Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

What form of Anarchism do you advocate and why?

+3 votes
I just wanted to know what forms of Anarchism are dominate on this site? I can tell its not Anarcho-communism.
asked Dec 4, 2014 by S.w.i.m and a Bum (280 points)
i like mine straight up, no dashes or capitalization or anything.

why? because the other stuff starts seeming like ideology (and even hierarchy, with experts and leaders at the helm) again. and it starts to seem more complicated and abstract. I like it simple and non-prescriptive and immediate.

edited: to add why
Like BAA, I tend to not hyphenate my 'anarchism.' But, that leaves me asking what my 'anarchism' is. I don't really have one, except as an abstract snapshot of where I am now. As living person, though, I move. Anarchy is movement, a process, not a static snapshot, and most definitely not a program of dead abstractions. In some ways, I agree with detractors who say anarchy is chaotic, because I can never see where I'm not ('the future,' 'Progress'). Where I'm going is always uncertain and unintelligible to a great degree. I don't even want to be dominated by my own past life and the views I held there!

I describe myself as 'anarchist,' because I'm seeking further disentanglement from authority, including my own past worldviews. There are some forms of authority I cannot perceive until I move into areas with which I'm not yet even acquainted. I simply don't worry so much about what the future will look like because of this.

That's me.

It seems like you (SaaB) have a blueprint and a favored path by which you judge what is, and is not, 'anarchism.' But, my question to you, is why does any 'form of Anarchism,' have to *dominate* on an anarchist site? Seems a bit of an oxymoron to me...
this is an interesting question to me just because anarchist conversation tends to have a million different labels for all the different trends in thought (isms) and ideologies, some of them which i still don't understand...

5 Answers

+4 votes
the kind with neither gods nor masters.
answered Dec 4, 2014 by ingrate (23,670 points)
+3 votes
Pyro-Anarchism.

but exclusively non-exclusively; and only in small doses - it can be habit forming.

(Laugh if you want - and i hope you did, but i think we need to burn more shit.  or more to the point, relearn HOW to burn shit.  Small things safely; vehicles and buildings thoroughly; broadscale wild fires apocalyptically.
Fire is instrinsically linked with the primitive, with our hindbrain.  It not only cooks, but fashions and hardens our tools, creates our materials, wards off the cold and the dark and our foes, it harries our prey and clears pastures for their progeny.  And we have ever used it to kill our enemies;  for as long as we have tended fire and made enemies - we have used the one against the other.  
The modern Nation-State, all-seeing with its satellite networks and blanket surveillance, all-threatening with its paramilitarized police and stealth-drones of death; still when faced with a small brush fire it recoils to a fetal crouch, leaving the peasants to fend for themselves and clean up the mess.  The most sophisticated, heartless, murderous systems of modern civilisation - all are utterly helpless in the face of the most simple, basic forces of nature - fire and flood.

If you're still laughing - google Dresden.)
answered Dec 14, 2014 by clodbuster (2,270 points)
It's been a little while since I was last on here, what a wonderfully tickling and thought provoking post to come back to :)
+3 votes
Most (Edited in) anarchist regulars on here are post-left. Sorry to speak for you all, feel free to call me out on it, but it seems obvious enough to me to make that sweeping of a statement.

In the wake of the glorious defeat that is May 68 radicals began questioning the dominance of worker/union-centered struggle within anti-capitalist discourse. In that moment, and due to influential thinkers around that time, the presence of alienation in everyday life entered focus.

This rabbit hole greatly deepened multiple critiques of the world. It led to insurrectionary anarchism, primitivism/green anarchy, and other trains of thought that people on this site have probably experimented with or at least passed through in their thinking.

If you wanted to know more I would recommend doing some research on post-left itself, May 68, the Situationist International, Fredy Perlman, Alfredo Bonanno, Os Cangaceiros, John Zerzan, Fire to the Prisons, and the Autonome.

