign Self" has published 4 (with 5 due just about any time) issues, and is improving with each. Most issues contain pieces by the (presumed) editors, as well as contributions from others, and biographic sketches of egoist thinkers, as well as reprints of their work. The papaer is printed in an offset press with really nice spot color to it.

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in individualist/egoist thought, and I for one have definitely found myself, if not identifying as an egoist, most certainly finding affinity with that tendency, though, interestingly, I've yet to actually get through "The Ego & It's Own."

Part of what I find affinity with is the egoist discomfort with formal organizations and the way group needs frequently are prioritized over individual in the name of "unity." I very much like acting with others, but am always wary when people talk about organizing, about building infrastructure, and so forth. In my own experience, the more organization and infrastructure, the less I feel at home in a group.

I think the focus on the individual, and the absolute prioritizing of the individual over the group is what separates anarchism from other anti-capitalist strains of thought, and why I personally view anarchism as apart from the left.

Answered: What are the basic classical texts of Insurrectionary Anarchism? What must I read to become an Insurrectionist?

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:39:30 +0000

I think it needs to be pointed out that there are very distinct currents of insurrectionary anarchism: Italian, Greek, French, Iberian, Chilean, and North American (PNW) to name the ones I can write a little about.

I won't refer now to insurrectionary anarchism before WWII, although it also had internal differences, as the distance between Galleani and Malatesta can attest.

Italian: influences in the institutionalization of the Italian Left (CP) and spectacularization or vanguardism of the illegal Left. Key texts, The Anarchist Tension by Bonanno and At Daggers Drawn by anon.

Greek: influences in Situationism and history of civil war, the entrance of the Socialist Party into power, and the yearly practice of street fighting. Key texts by Anarchist Archives along with texts/actions by many affinity groups and assemblies.

French: I can point you to the journal A Corps Perdu and refer to waves of attacks particularly in Paris, that seem to have been effectively repressed, but this is only a vague outline to suggest the existence of something besides the IC.

Iberian: The experience of the Juventudes Libertaries splitting from the CNT, the Cordoba bank robbers and their writings, particularly the Italian Claudio Lavazza, or the prisoners involved in the struggle against FIES, such as Xavi Cañadas.

Chilean: Probably the only one to not be anti-Leftist, Chilean IA comes largely from armed ML groups that fought against the dictatorship continuing their struggle under democracy and subsequently mixing with anarchist and squatter circles, also highly informed by political culture of yearly street fighting, similar to Greece.

North American: Quiver distro, Wolfi Landstreicher, Killing King Abacus, a mix of anti-civ anarchism and--unique to IA--perspectives gained from solidarity with indigenous struggles (even in Chile, where there seems to be a major possibility for such contact, there doesn't seem to be much indigenous influence in IA). Fredy Perlman is also a major influence, with his books being widely read again after his death.

Answered: Is Bonanno the sole originator of contemporary Italian insurrectionalist anarchy?

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:20:18 +0000

Besides Cavallieri, Jean Weir, and the anonymous author of "Ai Ferri Corti" (Not Bonanno, contrary to anglo rumours), there is also Massimo Passamani, writing since at least the '90s. His book, the disorder of freedom, has been translated into Spanish but not English.

Also, I would challenge the entire assumption of writers as the originators of thinking or political currents. The experience of the Italian Left, and anarchists within or against it, gave birth to the thinking that Bonanno is most famous for articulating.

Answered: does anyone believe in archangels

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:33:51 +0000

I would dispute the idea that anarchists are archangels, though I want to be clear that I am basing that on the most literal interpretation of “archangel” one could imagine. One of the wonderful things my parents inadvertently did for me was to raise me in a manner relatively free of religion. This meant I went to my Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary to make sure I wasn’t missing some major connotation of “archangel.”

