Anarchy101 Q&A - Recent questions and answers

Answered: what words are indicators that you disagree with the speaker?

Sun, 09 Jan 2022 22:24:06 +0000

All of them...

What does third wave anarchism mean to you?

Thu, 07 Oct 2021 15:03:56 +0000

If first wave anarchism can loosely be summarized as left-anarchism, and second wave anarchism then loosely identified as post-left anarchism, in what way do you see a new shift in anarchist thought, if at all? Are there any authors in particular who you think are especially challenging post-left ideas? Or perhaps you have your own ideas that you see as a radical break from the old?

Open Source Software?

Mon, 20 Sep 2021 07:08:12 +0000

I've read & heard some people, like anarchists, commies, try to suggest that open source software & free software are examples of anarchism and/or communism/socialism in action and what not. I personally don't feel that way about it. The most permissive open source license, for example, is the Do Whatever The Fuck You Want With This license, as far as I'm aware. Once you obtain the software, you can do what you want with it. It's kind of similar to a car. With a car you can take it apart completely for whatever reason, modify it, inform others on what you did and how, give it away or sell it. It fairly similar to the concept of open source. I wouldn't say cars are examples of anarchism/communism in action. But enough with my opinion on open source licenses, I'm interested in how y'all feel about open source software in relation to anarchism.

*There are a bunch of open source software licenses that can be more restrictive than others. There's even an anti-capitalist software license. No one asked on here about this.

Answered: Can a 'man' be a lesbian?

Sat, 11 Sep 2021 14:44:32 +0000

Short answer:

yes.

Long answer:

In order to answer the question "Can a man be a Lesbian?" One first has to answer the question "What is a Lesbian?" There are many ways to answers this question depending on what framework one uses. However if we examine these differing frameworks (using a meta framework) we can separate these frameworks into two primary groups.

The first group is that of positively constructed identity; these are frameworks that set out to say what being a lesbian is. Another way to describe this group would be as essentialist, there are essential aspects of a person that make them a lesbian. The other group though is negatively constructed, they are focused on what a lesbian is not. This is related to the idea of queer negativity which is an aspect of queer nihlism/queer pessimism.

So if we aproach the question with an essentialist lens, of what a lesbian is, a common place to begin is to start with the essential aspect that a lesbian is a woman, but that then requires us to answer the question "What is a woman?" And here again we are faced with the same split between positive or negative construction and the multitude of frameworks that fit within each.

One of the common ways to answer this secondary question today is through the framework of biological essentialism. Which is a framework that constructs certain biological facts that make someone a woman. However just in this definition we can see that this is not a framework that identifies the biological aspects of women, but instead attributes the title women to those with certain biological aspects. To restate: a framework does not describe what an identity is, instead it defines what an identity is; it's prescriptive not descriptive.

Because of this, without a framework there is no answer to "What is a Lesbian?" There are no essential natural truths as to what a lesbian is, but instead only frameworks that aim to answer this question. You may believe your framework is "the essential natural truth", thus is especially common among biological essentialists but ultimately there isn't one, only frameworks.

Finally to give my own answer to the question "What is a lesbian?" I would answer; anything. Anyone may be a lesbian, perhaps even only at certain times. Even things can be lesbians. Pretty much every dildo I've met has been a lesbian. I've also met men who are lesbians. Personally I consider myself somewhere between a male lesbian and a female fag; depending on the day of the week.

I'll let you figure out what kind of framework I may be using.

Answered: Is your anarchism positively constructed?

Fri, 03 Sep 2021 14:47:50 +0000

I am positive about nothing being sacred.

I am positive about the usefulness of words to provide descriptive meaning, but aware that meaning is determined by the receiver of words not the transmitter.

The common "divide" in Anarchism is more often the divide of Negative or Positive theory.

Egoism and descended theories perform anarchy via negation (removing ideology)

Collective theories such as syndicates perform anarchism via positive actions (building things).

Answered: How do you distinguish between the state and state actors?

Sat, 21 Aug 2021 01:53:41 +0000

i see the state as an abstraction. i see state actors as concrete individuals acting on behalf of that abstraction toward its aims of ever increasing power and control.

probably not as deep an answer as the question warrants, but that was my gut response.

Answered: What are the implications or relevance of empathy to anarchy?

Wed, 18 Aug 2021 19:17:19 +0000

i guess the depth and scope of one's empathy could be impacted by an anti-authoritarian perspective. eg, maybe i have empathy for all living things (however i define "living"). as i develop my critiques of authority and its role in my life, i could become far less empathetic toward those i see as authoritarian.

mutual aid clearly does not require empathy, but having some sure makes it easier and more enjoyable to me.

my desire to associate with another may well be affected by how empathetic they appear to be, depending on the context of that association.

just thinking "out loud" here.

Answered: Is there a non-revolutionary anarchism?

Mon, 16 Aug 2021 03:06:59 +0000

In this episode of the brilliant Aragorn! discusses the relevance of the Russian Nihlists today. While what has come to be known as anarcho-nihlism is in a few ways disconnected from this history, nihlism has definitely had an effect and continues to offer lessons to anarchists. To the extent an anarcho-nihlism could exist it would be this rejection of a revolution, rejecting the idea of a better world, and rejecting the hope of a better tomorrow. Even the attack of nihlists, such as the assassination of the tsar is not about a mass movement, or transforming the world.

Another aproach though unfortunately I cannot recall where exactly Im remembering this from (I think it's from Kazynski's early work but I could be incorrect) is that revolution is undesirable from an anarchist perspective because revolution is only a means by which society can be reorganized not deorganized/destroyed. This isn't exactly the same language but I would say this idea also relates to how Perlman discusses how many attempts at combating civilization have turned into civilizations of their own (in the text Against His-Story Against Leviathan).

Answered: Which conversations feel tired and which feel vital?

Tue, 10 Aug 2021 02:39:18 +0000

Ive recently been going through a lot of Aragorn!'s old convos, listening to listening to first 100 Anews podcasts and a few episodes of The Brilliant. And a recurring idea seems to be the idea of a shift from "2nd wave" anarchism to "3rd wave". Aragorn! Never outlines any real specific trends he sees in this shift that I know of, besides a few mentions of Foucault and Butler but this idea of a sort of new critique of anarchism is extremely interesting to me as someone who quickly grew disillusioned with left anarchism and then post-left anarchism. So I would say this overall conversation, of how anarchism can move beyond anarchism I think is sort of "the" conversation, but I think it's made up of many subtopics.

1. Critiques of individual justice

A! Comments several times on the trend with "antifa anarchism" of a sort of might makes right idea of justice and I think this also applies to many who describe themselves as egoists. A rejection of traditionally institutionalized justice where justice is imposed from without (from the state or society) to a justice that flows from within, an ideologically ingrained notion, to connect to Foucault a more disciplinary measure where we police each other without the over arching institution. And so the question is in a way, how can we exist in spaces with not just eachother but also non-anarchists, without relying either on some organizers of a space, but also not relying on just beating up whoever we disagree with.

