Anarchy101 Q&A - Recent questions and answers

Answered: Where do anarchists stand on the issue of prostitution?

Thu, 23 May 2013 22:01:53 +0000

This is coming from an anarcho-capitalist rather than someone on the left, mind you.

Morally I'd argue that people should have the right to own their own bodies, which obviously includes the right to use said bodies for the sexual act in exchange for money.

Practically speaking I'd argue that making prostitution illegal:

A) Doesn't eliminate it.

B) Is generally not to the benefit to prostitutes or women in general (as it forces them into harsh living conditions and into the arms of pimps).

C) Would be impossible to enforce in anarchy, or if it was enforced would soon devolve into petty vendettas given how much sex can complicate human relations.

In the case of sex slavery, though, obviously it's immoral and should be made illegal because...well, slavery.

Answered: What is your favorite anarchist novel?

Mon, 20 May 2013 01:09:46 +0000

Treasure of the Sierra Madre? The Death Ship? B. Traven's whole Jungle novel series? No? I haven't read B. Traven's books yet, but I'm surprised no one's mentioned them. I mean, I'm not commenting on their quality but they do have staying power.

How do anarchists figure out who their enemies are?

Sun, 19 May 2013 17:11:06 +0000

A tension: We have done this to ourselves (no 'evil' class of humans is solely responsible for the way the world is, it has great many of us to get to where we are) - and - there are enemies.

Not counting those who rely on a leftist moral framework ('oppressed = good, oppressor = bad,' the dividing classes of people into either category based on one or a combination of social constructs), how do anarchists point to and name their enemies while avoiding the pitfalls of deeming a whole class of people 'evil'?

Are some of these enemies categorically so, i.e. ALWAYS enemies? Or is it contextual?

Answered: How have Max Stirner's ideas about property influenced contemporary anarchist ideas?

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:15:15 +0000

This is an interesting question, but i might be taking it in a bit of a different direction than you intended.

As regards to his use of property, the way he used it is rather important. It does not strictly mean commodities or arbitrary designations of land, the way it is used in society, and reflected in most anarchist discourse, though it can include these things. His use of property is much more general than that, and really comes to include all things, people, concepts, etc. that a person uses and interacts with. It might seem a bit weird to talk about friends as property, but if you can get past this linguistic objection, there's some interesting stuff to be found. Let me quote a little bit from Stirner, please excuse the length:

"World is only what he himself is not, is in a relationship with him, exists for him.
Everything turns around you; you are the center of the outer world and of the thought world. Your world extends as far as your capacity, and what you grasp is your own simply because you grasp it. You, the unique, are "the unique" only together with "your property."
Meanwhile, it doesnt escape you that what is yours is still itself its own at the same time, i.e., it has its own existence, it is the unique the same as you. At this point your forget yourself in sweet self-forgetfulness."
-p.63, Stirner's Critics

The paragraph following the last one I quoted is one of the most interesting that I've read by Stirner, but it's a bit off topic form this question so I'll continue.

Given this, and parsing through the language of his time, his concept of property is quite expansive and dynamic. At first reading, and especially out of context, or in the case of this citation, without the last paragraph, it's a bit weird and incomplete. Another thing is that I think a lot of people read Stirner, when he speaks about property, force, usage, etc., with what they see as an implied value or morality, but i think that is a huge mistake. When he says, "Everything turns around you; you are the center of the outer world and of the thought world" I dont think he means "I am the best and most important thing to ever exist and the universe morally revolves around me and shows that I am of great value, but he's more just describing what it means to be a body in the world - that you don't experience the world as anyone else but yourself, your bodymind. You are, quite literally, the center of your world.

And so now the "right of might". I think that the idea that Stirner is putting forth a morality based upon physical strength is kinda ridiculous, but maybe I got it all wrong. I read this more as simply "Might Is." This meaning that he's giving an answer to the question, "If we see someone take something, from another person or not, how do we make sense of it in a non-moral way?" - that is not to say that we cant dislike it or do nothing about it, but we refuse to say "that's wrong" in the moral, or even ethical, sense of the word, - a value system that we would wish to apply to society or the world, or even anyone else. It is at the same time non-moral and non-relativistic, which implies that it's ok to take things form anyone at anytime because they have a different culture and value/moral form.

I would say his ideas about property have not been very influential to many anarchists besides egoists and nihilists. His language I think has been just enough of a thing to point at and gasp in horror to discount him among most anarchists, that is, I think, because they understand at least generally that the corpus of his work is hostile to their programs or new moral forms. So, instead of actually dealing with his work, his critics just throw out things like "might makes right" or "he only sees people as utilities" and there goes Stirner into the annals of history.

Let me know if this helps, or if other people have interpreted his writings in a different way.