Basing my answer on the definition of an archangel: “a chief or principal angel; in medieval angelology one of the nine orders of celestial attendants on God,” I am not doing god’s work nor attending to him (I am choosing male pronouns because I think they help illustrate the patriarchal nature of the Abrahamic lineage of religion, though that is a tangent), god does not guide my actions, because god does not exist. If you want to view my actions through the lens of your particular faith (or lack thereof) that has nothing to do with me, though if you tell me I am doing god’s work, what holy work I do, etc (and I’ve had jobs where this is a regular occurrence), I will likely tell you that no, I am doing what I think is best, or right, or what I want to do, for either myself, or for those I care about. The more of your god you put on to me and my actions, the more I will come to view you with pity and contempt.

As far as reading the bible, I tried, and actually, I tried at a time when I identified as an anracho-punk. I felt it was important to try to understand the roots of the dominant culture if I wanted to challenge and destroy it. I got bored when everyone was begetting everyone for what seemed like one hundred pages. I’ve periodically picked it up to look up particular references that I wanted to understand, or to make particular arguments against it, but on a whole, studying the bible is such a low priority to me that I am more likely to find myself reading a romance novel. Do other anarchists (and anarcho-punks) read the bible? Certainly some do. There are Christian anarchists (even Christian anti-civ/ anarcho-primitivists) out there, and while I can’t personally reconcile all of their beliefs, I also don’t care as long as they don’t get their shit on me.

What to watch out for? How do you mean? Watch out for dogma: it is easy to say, “no gods, no masters,” but still be ruled by gods and masters that you’ve internalized. Watch out for people trying to use the term “anarchist” to attract people naturally inclined towards rebellion to their cause. Watch out not only for god, but for mere humans (like, ahem, Jesus) elevated to deity status; often they have names like Avakian, Bakunin, Bookchin, Goldman, Kropotkin, Lenin, Mao, Marx. Related, watch out for documents which are elevated to the level of holy scripture (similar to the bible); often this is called a platform, points of unity, or alternately, a manifesto.

Answered: Are anarchists necessarily against ALL government?

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:05:09 +0000

If anarchists are true to their principles, then yes, they are necessarily against all government. This does not mean that they might not choose to live by certain social mores. What is different is the formality of structure. Whereas anarchists might choose to live by common agreements, or even to operate within groups which use democratic decision making, those ties are hardly enforced through law. There might be social stigma, shunning, or rejection from groups (or further, violent retribution or reaction) based upon the individual’s choice not to participate in such mores, but ultimately, if I choose to not live by the commonly held standards, it is my right. This opens up lots of other cans of worms, but that is likely another question and one that I might endeavor to explore, but wouldn’t pretend to have the answer to.

Anarchists who speak of direct democracy are, in my opinion, doing themselves and anarchism/y a disservice. Using the terminology of democracy seems to have come into vogue with Murray Bookchin and his adoration of the ancient Greek city-state as well as the New England Town Hall, and really caught hold following 1999 WTO protests plastered the chant of “This is what democracy looks like,” into the public consciousness. It was at this point that I started to take note of lots of anarchists (in particular social ecology types and some anarcho-syndicalists) propagandizing anarchism as a sort of ultra-democracy: the most democratic of all democracies. Ultimately though, even direct democracy means the individual bows to the decision of the majority, and, if formalized (even if done face to face as opposed to through representation) this is decidedly not anarchistic.

Regarding consensus, it does, ideally, ensure that all voices are heard, and that a mutually beneficial and acceptable course of action is taken. I am a fan of consensus, but I also think it can be easily manipulated and abused, and have always understood consensus to work in an anarchistic (I HATE that word) manner if the group making decisions is both solid enough to be able to find common means and ends, and fluid enough that people are free to pick and choose when a decision will affect them.

The difference, to riff off of what Enkidu wrote, between “government” and “self governance” is that one is imposed upon by threat of external coercion, and one is internal. This doesn’t begin to address the problem of eliminating our internal cops, spooks, and so forth, but it is an important distinction, all the same.

Answered: Are anarchists politically progressive?