2. Critiques of non-violence

A! Has also mentioned several times the role of ITS and Atassa as a critique of American anarchism and I think can be seen as a critique of anarchism is general. I dont think it's fair to describe ITS as exactly this "third wave" but I think particularly their anti-humanism represents a strong push against both many left-anarchist but even critiquing many post-left assumptions. For example I think the idea of Indiscriminate attack goes much farther then the basic Insurrectionary position.

3. A revival/expansion of queer theory and the sexual revolution

Perhaps this is based more on my own influences but the split between anti-humanist and trans humanist discourse and ots connection to queer theory seem relevant in many ways. Not only is there the connection to ITS and EE as mentioned above but political negativity, rejections of the future and against reproduction, such as the arguments laid out in Baedan, i think are another way where post left ideas are being taken to their limit, and hopefully beyond. In addition to this I think a new wave of prominent philiacs, perverts and degenerates and the conversations the very existence of these people sparks has re-emerged many of the old conversations of the sexual revolution and I think there are many directions where these ideas that were being explored could be taken much further.

4. Living anarchy

Perhaps this is just of interest to me since I see it as my own sort of project though i think A! Does mention something akin to this in his possible imagining of a third wave. But it seems a project of 2nd wave anarchism was an attempt to create a lived anarchy, a complete synthesis of theory and action. From my experience this seems to have utterly failed in most senses especially in a complete focus on attack of Insurrectionary anarchists, the failure of back to the land projects, and the paralysis of passive nihlism. But trying to continue to push push project/idea is something i am very interested in and have written about. (In the text Anarcho-Lifestylism which is posteda forum on Anews for those interested).

I don't feel like any conversations are tired. Perhaps this is because I'm what most people would consider a young person. I feel there's almost always something one can take away from revisiting a topic, a new way of aproaching it, and even if there isn't for ourselves, these conversations can be vectors to help show others another ways to look at it. I think I'm especially fond of "tired" ideas since it wasnt too long ago for me that I held a bunch of positions that I've since moved away from and discourse has been a huge aspect of exploring more and more ideas. Obviously if you feel you get nothing out of a conversation there's no use in focusing on it, but I think especially in online spaces, where discourse tends to be very cyclical the general topics I think it can give us an excuse to talk about things in a way they typically aren't and to people who are interested in hearing a new perspective on it.

Answered: who first used the term "the Beautiful Idea:"

Sat, 26 Jun 2021 05:24:51 +0000

It comes from a speech Emma Goldman was to give in Chicago on March 16, 1908, but she was arrested before she could speak and roughed up by the cops. The speech was titled "Anarchy and What It Really Stands For" and was printed in the Chicago Daily Journal on March 17, 1908. A few days after that, "Anarchy and What It Really Stands For," was published as a pamphlet under the title "A Beautiful Ideal" with a very minor tweak or two. UC Berkeley has a copy of the pamphlet on microfilm. University of Illinois probably has a copy of the original text on microfilm from the Chicago Daily Journal newspaper. I'm not sure on who came up with changing the name to "A Beautiful Ideal." My best guess is it was Emma Goldman herself, Ben Reitman, Johann Most, or Max Nattlau. Possibly a combo

"Anarchy and What It Really Stands For" was tweaked again and re-titled "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For" in 1910. It's in Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman.

Answered: What is anarcho-transhumanism?

Thu, 17 Jun 2021 06:03:45 +0000

The gist of it is that anarcho-transhumanism is anarcho-capitalism with cyborgs.

Transhumanism promotes the idea of humans intervening in human evolution and attempting to make humans more effecient and superior via advances in science and technology. It's to overcome the limits of the evolution, that they claim is repressing us all, and using advances in science and technology that doesn't exist will set us free. Transhumanism strives for a technocratic-utopia. Some transhumanists try to tone down the cyborg shit because they're probably aware the cyborg shit makes them sound silly. However, the cyborg stuff is heavily implied and is a common theme within transhumanism articles and a book I've read. Same goes for getting people to invest in cryonics and other goofy snake oil.

Transhumanism is based around market forces and upgrading your body via new technologies and sciences determined by market forces. Market forces are like competition, supply, demand, gordon gekko, investors... Capitalism appears to be a core aspect to varying degrees. R&D under capitalism is the most efficient way for them to achieve their goal. The wealthy invest in making new innovations and when the technologies emerge, they're developed, sold, profit for higher returns, reinvest in something new, and repeat. The transhumanists at least acknowledge their philosophy will benefit the ones with the wealth and/or most resources. They accept this and reason that over time it will become cheaper for poor people/groups to gain access to. They're proponents of of technogaianism, which is basically developing future technology to restore Earth's environment.

I think anarcho-transhumanism was made up by one guy, possibly two. Anarcho-trashumanism doesn't really address capitalism in a meaningful way. It points out capitalism is ableist so that's better than nothing. It's unclear of the differences between of anarcho-transhumanism and transhumanism. The explanation from the anarcho-trashumanist faq is that transhumanists are fascists and naive. Going straight to the calling other people fascists is lame and unhelpful. The anarcho-trashumanism faq goes into more "depth" explaining the difference between it and primitivism, anti-civ, that "fully automated gay space communism" meme than the differences with transhumanism. Afaict anarcho-trashumanism using 3D-printers and handing out naloxone to people addicted to opiods. It says it asks "radical questions" like why are humans okay with other humans dying. In the end, anarcho-trashumanism relies too much on scientism (the "scientist" that foresees all, knows all and are superior) and its magicians, oracles, snake oil salesmen, and priests.

What do you think of cancel culture?

Sat, 29 May 2021 05:56:30 +0000

What are your thoughts about cancel culture?

I find it amusing that the people that are all about "concelling" someone for a mistake or wrong think slightly amusing. Mostly because the people that are all about it seem oblivious that it will be used against them. Overall, it seems pretty authoritarian to me.

Answered: What would happen with the internet in anarchism?

Sat, 29 May 2021 05:49:21 +0000

It's highly unlikely the internet would still exist in an anarchist type society. One issue, of many, is the internet needs fuel to produce energy (electricity) for it to run and stay online. That would need to be done in areas all over to keep it online. How would anarchists be able to produce enough energy for the gazillion servers? The options are limited to the types of fuel, which are wood, fossil fuels (coal/oil/natural gas), nuclear reactor, and "clean" energy to use to produce the energy needed to keep the internet online. Wood would be a bad option to use for fuel to produce energy. It would practically require an entire forest just to kind of keep the internet running for a little while. That's presuming that all the energy produced from wood was dedicated to keeping the internet online. It definitely would cause a bunch of negative things to the environment, animals, and people living in that area and elsewhere.

The next would be fossil fuels, but that'd required a bunch fairly organized groups/bureaucrats willing to share it, retrieve the coal/oil/natural gas from the ground, process and refine it, determine where to ship it, and the act of shipping it itself. A whole host of issues and problems would come from trying to do something like that; from degradation of the environment, pollution, filth-iffying air and the water supplies, spills...etc. If the area you lived in had coal and everyone in the group was okay with mining it, they could use it to produce energy to keep the internet online and other technology. They could also conceivably refine coal into liquid fuel (gasoline/diesel) for cars or any gas powered machine needed for transporting. The Nazis converted coal into diesel prior and during WWII. However, if doing something like that, I doubt keeping the internet running would be anywhere near a top priority. That's if other anarchists groups even tolerated it. It would definitely piss off anarchists living in surrounding areas because they'd have to deal with the filth and pollution produced by some other group's coal plant, mines, reactors...etc.