Answered: Deep Green Resistance

Wed, 15 May 2013 06:24:35 +0000

As has been noted above DJ was not really ever an anarchist, though held company with many green anarchy types. There was a break, for sure, triggered by several events (GA review, SF bookfair/lierre incident, among others) that pushed him out of the sphere. However, his writing preceded this by many years. It is true, he has a pretty well laid out, though not very original, critique of civilization, though he always talked about Revolution (punctuation intentional) and his reference points were often the Black Panthers, the IRA, and other proper revolutionary parties - that is, his position was always firmly in the militant political (i mean this pejoratively) vein.
As for gender, he too, always referenced very traditional feminist material, the one book he always mentioned as being highly influential to him was "woman and nature" by susan griffin, which is basically something like a primitivist reading of second wave feminism (women are inherently closer to and more in touch with nature). His friendship with Lierre Keith has never been a secret, but Lierre wasn't at least publicly so open about her position on transgender people until the past few years, at least thats what i noticed, but i wasnt paying very much attention to her.

Regarding DJ being an anarchist though, it wasnt, and in my opinion, shouldnt really be the issue - that is that its not so interesting to me to be so ideological about choosing to only read anarchists or something, especially when it comes to topics like civ, spiritualism, relating to the "natural world", and general life shit. To say it another way, if the question is what can we learn from DJ about being an anarchist, the answer is next to nothing, but if the question is something else, well then what we explore might be a lot more interesting. To be honest, most of the explicitly anarchist "theory" in the contemporary primitivist camp was/is pretty boring and totally beholden to anthropology, and while DJ didnt totally break from that mold, a large part of his work was talking about totally different things (mental health/trauma, spirituality, animism, etc) that came from personal interactions and experience, and I think these are the things that made him really interesting and appealing to a lot of people. I mean, he's a "good" writer or something, and the other contemporary GA superstars like kevin tucker, JZ, etc. were too busy citing statistics of the exact amount of hours hunter-gatherers work per week to talk about having conversations with trees and shit. I guess take that for what it is - what is more interesting- a quantitative analysis of civilization or what does it feel like to be a body in giant web of shit?

Another curious thing, though, and this is i think a bit of a subtle and insidious part of his whole schtick (im not sure whether it was intentional) was that the consequence of the proposition "today, i have to wake up and decide whether or not im going to blow up a dam" is that each person must then in turn bear the moral weight of civilization because is implies that whether or not it continues to exists hears substantially on your individual action. I think this fucked a lot of people up when after 5 to 10 years of primitivism, the ELF, GA, and DJ (and now DGR), nothing has changed except some really beautiful people went to jail for a really long time, and some are no longer with us. If you are guided by DJ's proposition about dams, and this is the result, and you think you bear responsibility (at least in part) for all this shit, then it makes sense to me that you would probably be pretty fucked up by it, and I think this happened to a lot of people - i saw little bits of it in friends.

Hope this helps, if i think of anything else interesting ill edit this
-an unabashed primitivist

Answered: How to balance environmental needs with the needs of many workers?

Tue, 14 May 2013 21:06:15 +0000

The first thing that comes to mind is what are these needs, in what context are they considered needs? Within what structure do loggers need to cut trees? Within the structure of capitalism and civilization. Beyond that structure, to consider it necessary to level whole forests is absurd. Loggers wanting to keep their jobs as loggers is a real desire, but a conservative one not an anarchist one, so of course this will conflict with anarchist goals (getting rid of their jobs and work entirely). Similarly, the preservation of spaces by environmentalists is only a need within the structure of capitalism and civilization. Outside of this, it would be absurd to try to save an environment from destruction. So this is again a real desire but a conservative struggle not an anarchist one, and it will conflict with anarchist goals especially when inevitably activists lobby the state for environmental protection.

I imagine you're thinking of environmental campaigns to save a place (let's say mountains in Appalachia) where there are workers (for the coal companies) who are against the activists. This often happens, and it presents a crisis for anarchists who believe we should be having a struggle of the workers against their bosses, and instead the workers are siding with their bosses against us. In this situation, not only is everyone against each other, probably almost everyone is working against anarchist goals (as above). This is not a situation I'd want to be in, hating all the activists who believe in activism and the workers who believe in work, I'd try to get out as soon as possible. It can feel great to fight for something you love, and I know some people have experiences of anarchy in these things, before they get totally recuperated, and they might be able to give you a more positive answer to your questions, but I can't come up with anything more posi that wouldn't make me feel gross to say. Just I'd rather be walking in the mountains than chaining myself to them.

Answered: What are the implications of a moral philosophy that is anti-cosmopolitan and against legal moralism?

Mon, 13 May 2013 20:52:43 +0000

To reject cosmopolitan morality means to absolutely reject thinking about what is best (or worst, or the lesser of evils) at the scale of the world, the universe, the people, the masses, the class, the nation, or anything claiming to be everything. Instead, choices may be made based on what is best for yourself--and, optionally but in most cases, what is also best for those who you are in a substantial relationship with (not just in a milieu, social scene, so-called community, organization, or Facebook group with) who are on your side of conflicts.