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:03:41 +0000

The previous answers have addressed certain dimensions of this topic well, but i have to add that for some anarchists the entire notion of Progress itself has come into question. "Progress" as a term can be used to bolster almost any agenda, except those that are unapologetically reactionary. The spread of birth control, secularization, the end of legal slavery and advent of gay marriage have all been described as progress, but so too have the genocide of native North Americans, the enclosure of the world by Capital and the torture of non-human animals in the name of Science. "Progress" may be an accurate term to describe very precise historical events, but it is ill-suited to serve as a general worldview.

Progressivism was at it's peak in the late 19th Century. You see it in the now obviously naive millennialism in Marxism and also in much of liberal Christian theology of the period in which "human perfectibility" was a hot idea. Progressivism lost its zeitgeist status in the aftermath of WWI, which left millions disillusioned with the prospects for humanity. Of course the notion of progress endures, but not with the universal appeal it once had. With the exception of the progressives (AKA liberals), the concept of progress is not an overall theme, but it can still pack a rhetorical punch.

Answered: What is wrong with independent journalists in the eyes of anarchists?

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:34:21 +0000

Every individual has their own unique biases. This is as true of journalists as anyone else. Often with indy journalists these perspectives fall in line with some massified political (false?) consciousness. There are quite a few liberal-cum-socialist, grassroots-y journalists for whom the legitimacy of the state never comes into question. Their coverage of events can easily collapse some vast and unbounded events and movements into digestible, non-threating activism. For a really great example compare the diversity of views of Egyptians and Tunisians from a year ago to the reformist framing used by "alternative" media. According to Democracy Now! as much as Fox News, the movement was pro-democracy rather than the more obvious conclusion that it was at base anti-Mubarak/Ben Ali. Surely the movement bureaucrats and democracy activists were there in the first days, but they were not necessarily representative of the movement as a whole. We must remain aware that indy journalists *may* be doing the state's work; recuperating radical actions by imposing narratives in which such events are channeled into benign reformism.

I think it is helpful to distinguish the amateur, "citizen" (ew) journalists from professional, "independent" journalists. "Citizen" journalists can be quite a bit wider in their perspectives than those for whom it is a job. Their biases might also be a lot more obvious. Maybe there's still some indy journalists out there perpetuating the charade of objectivity. This should an unforgivable sin of journalism by now. The ones most insistent about objectivity are usually the ones with the biggest ax to grind.

Answered: My ex is a former punk,and he said that punk and anarchism have alot of common, but is this true?

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:55:38 +0000

This answer seeks to build off of both Enkidu and Iconoclast's, there will be repetition here, and I just wanted to say that upfront.

For many younger people from Western Europe and North America the punk scene was their first introduction to ideas such as anarchism, thanks, in no small part, to the likes of the early UK anarcho-punk bands such as Crass having taken seriously the Sex Pistol's calls for "anarchy." Strangely enough, some of the members of Crass were former hippies, who were already familiar with libertarian thinking thanks to their experiences throughout the 1960's.

Punk was a reaction to the conditions of the 1970's, recession, widespread unemployment, and, probably most importantly, a rock and roll pantheon that had become increasingly disconnected from audiences. In many ways, it was a rebellion against the peace and love ethos that had failed in the '60's, but at the same time was carrying on the rejection of mainstream culture. Punk helped revitalize the british anti-nuke movement, and more recently can be pretty much directly blamed for the very existence of crimethinc (I don't mean that as anti-crimethinc, necessarily).

As far as an actual connection to anarchism, many punks are anarchists, and many anarchists like punk music - it can be irreverent, challenge authority, and encourages a DIY mentality and informal networks and mutual aid between small touring bands, promoters, and zines. However, punk (and I definitiely came to anarchism by way of punk, and still like punk) is not and should not be synonymous with anarchism. At it's worst, punk is about consumerism (beer, drugs, records) and spectacle (outfits, hairdon'ts, shows), while lacking real substance. Most punks I know feel contented to buy records or write songs railing against the system, often with little analysis of their role within the system, and often to the exclusion of any meaningful confrontation of power itself. Punk can often be sexist, homophobic, and exclusive (then again, so can anarchist circles). Punk can be Oi Polloi or The Ex, or it can be Green Day and The Exploited.