Nuclear power would be kind of similar to fossil fuels in that there'd need to be people living in that area that is okay with mining for uranium ore and rare earth metals. Mining for those materials would turn that area into an insta-shithole. Not to mention people and animals would likely end up developing various types of cancer, and a host of other issues involving animals, humans, fishies, and the environment. If an anarchist group did get a nuclear reactor working, there'd need to be a place to dispose of the radioactive nuclear waste. A nuclear reactor also needs an outside source of energy to run it, backup generators, and a consistent source of water to limit the possibilities of a meltdown. It'd also require an tightly organized group/bureaucrats to make sure it goes smoothly, and if they decide to share with others. I imagine no one would be willing to take nuclear waste off of the people running the nuclear reactor, nor would any anarchists within 30 miles be pleased with some other group running a nuclear reactor. An accident or meltdown would irradiate areas within 5 to 30 miles of the reactor.

Finally there's "clean" energy like hydroelectric dams, solar panels, wind turbines, water turbines...etc. Those wouldn't provide enough energy to keep the internet online by themselves. It too would require organized groups/bureaucracies to keep them functioning. Damming up rivers or attempting to would piss off people downstream. It would put people in a situation where the group that built the dam would have control over people downstream. It would further mess up migration of animals and fishies.

So, assuming anarchists could be able to do each of those things and were willing to do so. It would just be a recreation of the machine of today. There'd be a large amount of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats galore!! To make it worse, there would probably be meetings everyday especially if it was an anarcho-communist or syndiaclist land. They really like meetings and direct democracy from what I've gathered. Just imagine going to a meeting after working in the mine all day developing black lung and/or radioactive lung so people elsewhere can use the internet or any energy intensive technology. To me, I would be confused as to what actually changed.

Personally, I think some anarchists would realize quickly what was going on, would not be okay with reproducing the state and current technology, and would try to prevent it. I've seen people on anarchist message boards discuss that they'd keep the current technology fully functional without realistically explaining how they plan to accomplish that. If their explanation sounds like Star Trek magic or other sci-fi magic (like mining asteroids), then it's safe to dismiss them imo. In conclusion and 9 years in the making, when you hear or read anarchists discussing maintaining current technology and/or developing more advanced tech. Then I think it's best to briefly think about how these anarchists would realistically go about producing the energy needed for any energy intensive technology, like the internet. And maybe think about if that's desirable or not to you and/or why.

Answered: Sexual double-standard and anarchism

Mon, 03 May 2021 19:25:40 +0000

my 2c:

voluntary association is a core anarchist principle. if that is what you are describing - all participate freely and without coercion - then i see no reason why such a relationship would not be consistent with anarchist relations.

however, that is pretty general, and as with most situations, the devil is in the details. particularly around coercion, and the many forms that can take.

Answered: Anti-civ books

Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:20:29 +0000

against (his)story, against leviathan

Answered: is "anarchist" a group identity?

Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:24:57 +0000

Apparently "anarchist" is an identity to some groups of people. I have noticed people refer to "anarchist" as being part of a "movement." For it to be a movement, I have deduced that it needs to be "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals." Now I haven't been invited to any of the anarchist movement meetings where it is presumably determined what the common ideology is and the goals are. None. Zero. Not that I would ever go, but I think that it is a bit rude not to give me holler at least once. So I cannot tell you what's discussed during the anarchist movement meetings.

Do I think to myself what a wonderful world that I am an anarchist? No. I don't really think about it much and it doesn't mean much. It's kind of ambiguous. For an identity, anarchist isn't a distinct trait for a person. I feel it also depends upon other peoples interpretation of anarchist and that can open up whole 'nother can of worms of awkwardness. I think more of myself as a weird and I'd let people know that weirdness is, I guess, is an aspect of my identity. While it is vague I don't feel the need to explain what I mean by weird because people can just observe my behavior and/or talk to me, and it would become apparent. With anarchist I think I would have to provide an explanation.

Out of the terms you listed, I think woman would qualify as an aspect of one's identity. It's a recognized characteristic of a person.

what does trust mean to you?

Fri, 12 Feb 2021 15:02:51 +0000

of course i mean in the context of anarchistic relations.

in the world of democrapitalism, trust is essentially reliant on legal (contracts) and political (elected representatives) institutions. and that trust, as well as the supposedly "earned" or assumed trust between individuals who know each other (eg, families), is breached frequently. in a world of individuals relating freely and without institutional constraints, how would you build trust with others that you don't already know? can anything other than time and first-hand experience serve that purpose?

Answered: Anarchists Thoughts on the Development of Capitalism?

Sat, 09 Jan 2021 19:22:22 +0000

First of all I'm pretty sure Marx these days is getting too much credit for the term and theory. Yes he spent a lot of time in the library, and yes he made a lot of charts and bullshit about capitalism, but the fact is he was part of a milieu where lots of people, many of them anarchists, many of them older than him, were talking about the same thing. Marx has so many disciples now, and so many of them are professors, he gets treated as if he came up with it, but Proudhon, Fourier and others had already theorized it before him. Proudhon for example wrote What Is Property? in 1840.

On a different note, I think Against His-story, Against Leviathan qualifies as not derivative of Marx. Of course Perlman is well aware of Marx, and wrote the best paraphrase of Marx that I'm aware of ("Reproduction of Daily Life"), but he takes leave in AHAL in the sense that he doesn't centralize capitalism but Leviathan.

One of the reasons Perlman is able to do this is that he's asking a different question than "what are the origins of capitalism". He's trying to understand colonization (AHAL starts as a footnote to The Strait, which is about the history of the place he lives when he's writing it), and he fully commits to it. You see some marxists trying to talk about colonization and patriarchy through the language of marxism, so they'll talk about it in the language of primitive accumulation. The problem is that in trying to challenge the limits of marxist discourse (dismissive of colonization, race, gender, etc) they end up accepting the framework and that relegates race, gender, etc as secondary. It's like a weird biblical debate where you're actually just trying to express your own ideas, but you have to find a scriptural reference for them in The Holy Book of Marx. Because you want the boring as fuck marxists to listen to you, or because your career opportunities, or something. Fuck it.

Anyway, I'd recommend checking out the Libertarian Labyrinth, I think it might give you a different angle on your question. Especially the anarchists who were around before or contemporary with Marx.

Answered: What are your favourite anarchist texts?

Sat, 09 Jan 2021 17:07:05 +0000

The Old Calendrist

species being and other stories

The Impossible, Patience and How to Live Now or Never

"Anarchism" by de Cleyre

Letters of Insurgents

A lot of my favorites are the ones that aren't generally considered anarchist like di Prima, Kafka (especially the aphorisms), Artaud, Benjamin, Bataille, Genet.