In other words, thinking through ethics on an intimate, small scale. A refusal of thinking about what are the problems of the world, or humanity, and what to do about them.

A further implication is one I find particularly interesting. Because we are indoctrinated into believing we are part of a people, race, nation, world, etc, for most of us this small-scale thinking will require us to actively train our disbelief in the existence of society as such. To believe that there are 7 billion people existing on the planet is to subscribe to a faith concocted by politicians and preached by their agents. A suspension of disbelief that can be an interesting diversion from real life, but one that I would rather leave to the sphere of fancy and games.

Without this faith, and without throwing individuals into crowds and masses where their individuality is drowned, how many can I say exist? Things start to feel crowded when I try to think of more than 7 at a time.

...

A rejection of legal morality implies that--in addition to rejecting the authority of some governing power claiming to represent millions of people who I don't even believe exist to know and dictate what people should do to best secure a goodness for an everyone I reject--I don't even think that rules are good at securing goodness in my life and small circle.

Things at this small scale are more unclear and fluid than they are in the imaginary interactions of the machine-like masses, and I think this is good. I can't come up with any hard and fast rules for what is always good... (the closest thing might be, paradoxically, that no rules are always good)... and I don't particularly care to. What is more challenging and rewarding is subverting the existing rules. Sometimes this will mean refusing the idea of good and evil, the assumption of any straightforward link between action and consequence, the belief in the ethical subject, and so on.

...

As far as I can tell for most people who use the terms, a personal morality or ethics just means that one differs from the dominant universal moralities, and/or doesn't accept those as actually being universal or having authority. Each individual has their own principles they stand by, which they use to determine what is right and wrong on the scale of their own life.

My problem with this is its tendency to simply fall into the democratizing sphere of moral relativism. This way of thinking has been rising in dominance vs. universal morality for some time, and at least one factor that should lead anarchists to be critical of it is the place it has had in government since at least the French Revolution if not earlier.

I am running out of words here where it gets most interesting, but will mention two texts which take the discussion much farther than my current energy level is able to. The first: Tiqqun's "Introduction to Civil War" which describes Empire as a neutralizing force of liberal social control which distances us from our own power and undermines the intensities of the ethical conflicts between forms of life. The second: "Its Core is the Negation" by Alejandro de Acosta which gestures to an ethics emerging from countless refusals. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alejandro-de-acosta-its-core-is-the-negation

Answered: What is the rationale for the smash-a-thing + communique strategy?

Mon, 13 May 2013 03:44:28 +0000

I think that most of the time, it's mostly a way of claiming responsability for an action (or multiple actions) before the media or authoritarian organizations spread some shit about what happened. Especially when some direct action take place in a big gathering, a big protest or a "social movement".

At least, the goal might be to counter-strike the propaganda against some direct action (that generally consist in smashing some stuff, like property of companies, banks or other capitalists, or some parts of state institution like the police, courts or prisons). Generally, these actions are also on a low level of conflictuality or violence. Like it didn't involve to totally destroy an entire building, something like that, or to use explosive material, to hurt anybody or even to terrorize anyone. In fact, most of the time this kind of action is supposed to be mainly "symbolic" (even, to me, it's always a way to attack the system of domination and oppression, and where the goal should never be to "make a symbol" which reduces any action to a spectacle).

This question of reducing this kind of action to something spectacular, which the media contributes to, are also a great question in the anarchist spaces and movements all around the world. And if the goal of a communicate should be to explain the action(s), many anarchists supporte the idea that it shouldn't be a way to give some consistancy to something you say : but only to join the gesture to the speach, and vise versa.

Communicates seems also important to many anarchists because they think that if sometimes "action speak louder than words", all actions don't "speak" for what it have been done, and that you may want to explain it or complete it with your words.

As long as it seems necessary and appropriate to you : like not to comment the fact that you set fire on a dustbin, and then produce some unbearable revolutionary gossip.

And so I think that I guess what you question underlies : is it always usefull and does it always make sens to use this formula "smash + communicates" ?
Regarding to what I wrote just before, my answer is no : of course.

Some anarchists from barcelona wrote this funny text criticizing the anarchist-nihilists of the FAI who just gone to far with the "communique-mania". You can read it here : http://anarchistnews.org/content/communiqu%C3%A9-anarchist-actions-barcelona-and-response-nihilist-comrades

There is also a very good italian insurrectionnary anarchist text written about this, called "About some old issues of actuality among the anarchists, but not only". Unfortunatly, it wasn't translated to english yet. But if you read italian, german, dutch or french, you can find it here : http://translationcollective.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/su-alcune-vecchie-questioni-dattualita-fra-gli-anarchici-e-non-solo/

Answered: Do anarchists think they are making anarchist society more likely when they act - either individually or in aggregate?