In the end, punk can be a platform for spreading ideas and propaganda, but it should not be the only platform, or even the most important one.

How do anarchists feel about worker-owned businesses?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:59:50 +0000

When I say "worker-owned businesses", I'm talking along the lines of workers democratically and collectively owning, making decisions for, and obviously working the business in a non-hierarchical manner. I've seen a lot of anarchist-friendly printing shops and book stores run this way, along with bakeries, bicycle shops, and even some small restaurants (slow food but I'd be a fat man if I could eat there more often).
I'll do my best to clarify anything that you guys have questions about.

Is any form of money/currency compatible with anarchism?

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 03:50:38 +0000

Is it possible to have without conflicting with the opposition to hierarchy? Someone with more money could use it as a means to assert domination over you or hire others to do the same. But it's also an effective means to distribute resources. Is trade & barter considered a form of currency?

Also, how do you think resources can be distributed without any form of currency, where everything is held in common? Not saying you should know, just looking for ideas.

Can capitalism be destroyed without destroying the state?

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:30:21 +0000

The state can't be destroyed without destroying capitalism (although "anarcho"-capitalists would disagree), but what about the other way around? Can a socialist and/or communist -- depending on how you define the two -- state exist without degrading into state capitalism?

What did Emma Goldman's voice sound like?

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:40:56 +0000

Her speeches drew crowds wherever she went in the United States. Certainly her articulate use of English is clear in her writings, but one can be a good writer and lack oration skills. I wonder if there was some quality in the way she spoke that contributed to her fame. I've heard re-enactors portraying Emma do it with an imitation accent, but don't know if there's reason to suppose she had a detectably thick accent to her contemporaries.

what are good ways to express anarchism?

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:12:49 +0000

i have an anrchy necklace and a customised t-shirt with the anarchy A symbol. but i dont want to be seen as a poser or being written as overrated. what do you think?

Is anarchism lawless?

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:20:24 +0000

Will people really have the same work ethic without an authority to govern them?

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:02:27 +0000

What is the profit motive in anarchism? It makes no sense as to why people would work generously. Humans have become greedy. I wish I could live in an anarchy, I really do. But anarchism has its flaws and one of those includes lack of profit motive.

Anarchism and human nature: Will people be motivated?

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:31:49 +0000

*NOTE: This is not my own question. I am re-posting questions I find interesting from reddit. Original here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/obb6x/anarchism_and_human_nature_will_people_be/

The most compelling argument that I've heard against a stateless society or one without economic classes is the issue of motivation. The argument is simple and common. You've probably heard it a thousand times.

"Why would someone be a doctor in a society without capitalism? It takes an extensive amount of training, work and education. The high risk and effort it takes to be a doctor or a surgeon is off-set by the economic reward."

The doctor is a classic example for this argument. It's an argument I've thought about a lot and I'm interested in hearing what the answers or rebuttals are for it. Here is something I've thought of on my own this morning. It's probably really stupid so keep that in mind.

We all had childhood dreams of our careers. We wanted to be firefighters, police, doctors and veterinarians to help people. It had nothing to do with money. It was about curiosity, challenge and generosity. Over time, that way of thinking is eroded. The public education, mass media and society teaches us that the goal in life is monetary profit. We are taught happiness results from monetary profit. In a society in which people are NOT conditioned for obedience or to simply chase dollars, will these dreams make it through the amount of effort and work it takes to be, for example, a doctor?

Is it human nature to want to acquire wealth in currency? If there is no state or capitalism, what kind of reward could offset the risk and effort of being a doctor/engineer/etc.

How can private property be abolished without any authority to abolish it with?

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:42:56 +0000

what is the simplest way to share with non-anarchists what anarchism is all about?

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:59:31 +0000

What are the simplest examples of how anarchism in practice, past examples of anarchist revolts, how an anarchist community would exist?

Why do anarchists believe that "all prisoners are political prisoners"?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:55:29 +0000

I have heard this, "all prisoners are political prisoners" over and over again without ever seen any explanation as to how they came to this conclusion.