Answered: What is your favorite anarchist novel?

Mon, 04 Jan 2021 16:21:43 +0000

the monkey wrench gang comes to mind, though not explicitly anarchist (edward abbey identified as one, of some sort or another).

Answered: What is the best anarchist text about love?

Sun, 27 Dec 2020 18:32:04 +0000

Mine would have to be the CrimethInc classic Streets of War, Roofs of Love.

"It was dawn. The possibilities were endless. We climbed up onto the rooftop and looked out over the city. You took my hand..."

Nothing tugs on the old heartstrings quite like romance on top of a roof.

Answered: What do you think of the Great Reset?

Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:00:32 +0000

I downloaded the book and have since deleted it. I didn't read the whole book either. Just a few sections. You should just pirate these books. Anyways, afaict it is just an updated and repackaged corporatism to modernize it. Klaus Schwab refers to it as "stakeholder capitalism" in the book instead of corporatism. Likely due to what corporatism is associated with. I can understand why left-wing folk would find this book appealing since it panders to leftish tendencies. It has socialist-like aspects built into it.

I'm not surprised that the "great reset" was packaged into a book related to the rona-19. People are more a bit susceptible to conspiracy theories and/or ideas they normally wouldn't accept until some large crisis event like the rona-19, me thinks. Ironically enough, Schwab points out that people are more susceptible to other ideas they'd otherwise dismiss it. He's using the rona-19 to try to convert people into corporatism. A more extreme version of this would be someone that fell for an elaborate conspiracy like the onr that f@ mentioned.

Is this guy well known or popular in leftist circles for one reason or the other? I'm out of the loop.

How many Anarchists are in the world?

Sat, 21 Nov 2020 05:24:27 +0000

I was just wondering the approximate number/percentage of people on earth who's political ideology is some form of Anarchism, including Anarcho-Capitalism and National Anarchism.

Do anarchists write romance novels?

Mon, 09 Nov 2020 01:14:29 +0000

Hi. I asked this question on here. I think it was removed. I enjoy reading romance novels and erotic fan fiction. Erotica. Both romance novels and erotic fanfic novels I enjoy are raunchy. I dont know of any romance and fanfic written by anarchist or about anarchist. Certainly anarchists have wrote romance novels and erotic fanfic .
What are good anarchist romance novels and fanfic novels?

Answered: What does the black star symbolize?

Sun, 01 Nov 2020 17:40:35 +0000

According to Erica Lagalisse in Occult Features of Anarchism, the star was directly borrowed from European occult traditions:

Communist and anarchist symbolism, such as the red star and the circle-A, date back to this period and also have Masonic origins. The star, which hosts an endless charge of esoteric meanings in both the Hermetic and Pythagorean traditions, had been adopted in the eighteenth century (some say seventeenth) by Freemasons to symbolize the second degree of membership in their association—that of Comrade (Compañero and Camarade in my sources). Among socialists, it was first used by members of the Memphite lodges and then the IWA. Regarding the circle-A, early versions like the nineteenth-century logo of the Spanish locale of the IWA are clearly composed of the compass, level, and plumb line of Masonic iconography, the only innovation being that the compass and level are arranged to form the letter A inside of a circle[6]. Over time these symbols have developed a new complement of meanings—many twenty-first-century anarchists don’t even know that the star used by communists, anarchists, and Zapatistas alike is the pagan pentagram. They are not reminded of the mathematical perfection of cosmogony when they behold it, or of Giordano Bruno’s geometric arts of memory, nor do they necessarily realize there is a genealogical link between the (neo)pagan May Day celebration and today’s anarchist May Day marches. Nowadays the May Day march is taken to commemorate the Haymarket massacre (1886), yet it is no coincidence that there was much upheaval in Chicago that day, because revolutionaries had been honoring May Day since before the time of the Illuminati, which was also founded on this symbolic day. In the nineteenth century, these symbolic associations were well known by those involved, however, and their adoption reflected how much they resonated with mystical and historical weight.

So what was the meaning of the star which nineteenth-century anarchists would have understood immediately but which has been forgotten? For an in depth discussion of this question you would want to delve into the literature from the Western magical tradition (I can definitely recommend Gordon White's Star.Ships for an excellent discussion of the meaning of the star in the Western magical tradition, with some clear anarchist resonances to boot!), but the very short answer is that the stars are the dead, the ancestors.

The star is black (as with the other black anarchist symbols -- flag, mask, etc), because black is the color of death, and also of negation, the unseen and the invisible.

So taking these together we see that the black star symbolizes the dead who are forgotten and erased by history.

How best to help immigrants fleeing broken countries?

Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:54:16 +0000

Most countries in the West are dealing with increased levels of legal and illegal immigration. This is causing tension. I know this is not current 'conventional' radical thinking but I believe it would be better if we helped fix the broken countries so people don't have to leave. And I don't mean help by exploiting natural resources, creating debt traps, I mean mutual aid on an international level. And maybe we sometimes need to use violence to help topple dictatorships. Why should people be forced to flee their homes and we do nothing to solve the problems they face?

Answered: What are Alan Moore's anarchist influences?

Thu, 22 Oct 2020 08:01:43 +0000

Alan Moore was influenced by people like Aleister Crowley & Jack Parsons, Art Spiegelman, Frank Miller, Harlan Ellison, Howard Kurtzman, Kraftwerk, possibly L. Ron Hubbard, Stephen King, Truman Capote, Dorothy Parker (she got blacklisted by hollywood), and the guy that started American Flagg comic. When Alan Moore mentions he's an "anarchist" he means something in between an American libertarians and whatever the left faction of the Labour Party in the UK stands for.

I don't think Alan Moore is too concerned with contemporary politics. It's usually someone asking him where his politics lay because of different themes in comics he wrote. Like his Swamp Thing series, The Killing Joke, or V for Vendetta. Alan Moore is more of an Occultist and a Magician than anything else besides a writer.

Answered: is it possible and/or desirable to have some sort of anarchist "militia(s)"?

Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:41:41 +0000

On the face of it, the answer to this question is a clear yes: of course it's possible to form anarchist militias -- this is something that has been done before and is being done currently. It does raise the question of just how different those times or places are from your time and place, my time and place, and the answer to that is much more complicated, especially if we are not true historians. It seems that the most common and debilitating lesson people learn from history is to conceive of possibilities only up to the point of what we see having been done (and often then trying to imitate that but only becoming a pale imitation, a historical reenactment society, or a group of LARPers who pretend they are not LARPers). What makes things worse is that what we see having been done is a narrative written by the victors and in which a lot of the most interesting things are hidden away. So we get the idea, for example, that armed black militancy in the 60s looked mostly like the Black Panthers, and there are no history books about the small, mobile, offensive, informally-organized groups. (I'll talk about this a bit more below.) The flip side of this is to largely ignore history in order to feel a greater sense of possibility, but this is a huge mistake because history has a great capacity to strengthen us.