Mon, 13 May 2013 02:47:33 +0000

Probably some anarchists do.

For myself, I don't think I am making an anarchist society more likely when I act in accordance with my anarchism, but rather that I create moments of anarchy - living and acting by myself or with others as I choose without regard to legality or illegality, moralism, or economic value.

If these things happening creates feedback which expands these moments in to larger and larger rifts of anarchy, that is great and so be it, but i don't think we are somehow working to actively bring some sort of anarchist future in to being necessarily.

Does this answer what you were wondering?

Answered: Is the internet an example of anarchy?

Fri, 10 May 2013 06:20:35 +0000

The internet came into being through the efforts of military organizations and capitalist entrepreneurs. Individual sites and networks may be self-managed and/or self-contained but the core infrastructure of the internet is still operated by governments, capitalists, etc. The existence of "internet kill switches", ubiquitous (and invisible) surveillance, and the number of laws (defined almost exclusively by, again, state and capitalist actors) governing the use of the internet sort of undermine the idea of the internet being an ungoverned space.

Not to mention that the infrastructure of the internet may or may not be something that could only ever be sustained by an ecologically unsustainable capitalist civilization.

Answered: What are the names of some anarchist fantasy books?

Fri, 10 May 2013 00:05:29 +0000

In french, there is many short stories or little novels that were published on an almost confidential draft and never translated into english.

All I know in English (for what appears to me to have some anarchist themes) :

- Ursula Leguin "The dispossessed" on the two planets, and especially Anares that offers a kind of example of anarchist and non-patriarcal society, and that confronts what should be the values of such society and how it challenge the world of the other planet, closer to our actual world.

- Alan Moore and David Loyd's "V for vendetta" comics, just because it had to be mentionned. Nothing in common with the royal stinker for glue-addict that much people know as "the film".

- "The Plague" by Albert Camus, for its reflections about individual, against prejudices, racism and borders.

- Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars Trilogy". I don't know if this guy is anarchist, but he took part to several anarchist bookfairs and he is a big fan of Phil K Dick (who is to me a reference for anarchists on novels and science-fi - even he didn't proclaim himself an anarchist). And his trilogy is really amazing. At least, I only read "Red Mars" and started "Green mars". But the first book is about a kind of anarchist communist violent revolution in the ghettos of Mars colonies. Crazy book ! More generally you find in his books many stuff that clearly fit with anarchist themes as state power and conspiracies, many explicit critics of capitalism and big corporations, stories including transexual or genderfluid people, ecological disaster, reflexions on scientific methods and technology, etc...

Don't have any Idea for the moment.

Answered: What are some different Anarchist views of the Black Panther Party ?

Thu, 09 May 2013 23:30:21 +0000

You can read Peter Gelderloos' "How non violence protects the state", where he returns to another history of the Black Panthers. Especially arguing (without denying the BPP's sexism) that they were not much sexist than most of organisations of the Left and militants groups at this period of history (and maybe not very much more than many of today). Whether they had been violent (as the weather underground and the violent sexism between its members, or the italian red brigades who took a clear antifeminist stance, for example), or even non-violent figures as Gandhi or Luther King's SCLC and his misogyny and homophobia, etc, etc.

At least as the panthers were black and assumed the need of revolutionnary violence, their sexism was emphasized as an argument to discredit them. But the reality is a little bit more complicated. You can read more here (and in the rest of the book) : http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state#toc5

Otherwise, there is a good text criticizing the black panther party on an anarchist perspective, but still anecdotally. It's "How I became an anarchist ?" (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ken-knabb-confessions-of-a-mild-mannered-enemy-of-the-state#toc8), written by an oakland anarchist which is none other than Ken Knabb, who lived there at the time and where the BPP was founded. It points some criticism against the black panther party on its very caricatural orthodox marxist organisation and some other pretence. Still incomplete as it don't point at all the positive radical aspects, but interesting.

Much complete on a theorical point of view, is Murray Bookchin's "Anarchy and organization : a letter to the Left", which is a short text written in response to Huey Newton (founding member of the Black Panthers) attack against anarchist forms of organization. You can read it here : http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/leftletterprint.html

And last but not least, this text of Bookchin is on the "suggested readings" of Ashanti Alston's "anarchist panther zine" website. This guy is a ancient black panther, ancient member of the black liberation army who get jailed for years and became an anarchist in prison. Even he have a very special interpretation of anarchism (as a mix of some psychological critical thinking, maoist and "revolutionnary left nationalist" influences) he developped a very intersting criticism of his own experience and of the Left on an anarchist perpsective with an insider experience of the movement and of course as a black man. You can read it here : http://www.anarchistpanther.net/index.html

I suggest you to begin with the text called "One journey into and out of the anarchist... BLACK !", which is a good introduction to his words and particular writing style.