If you want to see more current stuff check out anarchistnews.org, Little Black Cart, Anarchy Magazine, Black Seed, Rolling Thunder, and other things you find connected to all of that. Crimethinc's "Ex-Worker" podcast goes into almost every possible topic of interest to post-left anarchists at this point.

EDIT: I added MOST to the first sentence.
answered Dec 15, 2014 by flip (4,790 points)
edited Dec 16, 2014 by flip
i would just change that to "most regulars on here." although that might be out of date...
i've never considered myself post-left, but i also don't know if you (flip)consider me a regular.
0 votes
Mass disengagement. Think of it as quiet riots, silent protests. A movement where people simply stop paying off debts, taxes, bills. Where they stop voting, stop demonstrating, lobbying for better laws. This just feeds the ideological beast. They can keep working, by all means, but keep all of their pay, if we don't pour it into the political machine it'll lose meaning eventually, and in weeks, months, organised, ordained society would fall. No need for a single death, a single raised voice, just complete despondency.They can arrest dozens of us, hundreds of us for tax evasion, but not all of us. There aren't enough jail cells in the world.
answered Jan 3, 2015 by N.R.Chiste (180 points)
So revolution by tax evasion and the continuation of wage slavery...doesn't sound anything like any kind of anarchism I'd want to be even peripherally involved in.  To be frank it doesn't sound like anarchism at all.
0 votes
I call myself an anarchist simply because I do not believe in rulers (human rulers). I believe in community and individual morals and I believe all men should live at peace with each other no matter the difference in opinions. I get my morals from Christianity, I would call myself an "In the Kingdom Christian" because I believe Jesus came to fulfill the law and to give us mercy from the burdens of the law and now the kingdom of heaven lives inside us.

John 18 33 Pilate, therefore, entered into the praetorium again, and called Jesus, and said to him, `Thou art the King of the Jews?'
34 Jesus answered him, `From thyself dost thou say this? or did others say it to thee about me?'
35 Pilate answered, `Am I a Jew? thy nation, and the chief priests did deliver thee up to me; what didst thou?'
36 Jesus answered, `My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.'

Romans 8 There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit;
2 for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death;

I also see where jesus is talking to the high priests and he is talking against them and their traditions and says to them...

Matthew 23 8 `And ye -- ye may not be called Rabbi, for one is your director -- the Christ, and all ye are brethren;
9 and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,
10 nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director -- the Christ.

That's just my spin on good old anarchy. Spread the freedom!
answered Jan 11, 2015 by clisterdude88 (250 points)
bornagainanarchist, I would say that in order for something to be absolute it would have to be truth.

AmorFati, I would say that that is where "faith" comes in. I have faith in an (singular) absolute that defines my sense of what truth is. But you would say that in itself is contradictory in its own nature?
cd88, if you switched the words "absolute" and "truth" in your sentence above, would the meaning change? and if so, how?
cd88: "But you would say that in itself is contradictory in its own nature?"

Indeed.
baa: "do you think the words "absolute" and "truth" actually mean the same thing?"

'Absolute,' once again, speaks of the unlimited, unconditioned, unrestricted, pure, complete, free from relations, incomparable, etc. The verbal grunt refers to nihil; nothing at all. It cannot. To refer is relational, conditional, comparative. It cannot even retain a measure of abstraction, since an abstraction is derived through a process, thus it too must be conditional, relational, etc.

'Truth' on the other hand, must refer to something in order to retain any meaning (if we want to retain the meanings of this verbal grunt). 'Truth' refers to a relational activity, as concept of comparison, whereas 'absolute' denies this very possibility. So, no, as ambiguous as 'truth' may be as a concept, I don't think it can  mean the same as that which denies the very conditions making 'truth' at all meaningful.

My opinion is that 'absolute's' gotta go.

But we (you, cd88, Lantz, myself or anyone else) can talk about all that here:

http://anarchy101.org/9389/notion-absolute-continue-relevance-within-anarchy-anarchists
bornagainanarchist, according to my definition, no.
...