To get back around to your question, I have questions. Why a show of force? I am not much of a strategic thinker, but I don't much see an advantage to anarchists flexing muscle in a defensive posture. For a community that is congregated and in danger of getting shot up by some wingnut racist -- a black church, say, or a synagogue -- I think some kind of armed guard makes a certain amount of sense (and means not working with the police). For anarchists at a book fair or some kind of public gathering, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but I don't think a lone shooter is going to get too far in (or be too likely to wander into) a place like that where some portion of the crowd is likely armed. For the scenario you're describing -- walking down the streets of Kenosha etc as a show of force -- I'm just not at all sure I get what the idea is. It seems to involve traveling from different places, which has advantages but also comes with big costs and risks: Where will they sleep? Where will they eat? Where will they meet up to organize this armed stroll? All this for what exactly? Intimidating police officers? It seems there are more effective, less costly possibilities. The idea behind the Blank Panthers' show of force seems more effective than what you're describing. If the cops know that black people are arming themselves and forming patrols in various places specifically against police violence, this will deter them more than one big anarchist (or "Antifa") march in one city one time.

But even then, there was a lot of disagreement around the BPP about whether a defensive posture was a good idea at all -- the alternative being small, mobile, offensive groups, which were also actively organized on a pretty big scale and which took part in the riots in '68. There's a great little history of all this in Movement for No Society. It seems abundantly clear to me that the mobile/offensive model is much smarter for "our" side of the asymmetric conflict than the static/defensive model. The latter has its time and place, I just think it's far away from where most of us seem to be here and now.

Answered: What fiction or other art portrays anarchic society?

Sat, 19 Sep 2020 15:40:57 +0000

pippi fucking longstocking.

mic drop.

;)

Answered: Sources/Books on Revolutionary Communists

Wed, 16 Sep 2020 17:37:42 +0000

These debates you're describing sound awful. Are you sure you want to continue hanging out in those spaces?

As to your question, my answer won't actually point to any biographies of these authoritarians, but I hope it will serve as an answer anyway. First it sounds like you would get a lot out of "A History of Separation" in Endnotes 4. It does not deal with the various leaders and figures, but the main argument is that we should not try not to look at historical moments through the lens of our own principles -- which, they argue, are too informed by our benefit of hindsight.

I have to add, since I am recommending the essay, that I actually hated it, or at least it left a very bad taste in my mouth, because it treats "the class" as a homogeneous consciousness and essentially erases anarchist and other libertarian thought from history. In other words, it chalks up all the communist atrocities to "well this is just where the class consciousness of the time was at, and who are we to judge that, we're standing on their shoulders" or some such bullshit. The fact that many people -- anarchists, but also many communists (though apparently not of the Endnotes sort) and also just regular people -- were definitely not in agreement with Leninism, Bolshevism, with Castro or Mao, is grossly waved away. It's also bonkers to me that they treat the authoritarians' actions as a pure expression of the class consciousness, but maybe that comes with the territory of believing in class consciousness at all?

Anyway, it is very much aimed at the sentiment you express of being tired of debates about whether certain historical figures were mostly good or not. So I do recommend it. But then you should also check out Dauvé and Camatte, who are two of the theorists that Endnotes are positioning themselves against in this debate. I'd also recommend reading Monsieur Dupont, and definitely, definitely check out "The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism" by Fredy Perlman, which is like a breath of fresh air in these musty rooms you seem to be hanging out in.

Edit: I thought of another source that's worth checking out, and more to the point of the question asked, as it talks about Bolshevik stuff from the inside: Memoirs of a Revolutionary by Victor Serge.

Answered: Is there historical reference to anarchist having organized an army?

Tue, 15 Sep 2020 20:09:16 +0000

I may be what Chris Day (author of the essay that bornagainanarchist has linked) is calling an anarchist who has taken anarchist propaganda too seriously, but it seems to me that the anarchists had no problems forming an effective set of autonomous militias in Spain or in Ukraine.

A problem they did have in Spain was that they made the mistake of forming a popular front with the communists and social democrats, who then ordered them to accept the centralized, governmental command structure and military discipline, or else to disarm. These events are described by one of these uncontrollables in "A Day Mournful and Overcast." The uncontrollable also describes what the anarchist militias were like in terms of how they elected their leaders and coordinated with each other.

Orwell (not exactly an anarchist propagandist) also recounts some of the relevant communist-anarchist conflicts in his Homage to Catalonia, if I recall correctly, and likewise Enrico Arrigoni in his field reports included in his autobiography Freedom: My Dream.

Modern combat theory, from the little I know of it, definitely considers guerrilla armies the most effective form of organization in asymmetric conflict against a more powerful opponent. And there are plenty of examples to point to here. So really the question seems ideologically motivated. People who want to make a case against anarchism might point to armies -- aha, armies involve hierarchy and authority, gotcha! But it just doesn't seem to hold any water. Anarchists abandoning their principles, such as to join a government in Spain or to join a popular front, has caused more ill than anarchists militias lacking heavily centralized command structures.

I can't speak to the economic question as I don't take any interest in such things, but for the sake of the site organization you should probably ask it separately, as it is a separate question.

(punctuation edit for clarity)

Answered: How did Maoism end up infesting U.S. radical politics? Was it partly through academia and its influences upon activism?

Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:34:23 +0000

I wouldn't credit or blame academia for the initial spread, I think it's more about the set of situations described by dot and boles in their comments, especially the increasingly bonkers cognitive dissonance that was required to hold on to Soviet-style communism, and the appeal of national liberation style politics to provide an analysis of race politics in the US that other radical varieties lacked or seemed to lack.

But really the question of the initial spread and foothold is probably less important than the question of how it's spread so insidiously, how many people who profess to be anarchists or consider themselves just plain radical or leftist, are riffing so heavily off of Maoism. And this, yes, has a lot to do, in my opinion, with academia, as well as some other factors I'll try to cover.

So yeah, academia. What happened to all those radicals you hear about from the 60s? Some were killed, some were imprisoned, some went into exile. A few are living out their days on a commune somewhere. But they went into the universities in droves. I have no citation for this, but to me it seems just a fact. And a big part of the reason to go into teaching is to have a formative effect on young people. And sure, some will have drifted away from that mission, but you can still spread ideas unintentionally and unconsciously as easily or more easily than spreading them on purpose.

The next thing to consider is that it's a big thing for Maoists not let on that they are Maoists except in "cadre" or insider situations. And I don't mean this like how many anarchists won't let their bosses or coworkers know that they're anarchist, or the kids they teach or those kids' parents. I mean that more often than not, died-in-the-wool Maoists will be totally outright with some Maoist political line but will deliberately conceal where it's coming from. I have seen this with Maoist groups where I live, and every Maoist I've ever interacted with, which is quite a few, unfortunately. And I'm not talking about the RCP here, they are just the tip of the iceberg and a particularly silly one at that.

It gets trickier because most Maoists are into anti-authoritarianism -- though this term has a particular meaning in Maoism that is not particularly anarchist -- so they are able to go around masquerading as anarchist-adjacent even though they have a deep and abiding love for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Really weird situation. Where I live, there was an armed group back in the day that was made up of full-on Maoists working together with anarchists.