Answered: Can someone recommend eco-feminist writing that is critical of the identification of Woman with Nature?

Thu, 09 May 2013 18:23:39 +0000

Some people call her a marxist, but read anything by american deep ecologist feminist Judi Barry. I think she clearly make a differnce between those concepts :
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/authors/judi-bari

Not really anarchist for what I read, but intersting as it's criticizing both nature as a concept and the identification of women and other oppressed people to it (and even animals) : http://www.thegreenfuse.org/ecofem.htm

And you should also read anything by Françoise d'Eaubonne, who is supposed to have coin the term of "ecofeminism". She is sometimes repproched to be essentialist, but it's more complicated. And actually she makes a critique of the identification of women with Nature (especially as the figure of the Mother Godess) and men with history and culture.
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/5/7/2/7/9/p572791_index.html

But I don't really know where to find her texts in english as I'm french.

Good luck and enjoy yourself ! ;-)

Answered: Are there conflicting opinions on the feminist notion that any woman who alleges rape should be assumed to be truthful?

Thu, 09 May 2013 17:54:04 +0000

Where I live, recently, we were facing different cases of (young) men and womyn alleging about rape in the anarchist background and other close "militant circles" (of people who know at each other in these circles). In much cases, it happened to be true, and in most of the cases : rapers were protected, and victims or survivors (use the word you prefer) were systematically accused to be liars...

And some years ago, in one case, it happened to be false. But the accuser herself admitted it. And she was victim of violences in her relationship, and she experienced rape before that relation, but never told anyone. I think that this exemple is very revelant on why sometimes womyn happen to make "false" or exagerated accusations : because they often lived something terrible or violent that they couldn't tell before, and get mad with it.
And sometimes, there is no logical explation to people who lie about serious shit and we have to face it. But that doesn't mean that we can't react and act in consequences when we hear this kind of stories. That doesn't mean that anti-patriarchy isn't an important issue, or that (anarcha-)feminist tools and practices or to blame, but just that we have to use violence or exclusion carefully when it's needed and with possible self-criticism, and try not to act for someone else but with and in solidarity. And that's the kind of best arguments that anarchist feminists or other feminist friends gave me about this kind of situation.

As dot wrote it some months ago, I think that in any case we should always take this kind of accusation seriously even its false. Which doesn't mean that the individual who is accused have to pay for something he haven't done, but that maybe it's better to put someone in trouble for a little while and apologize if you realize that it wasn't true than to do nothing just because "sometimes, women lie about rape" (which is a very common misogynistic cliché).

More than this, I recently read this terrible text called "Safety is an illusion" by anarcha-feminist Augustia Celeste in her book "the Broken Teapot".
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-the-broken-teapot#toc1

It's a must read on this topic. On the one hand she have a radical and large definition or rape that she don't define in terms of the judicial system, and make a difference with abuse, and advocate the possibility of being violent to reject a rapist even after it happened, and on the other hand, she have a very critical point of view on some usual methods, practice and claims we often met in radical, feminist and anarchist circles about rape. Especially arguing that there is no real "safe space" (and that such claim is reactionnary - the obsession for "safety"). I trully think that this shouldn't discourage ourself to create spaces where it's more and more difficult for men or even people in general have dominant or oppressive behavior, but that as Augusta explain it : it's not all about "behavior" (jesuit/behaviorist mentality) or education. It mostly about systematic oppressions and balances of power and forces so strong that they couldn't really be challenged by anything but an abrupt and radical revolutionary type of social change.

I trully think it's part of the answer because we couldn't really answer this question in facing it only on a micro-social point of view. We would never have enough "guides" and "critical manuals", and the "critic of the critic" to solve such questions. We have to destroy rape culture and sexism as social "relationships" (some feminists even define it as "non-relationship"), and to do so both trying to think and act here and now about these questions in our "communities" or backgrounds, but also to attack and shut down the whole statist, heteropatriarcal and capitalist society.

Answered: What is it about the formal and/or authoritarian organizing of radicals that lends itself to state infiltration?

Thu, 09 May 2013 06:33:34 +0000

Formal organizing would lend itself to infiltration because these groups tend to be so interested in gaining members that they are unlikely to turn anyone away even if those people show signs of being state agents. Informal groups tend to be much more closed-off.

Authoritarian organizing would lend itself to infiltration because state agents are adept at navigating authoritarian organizations. (It's their job!) Other forms of organizing that do not reflect the structure of the state would probably be much more difficult for state agents to navigate.

Further, authoritarian and formal organizations could lend themselves to be more easy neutralized by infiltration when it happens. In the case of authoritarian structures, if infiltration reaches their higher ranks then these structures are completely compromised. In the case of formal organizations, the effect of infiltration is more widespread, potentially compromising the whole structure, rather than just a circle or a few circles in the case of informal, affinity-based organizing.