And that's just the Maoists who know they are Maoists. Then you start getting into all the people who don't think they are Maoists, but have absorbed a whole ton of their ideas about anti-oppression, identity politics, imperialism, capitalism, colonialism, race, and so on, from Maoism. It's like fish not knowing what water is.

I think developing a good sense of what to look out for is a good survival strategy, at least if you intend to be an anarchist in certain cultural conditions. Unfortunately I don't know of a good historical examination of this question -- though I'm sure some of the stuff linked in the comments is worth checking out, and I know someone who has a draft of a book or long essay on the topic. But do check out Manual for Revolutionary Leaders -- it would be a perfect start for calibrating your bullshit detector. I would recommend reading between the lines of the history books and of what's out there in the world around you, reading with your guard up. It's extremely common in universities and colleges, in leftist publishing, in activist circles / community organizing world, and whatever parts of the internet the tumblr kids are moving toward these days. Make a decoder ring with Maoist code words and their translations. It would be interesting to see some kind of working group form around this question and put out a historical narrative and/or a how-to manual.

Answered: implications of disrupting gatherings/preventing people from speaking?

Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:42:32 +0000

Free speech is a "privledge controlled by authorities" as many anarchists have pointed out, but beyond that, especially when planning disruptions of fascist speaking events as you are directly referring to, there are a couple of conundrums:

-how does disrupting a particular fool's or mob's deranged expressions benefit a more lawless and anarchistic future?

-how much do we risk galvanizing the fascists? This is actually impossible to predict, which is why I don't have any personal interest in showing up on the streets with right wingers, or calling them out in a very confrontational way. IMHO, the activities of self-proclaimed "anti-fa" in recent years has only strengthened right-wing support, and at best has made certain people "afraid to be racist", which at any moment could turn into reactionary or authoritarian activity.

-Anti-fa is theoretically a very dangerous type of activity, for example, if you disrupt one of those hardcore neo-nazis from speaking, you might end up getting your ass kicked, which is exactly the type of expression they [the nazis] are looking for.

But beyond that, these kinds of questions about disrupting gatherings are impossible to answer. It almost relies on a crystal clear reading of the future: Clearly it's a good idea to disrupt certain gatherings and speakers, clearly it's NOT a good idea to disrupt some events.

This question reminds me of an event that Kristian Williams tried to host at a university, it's disruption was on youtube for a while. The people in the crowd were responding to this well written and thoughtful essay:

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kristian-williams-the-politics-of-denunciation

the event was successfully disrupted, but clearly the people who did this were just being assholes, this was machiavellian censorship in it's purest form, an attempt to once again cast women as the perpetual victims of trauma, and cast kristian williams as an authoritarian and a misogynist. He was there to discuss his anti-cop book but the conversation got sidetracked by people with a different agenda.

This is why i tend to find public speaking overall a very questionable route for anarchists...there are more or less two sides set by design: a speaker, and a group, yet i am not against it, i just find it questionable and somewhat inherently opposed to a more dynamic and fluid anarchy.

Answered: What is Antifa? Same as or different from anarchist?

Mon, 07 Sep 2020 18:30:02 +0000

Anti-fa stands for anti-fascist, which is already not the same as anarchist. There are authoritarians who are anti-fascist. (Fascism is a particular subset of authoritarianism.) The way it's used today, anti-fa/antifa is a word for demonstrators/protesters who don't have a single organization/leader for others to negotiate with. They could as well be called The Unaffiliated Anti-racists. Anti-fa also refers to a tendency of action from Europe (mainly Germany, i think?), that emphasizes street fights and immediate physical reaction to nazi and white supremacist activity.

So, antifa gets used to refer to people who are prepared to destroy property and actively defend themselves and/or hurt racists and fascists.

And Antifa these days is also a group of people who believe that that kind of destruction and defense can make a significant impact on racism and fascism as larger social problems.

Some people in those above groups are also anarchists. Some anarchists are not those folks. Anarchist are against racism and by definition are against fascism, but not all anarchists think that street action is the best tactic, or that fist fights against racists are particularly significant in making fundamental change. Some anarchists think that obviously racism and fascism (etc) are crucial issues, but that street fights are frequently a distraction from the systemic problems that are harder to see and a lot harder to fight.

edit: why so much confusion?
1. elected politicians who are inarticulate and/or intentionally blur definitions as a way a) to scare people with mysterious, dangerous, amorphous enemies, b) to be more difficult to refute (if they're unclear and muddy in their language, then they can pretend that listeners are confused or dumb, instead of the politicians being confusing and mystifying).
2. anarchists/activists who want to appeal as broadly as possible so that they gain power/bodies (appeal to the lowest common denominator--as the vast majority of people are anti fascism), "all these people agree with us, so you should listen to what we say"
3. anarchists who have never been clear on what is actually radical/challenging about anarchism, mostly see it as the most radical flavor at the moment, until the next trend comes along. fighting fascism and racism are the thing of the moment, so anarchists will do that now, because anarchists are the most xtreme...

off the top of my head, anyway...

Answered: what is your favorite anarchist quotation?

Mon, 07 Sep 2020 18:16:06 +0000

there are so many great anarchists quotes, they specialize in it! Heres a list i spent a lot of time pondering today, enjoy:

"Id rather have roses on my table than diamonds on my neck"

"If voting changed anything, theyd make it illegal"

-Emma Goldman

"My revolution already started a long time ago.

From the moment I knew life, I took up MY weapons and declared MY war."

-Renzo Novatore

"Show me, that i may question him, the man who would reproach and blame me. Does my egoism do you any harm? If you say no, you have no reason to object to it, for I am free in all that does not injure you. If you say yes, you are a thief...."

-Anselme Bellagarigue

"Our lives are nothing but a series of moments, and within the moment you lose site of this, you are in danger of losing everything."

-me

Answered: how do you think things will play out from the nightmare that is 2020 in the u.s.?

Sat, 05 Sep 2020 16:04:32 +0000

This is a tough one for me, because as I have a very, very strong aversion to predicting the future. But I'll lay out a few thoughts.

Not counting various dreams, I've lived through three or four end of the world scenarios so far. The first I remember was Y2K (lol). Some people freaked out super hard, probably because they were psychologically predisposed to that and the media coverage of it was super overblown because of course that's what the media does because money, but a lot of people just ignored it because it didn't have enough to do with their lives. The next was 9/11, not exactly end of the world but it seemed everybody in the US came up with some reason why they might be next (again, media, money, etc) and were making lots of plans for what if the terrorists blew up the nearby nuclear reactor and all that. Now, for all the problems of people misunderstanding a culture that isn't theirs, I thought the 2012 end of the world excitement was much more interesting. Nobody really *did* anything, but it wasn't really clear what you were *supposed* to do. I had a john who confessed to me that he had been hoping the aliens would finally come and reveal themselves and teach us to love each other. Late 2012 was very disappointing for him as you might guess, but I love this kind of end of the world, where no one's told what it will mean or what to do, so that it's a pocket that each person can put whatever they want into. In this sense, the end of the world is just like the future, but charged with high levels of messianic intensity.