I wouldn't say the assumption is inaccurate. I would, however, avoid taking it so far as to have a false sense of security in informal anarchist organizing. Serious damage has been done by state agents operating within such circles.

I was going to say that anarchists have always, by definition, avoided the pitfall of authoritarian organizing, and then I realized this is unfortunately probably not true. In any case, I would say that certainly *some* anarchists have always known to avoid these pitfalls, although their main reasons for avoiding these kinds of organizing may have been other than avoiding infiltration. That said, I think over time and through experience more anarchists have become wary of formal groups, especially large ones, especially ones that put their activist goals ahead of all else and strive for growth in membership and the size of their impact. It will be interesting to see if more anarchists are able to identify and avoid the kinds of infiltrators who have put many of us in prison not through formal groups--infiltrators like Anna, Brandon Darby, and that one in Cleveland.

Answered: Is Anarchism ever going to happen in real life?

Wed, 08 May 2013 03:39:14 +0000

It has already happened in real life. During the famous Spanish Civil War many different groups of Anarchists and Marxists worked to keep Franco's army and the fascists at bay. Most of the parties were anarcho-syndicalists so it was a pure revolution of the working people.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/24/anarchists_spain.shtml

George Orwell actually fought in the conflict with the Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista (P.O.U.M.) and wrote a great account of the events called, Homage to Catalonia.

Your question though is rather vague and leaves too much open. The events of the Occupy protests were just a precursor to much larger revolts that will come within the next two-three years. Occupy didn't solve the problems but it brought the people together under a common issue that has not been resolved. The same issues still persist and the people want real action this time. The next major demonstration across the nation could easily turn violent, we just need to be ready for the worst. What all Marxists, Anarchists, revolutionaries need to do now is just prepare and make their presence at the new demonstrations. The common working class people don't know much about these ideologies so right now we need to work on educating ourselves so that when the next protests start we can be there to show the working class that we all fight for them.

The problem is that ideas like anarcho-syndicalism and Marxism are so demonized that the common people don't understand that parties like that fight for the interests of the people. We all have a common goal, overthrowing the tyrannical plutocracy. Our current system is rife with corporate shills who would sell the lives of thousands of people just to make their pay checks larger.

Answered: Is there a discernment of right and wrong without the state?

Wed, 08 May 2013 02:36:05 +0000

The right thing to do should be obvious ideally, but this is not sufficient grounds for something to be right. If it were, then misapprehension or doubt would have no importance for our culpability or ethics. Certainty on our part should not prove to be the most important consideration in our moral philosophy. If that were the case, then dogma would be the only valid moral principle. People wouldn't even need to comprehend what's right and wrong at all. It would be *obvious*. In fact, this often proves true for the faults or transgressions of statesmen because their culpability implicates so many others that misapprehension on their part does not prove to be sufficient grounds for their accountability. They might be so scary that even relatively powerful people won't correct the errors in their certainty.

Answered: How could I make a change?

Tue, 07 May 2013 23:49:20 +0000

- Anarcho-Communism
We gotta make a change...
It's time for us as a people to start makin' some changes.
Let's change the way we eat, let's change the way we live
and let's change the way we treat each other.
You see the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do
what we gotta do, to survive.

- Individualist Anarchism
I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you want to make the world a better place
Take a look at your self and then make a change

- Christian Anarchism
Because these things will change
Can you feel it now?
These walls that they put up to hold us back will fall down
This revolution, the time will come
For us to finally win
And we’ll sing hallelujah, we’ll sing hallelujah

- Nihilism
You're just a fool
Just a fool
To believe you can change the world

Answered: Moral Nihilism and Anarchism?

Sat, 04 May 2013 01:20:36 +0000

A moral nihilist can be an anarchist if his anarchism is not based on moral principles.

My anarchism is not based on some idealized set of voluntary interactions or the wet dream of a horizontal chain of confederations. Most of the time, it is a daily, practical, individual endeavor. It is the destructive intellect and physical might I project against any and all forms of oppression.

The sort of oppression I attack is most often the kind which affects only me or my tribe (my family and friends). I don't waste my time agitating for larger reforms in order to save humanity because it's 'the right thing to do.' Most of them are too stupid to see the bars in front of their faces anyway and like Casca, I detest the stink of mental proles (even though I hang out with a lot of them). Besides, this techno-globo-corporate-liberal society is a rolling stone that can't be stopped and we'll be dead before it morphs into anything else. So I enjoy the sun with my compatriots and topple whatever's in my way--whatever I am able to push off its pedestal.

This kind of anarchism should properly be called anarchy: not a program or a prescription, not even a philosophy, but a process. It is the blinding white heat that brings the sword of practical logic to a silvery boil and the tensed fist that buries it in the flesh of any and every god.

And it's about more than freedom and happiness. It's about being my own. I want my thoughts and my feelings and my actions to be mine to create and control. This is naked egoism. It's the practical creation at every moment of my individual will to power. Happiness and freedom are byproducts.

I suggest you read Max Stirner. In "The Ego and Its Own" he writes: "Freedom lives only in the realm of dreams! Owness, on the contrary is my whole being and existence, it is I myself. I am free from what I am rid of, owner of what I have in my power or what I control." He goes on to say that a man may lose his freedom, but "My own I am at all times and under all circumstances..."

Moralists want a god to sacrifice their lives to. Capitalist Anarchists deify natural rights and economic freedom behind horn-rimmed glasses. Social Anarchists with their beads and tye-dye worship society. The collective is their messiah and communism their heaven. And if you act against their god they seek to destroy you. You are their devil. And why? Because you refuse to be sacrificed. Because you want things to sacrifice themselves to you.

Morality is a mask for the weak to hide their inherent egoism from their own eyes. I suggest we clever ones pull it off and laugh like Momus.

Answered: Is there a relationship between anarchism and anti-fascism?

Fri, 03 May 2013 18:26:41 +0000

Fascism is antithetical to anarchism, not its suppression. It comes down to how you define self-defense..coercion..domination.

Answered: What do anarchists think of pride?

Fri, 03 May 2013 01:22:16 +0000

Well, I don't think that Le Guin in The Dispossessed is actually presenting her own analysis or utopia. That would not be consistent with the novel or with her work as a whole, which provides a whole constellation of different possible societies in a kind of grand experiment meant, I think, to illuminate the questions we are grappling with in this world, not to say what is best or truest. Consider that in The Dispossessed the anarchist society has adapted itself to survival in very harsh conditions--I think Le Guin sees the social structure they form as not only anarchist but also adapted to the conditions. In their world, they *have* to have a strongly-developed hive mind to survive. I think Le Guin is approaching this world as a thought experiment that combines anarchist principles with a barren wasteland, and that the thought experiment would unfold differently on a warm wet planet or moon.

Pride is funny. Somebody gets a ton of slaves to make an enormous structure so he will be "immortal." Sure, you can see it from handfuls of miles away, sure, it will last thousands of years, but to think this gets you closer to immortality or eternity is pretty silly, like thinking if you fly far enough into space you will get closer to the edge of the universe. And this kind of pride has a lot to with religion, the state--you know, things that aren't anarchy. Which is pretty shitty.

With that said, there's probably another kind of pride, or a few kinds. For example, one kind of pride is a lack of shame. Which is pretty awesome. Another is going somewhere or doing something and then looking and thinking/saying "Woah, look at that." Which is pretty whatever.

Answered: Are there any groups of Anarchists who live together in Europe?

Thu, 02 May 2013 00:44:28 +0000

There are tons of them... It depends on what you are searching for, and in which country ! without being pedantic : europe is a vast continent, not a village.

And you have hundreds of anarchist organizations and thousands of anarchists of different tendencies : anarcho-communists, autonomous, anarcho-syndicalists, insurrectionnary anarchists, individualists, anarcho-primitivists, eco-anarchists. And all of these people are making different projets : occupation of forest against a airport project with wooden huts (the ZAD near from Nantes in France), squats in most of big cities in europe, social centers, rural autonomous communities, house projects, etc... Where and what are you searching for exactly ?

Be more specific because if you don't we would need to write a directory or an encyclopedia to answer comprehensively. ;-)

good accounts of parallels between anarchy and chaos?

Wed, 01 May 2013 15:54:31 +0000

looking for books/zines etc. that elaborate on some kind of parallel between chaos and anarchy (not necessarily anarchism).

trying to find well written or just any kind of books that follow Hakim Bey's Taz and/or any kind of link to chaos.

Answered: Do Anarchists think most people don't need a leader (authority figure) and are self-sufficient enough?

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:31:33 +0000

Yes many anarchists do think most people are ready and would do just fine if authority disappeared tomorrow.

Others think most people are not at all self-sufficient, but can throw off their leaders and reliance on leaders and learn to do things their own ways.

Others are even more pessimistic, and think most people will always "need" (maybe not truly but effectively) leaders. That anarchy is not for most people, at least not most people alive today.

Answered: What are some ideas for long-term anarchist projects?

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:24:34 +0000

There is a difference between anarchists doing projects and an anarchist project.

Many projects that anarchists participate in are centered around d.i.y. ethics or pre-figurative politics. These projects claim the title anarchist through their intention of fostering independence from state and social systems to meet the participants basic needs, such as food, transportation, health care, housing, "education", self-defense, emergency services, entertainment...Ultimately these projects usually retain some dependence on capitalist infrastructure, but more importantly, they do little to dismantle it. While the initial excitement of realizing that ones owns capacity is greater than commonly advertised is exciting, and has potential, it is not enduring. The process of integrating these projects into daily life and adjusting them to fit the expectations of a greater social context, while often attracting to them activisty types and reformist values, places these projects into the "anarchists doing projects category".