The next thought is that our hopes and our fears are intimately linked. I see a lot of stuff about the fear of a civil war, and I suspect there's a hope there too. And vice-versa with the people who are outspokenly hoping for a civil war.

I'm investing my hope-fear energy elsewhere -- although that kind of scenario can certainly have anarchist implications, I see these as orders of magnitude smaller than the horrors and the consolidation of new states, so I am abstaining from feeding that particular beast. To be honest, I'm much more on a similar page with the john I mentioned above, though I imagine my aliens are probably different from his.

So to answer the question: I think things will be both weirder and more normal than anyone expects. Weirder and weirder in every sense, but also more normal -- not because there is anything but weirdness at the heart of existence, but because it is a weirdness so weird that it gives birth to prolonged periods of banality exactly when we would never expect it.

I have other thoughts that I'll save for the comment section.

Answered: how does "tradition" fit into your anarchist perspective?

Sat, 05 Sep 2020 15:30:35 +0000

There's a great essay by Gershom Scholem about Jewish messianic thought that this question brings to mind. Scholem points out an interesting paradox. On the one hand, the messianic idea is absolutely revolutionary and iconoclastic. Jewish messianic movements, such as those associated with Sabbatai Zevi or Jacob Frank, are antinomian: they break with every letter of Jewish law, abandon the tradition, and become enfants terribles. The messianic demands this, as it entails a complete rupture with the world and life one has lived up till then, a total destruction-creation, another world. On the other hand, Scholem argues, every aspect of the Jewish tradition, every letter of the law, every word of the sacred texts and every ritual carried out repeatedly, laboriously, over the years and generations, bears in its heart the messianic, carrying, transmitting, and ultimately giving birth to the force that will destroy it.

I think anarchy and anarchism hold a very similar, if not identical, tension. It is what Bonanno calls the anarchist tension. On the one hand, anarchism is radically anti-traditional. Anarchists can't stand traditions. Anarchy is such a utopian moment, such a radical break from mundane reality that it undoes everything, even everything about the anarchism we live day to day. In crude terms, we must burn the black flags after the revolution. But here's the rub. We have to live our anarchism day to day, or else it is nothing. And by living it day to day, we are or become part of a tradition, even while it is a tradition dedicated to a spirit that annihilates tradition. (If we haven't studied religion, especially along its messianic paths, we may think this contradiction is unique to anarchism. It isn't.) It's tempting to try to deny the paradox of it and dissolve it into something simpler, but this would kill the spirit. Individuals within messianic, supposedly political movements -- i.e. revolutionaries -- would do well to consider their traditions as religious traditions -- or spiritual, if they prefer.

Aside from our antinomianism and messianism (i.e. a deeply embedded, healthy resistance to tradition) another reason anarchists have a troubled relation to tradition is that ours is such a "broken" one. The lines of transmission and the ancestral lines are ruptured so often by a whole litany of factors and tragedies, often it feels like the elders aren't there or the youth don't care to listen to them. And, though the ancestors are sometimes remembered, it seems there are not many encouragements to seek relation with them. But the traditions persist anyway, as others have pointed out: smashing windows and quoting Kropotkin (ancestor!) are both traditional. We have holidays: May Day (ancestors!), June 11th, Haymarket Martyr's Day, etc. We have special styles of dress, of language, of eating. But in my opinion these too often manifest as habit rather than ritual. I'd say that habits are what we do unintentionally and rituals are practices of hyper-intention. I propose we infuse more intention into our practices, to allow ourselves the feeling and awareness of ourselves moving within a tradition as we live out our day to day anarchy. This, I think, will help in creating-destroying the tradition.

There's my initial stab. Interested to hear what others think.

Answered: What contradictions are people seeing in their friends and others during this time-of-breakage?

Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:29:11 +0000

THE COVID CONTRADICTION : in institutions the COVID dialectic is disease fear/ disease denial = more control ... fear & denial beget the same response ... in individuals the COVID dialectic is disease fear/disease disdain = honor thy leader be he an MD or a polity ... fear & disdain beget the same response .... the coupling of tightened institutional controls with the want for authoritarianistic solution ... this coupling bodes well for the collective and ill for the anarchist ... that there is a common denominator of collectivist authority want in institutions and in individuals is contradictory ... the contradiction lies in the human response to COVID ... it seems that, whatever one's belief, the response is to cede one's individual rights ... the contradiction is that the COVID pandemic begs for individuals to act responsibly without the need for external heeds yet as a whole it seems that ALL have been herded and passively await be mastered ... comrades & foes await the same vaccine bus as if its arrival will cure racism & hate and therein lies the contradiction of COVID ... the contradiction that while a vaccine may cure the COVID:how the vaccinators use the vaccine will be worse than the COVID ... the vaccinators will rule without pause > we are allowing ourselves to become a herd of isolated individuals ... absent any contradiction our individualism will soon be butchered

Answered: What to expect from riots

Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:48:14 +0000

For many of the past ten or so years, in two different houses, there has been tacked to a common space wall an odd little puzzle taken from the pages an anarchist publication. It is a word finder game arranged in a pyramid shape. Every single letter and every single word repeat, up, down, and diagonally ALWAYS MORE POLICE STATISM. The player is instructed to find as many iterations of the phrase as they can, but in the end they are reminded that in this game, everyone's a loser.

Your question calls this pessimistic little puzzle to mind. It's a perfectly cruel catchall. What to expect from the election if ____ wins? More police statism. What if _____ wins, he's going to do _____? More police statism. What to expect from prison abolition? Always more police statism. What if we defund the police? More police statism. Remember when everyone was talking just about coronavirus? Many anarchists were expecting the virus to be new justification for always more police statism. Now? There's a process underway for classifying "Antifa" as a "terrorist organization," for their supposed role in the riots, and this is not to mention the tremendous proliferation of less overt forms of always more police statism. So the pithy answer to your question is, well: see how many ways you can find to spell it out.

But this leaves, of course, the other side of the coin. I believe it's not contradictory to expect both more police statism and que viva la anarquía. For that I have a different anecdote. At an anarchist conference, a speaker presented some historical analysis of rioting and violence, all aimed at the conclusion that these kinds of activities give major force to social reform movements. To put it bluntly, the moral-handwringing in the media is a distraction and those in power are quick to give concessions when they are fearful. (Pro-militancy arguments to this effect have always puzzled me when coming from anarchists and pro-revolutionaries. Are we meant to conclude that rioting and militant action are good because they lead to concessions? What happened to total social transformation, not reformation? When I asked as much, the presenter's response was that winning concessions teaches class power that builds toward revolution. Well, can't argue with that I guess???) So HUGE FUCKING QUESTIONS aside, there was something he said in passing that I found really interesting. When he was summarizing the different views on rioting -- pacifist and militant -- he mentioned that there was a third pseudo-position, namely the people who see the value of riots as completely immanent to the experience itself. He ever-so-quickly dismissed this as a kind of spiritualism and moved on. I would like to stop here with this immanence, this pseudo-position that is so easy to wave away in favor of more pragmatic concerns. You acknowledged it in your question: "a break in the normal and consequent transformations they lead in the individual." In this sense, the question of what to expect fades into the background. We can expect a powerful transformation, but it is so hard to put words to what that transformation might be, even if we seem to remember having experienced one ourselves. I believe it's a kind of initiation, in the ancient (i.e. still present) sense -- a transformative passage into a belonging.

Every few years it seems, perhaps competing for some award for the height of unintentional irony, some "riot folk" musician or another publishes a statement against riots (always with the caveat that they were at some riot or other, that they have nothing against riots per se, just certain kinds of riots, yadda yadda). One of the most common words to find in these dismissals is ritual -- as in mere ritual. (Playing folk songs about peace love and anarchy is what exactly?) I say yes, this is one of the anarchist rituals, among others. Whether mere or not -- that is another question.

Answered: what is anarchism

Fri, 05 Jun 2020 20:18:26 +0000

let me preface this by saying that i do not speak for anyone other than myself, so i cannot speak to what anarchy, or being an anarchist, means to anyone else.

my anarchistic perspective starts fairly close to dot's initial description: institutions of domination, coercion and control (including the three pillars of civilization and mass society that dot points out) are primary obstacle to me living anarchically.

i have some core principles that i think of as a sort of baseline for my own anarchic thought and action. those include (in no particular order):

- autonomy. don't tell me how to live, and i won't tell you. governance is in opposition to autonomy.

- free association/disassociation. i am free to relate with who i want, when i want, how i want. i am also free to end any relationship or interaction whenever i want. (if i care about the other/s in that situation, it hopefully won't be unilateral).

- mutual aid. this implies some level of active support for those i have affinity with; a kind of undefined and unmeasured reciprocity in my relationships. always by choice and without strings attached. it does not imply some ledger for accounting, or some fixed or predetermined way of specifying value or exchange. capitalism, communism, and any other form of institutional economics are in opposition to mutual aid as a way of navigating relations and activities in a world with limited life-sustaining resources.

- question everything. this really just refers to critical thinking, a rapidly disappearing skill. all the tools of politics and public relations are in opposition to critical thinking.

- direct action. to the extent possible in this world, i act directly to meet my own needs and desires, with others that i know and trust when necessary or desired. i do not petition some authority to do so. i do not vote for someone else to make decisions that impact my life. when i have a problem with someone, i deal with them directly.

i also want to mention that my principles are mere guidelines of a sort. they form a basis from which my thoughts and feelings can inform my behavior. they are not rules, and they are likely to evolve over time. the context of any situation will overlay those principles to help me decide how to move forward.

What does capitalism rely on?

Thu, 28 May 2020 15:54:51 +0000

i recently noted that capitalism relies on ("runs on") convenience. Funky@ added "work ethic." years ago Bornagain@ noted the foundational character of how the english language uses the verb "to be" as problematic.

more as a game than anything else, what are the things that you see as foundational to the-badness-around-us (i guess emphasizing capitalism, though someone was arguing to me that capitalism and christianity are too linked to effectively parse separately, but maybe that's a point for another time) and how do you figure? (and if you want, how do you reject it/them in your daily life?)

here's the link, though it doesn't add much... https://anarchy101.org/22243/does-current-crisis-inspire-make-radical-changes-your-life

edit: oh, i guess i should say that i don't think i agree that capitalism rests on the work ethic, since the work ethic can work against it as much as for it. i might put in the place of that something like... addiction? an unthinking need for something that fills one gap while draining everything else in our lives... can be closely related to the work ethic, obviously.

here are some older questions that are along similar lines: https://anarchy101.org/12600/is-the-state-necessary-for-modern-capitalism?show=12600#q12600

https://anarchy101.org/7916/what-is-capitalism?show=7916#q7916

does the current "crisis" inspire you to make any radical changes in your life?

Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:06:21 +0000

while i am curious in general, i am particularly interested in how city folk see this.

as a former city-dweller (for 40 years, up until 20 years ago), i know how dependent on the state and large-scale economy cities generally are. waste management alone is a massive nightmare, let alone access to decent water and food.

so i wonder if, and how, urban @s are thinking more towards self-sufficiency in these times. clearly many (most?) city folk are not inclined to bail and head for the hills.

it ain't like country folk are all self-sufficient and free of the state and shit, but in my experience (aside from the rich fucks) there tends to be more of a mindset of taking care of your own needs, and understanding what is necessary to do so.

just thinking out loud here...

what, if anything has changed on this site?

Sun, 22 Mar 2020 01:22:14 +0000

glad to see the site up and running again....i've missed it!

What do anarchists think about the swiss banking system?

Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:41:55 +0000

I guess I'm pretty new to anarchism and I thought "Why not just ask some people who actually can call themselves anarchist"

Now, I'm sorry if this question is dumb, but I'm a slow learner and don't really understand anything by just reading, without any examples of how to deal with it in praxis. So, what do 'anarchists' think of the swiss banking system, or switzerland, its politics etc. in general?

Are all cops really bastards?

Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:55:50 +0000

Does being a cop make someone a bad person? Obviously a lot of police do terrible things with their authority, but aren't there many other cops that actually help their communities by catching violent people (murderers, rapists, hard drug dealers, etc), deterring violent crime when they are physically present, and showing leniency towards otherwise nice people for minor infractions?

How to fight for anarchy (peacefully)

Tue, 08 Jan 2019 20:43:59 +0000

I'm new to this concept of anarchy, but this is very appealing so far.

However it would be difficult to go against the system: I have to pay my bills for example.

I guess the best strategy for now is just to debunk myths about anarchy and explain it to people?

How will abolishing the FDA and other non-violent branches of government result in a more peaceful world?

Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:59:32 +0000

What do you think about fear?

Tue, 04 Dec 2018 20:47:46 +0000

Hi, nowadays i think about fear and its relevance to action. Fear is usually considered as something to be negated, authorities use fear to paralyze people, we do not resist because we fear etc. While rightness of this line of thinking seems to be obvious, i started to approach to the question of fear differently: we do not fear enough. Or we do not fear in a correct way. Because considering the ecological crisis, possible economic crisises, most people around me do not do anything about these problems. What i mean by "do" is not like hardcore revolutionary action, for instance i started to learn self-defence because, well, you never know. But having the (false) belief that future is gonna be same as today, relieve people from doing anything or preparing themselves, or canalize their efforts to feel-good actions. I fear that terrible things can happen to me and to my loved ones so i want to be prepared. Of course political action can also cause harsh consequences, but fear of these consequences can also lead to tactical and strategical awareness.

In short i started to think that instead of getting rid of the fear, i try to canalize it to increase my potential while avoiding its paranoid side. Any thoughts on the things i said so far?

Oh and let us not forget that according to Hobbes fear is what led people to action and make the social contract to raise the leviathan, maybe it is the fear of its consequences that can also motivate people to undo it x)

Do Oppression and Exploitation Require the Consent of the Victim?

Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:47:51 +0000

"It should be noted, from the jump, that there can be no really pervasive system of oppression, such as that in the United States, without the consent of the oppressed." Florynce Kennedy (1970)

do inside info and need-to-know practices have value to anarchists? do these methods work?

Sat, 17 Nov 2018 17:01:02 +0000