An alternative to "creating the world we wish to live in" is propagandizing the destruction of the one we currently inhabit. This can come through action or through media. Writing, audio, video, imagery are all media for spreading ideas. While I see nothing wrong in the manipulative aspect of this project, for it to be successful in terms of people actually seeing/reading/hearing/knowing it requires the exploration of some questionable components; namely compromise and capital.

As for the action side of propaganda, it is an anarchist option, but it is not a long term project in itself. An individual can make a commitment to the long-term project of their own illegalism, for example, but if it takes a stable group to make a long term project than this certainly shouldn't be that. . .

Speaking of individuals and groups......this question seems to be seeking ways that anarchist can interact WITH EACH OTHER with a general and productive goal, and so my answer focuses mainly on that. But, there is always the anarchist project of re-wiring oneself away from society, and towards a place of lawlessness and autonomy, and bringing that endeavor to whatever relationships you are in....

And, hopefully, those relationships become deeply committed and produce things; writings, plays, parties, readings, homes...that are unsettling and demand people respond to them in ways that are out of the norm. To build with others places in space and time that people can think or act differently, and to have them change constantly. While the exact product is changing, the people and the intentions behind it don't.

So, long term anarchist projects must be ones where a "family of affinity" commits to constant provocation that is lawless enough to be unacceptable socially but avoids the short-term temptation of mere smashy-smashy.

Answered: What are the differences between Communism and Anarchist Communism?

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:39:41 +0000

Communism is an economic term describing a society in which all people are workers and all workers collectively own the means of production, and there is no use of markets or currency in exchange. While communist politics may vary, most communists have a stateless classless society as their end goal, but believe that it is necessary to seize state power and use state measures of force (including but not limited to executions, imprisonment and repression) to suppress bourgeois power.

Anarchist Communism is opposed to the State, including its use as a supposedly transitional phase toward an eventually stateless classless society.

Anarcho-communists tend to propose democratic self-organization of communes which co-organize in federations.

Answered: What does Nietzsche have to do with anarchism?

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 04:29:44 +0000

The other answers are great and interesting and I do not want to rehash what they have already said so well -- I just wanted to add a couple notes they did not mentions.

One is that Nietzsche was an anti-statist. Nietzsche saw the creation of the modern State as antagonistic to culture and strong willed humanity. It was the creation of a new God that people would use to replace the old God and which they would bow and scrape before instead of using the loss of the traditional society as an impetus to create something better. In other words, set fee by the death of God and the old way of life, they created a new God to worship and efface themselves before. A new master so they could remain mindless slaves.

Next, Nietzsche did not understand anarchism. He accused them of being worshipers of the State. It seems he lumped them in with the socialists, and given the era he lived in, this is somewhat understandable.

He also shares the Anarchist hatred of liberalism, while, like Sorel and others, valuing the state that the fight for liberty has on man.

Also, Nietzsche was quite clear on the non proscriptive nature of his ideas. In Zarathustra he says that he is not a shepherd to lead the masses, rather he comes to gather the "lonesome and the twosome", those that want to "follow him by following themselves". Anarchism is similar -- it does not want to create a party or an apparatus to lead the masses, rather it is a political philosophy of individuals working together, resisting all attempts to rule them and refusing to engage in any attempts to rule others. Similar to this, I would say Nietzsche's call for wide scale social experimentation (as opposed to advocating one way for all of society) is in akin to the call for decentralized and motley society.

Again, these are just random notes and thoughts, they are not meant to disagree with previous answers.

Answered: How do anarchists feel about worker-owned businesses?

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:54:42 +0000

In a society without private property and without the State I think worker owned businesses are the default -- they are how people would go into joint enterprises if there were not bosses or owners (including government bosses and owners) to control them or pay for their time.

But, while I think that the anti-statism and anti-capitalist stances of Anarchism logically necessitates that all businesses would be worker owned, that is not to say that all Anarchists proscribe them as either a tool to subvert the current order or as a way for individuals to escape the current order. Indeed, some individuals might find the time and mental demands of a worker owned business just as or more oppressive than a regular job. And, socially speaking, worker owned businesses often just spread the wealth of a capitalistic enterprise.

Still, worker owned businesses can, at times, create an infrastructure that is antagonistic to the capitalist system and gives space and resources to anarchistic causes. Put another way, if a group of anarchists, for the benefit of themselves and the causes they care about, decide to go into an enterprise that would be described as a business, I believe that a worker owned business would be a great model for them do so in -- as it would allow them to do what is typically an exploitive and hierarchical task in a way that is not so.

So, I think the take away is that worker owned businesses are not inherently anarchistic, but they can be used positively by anarchists individuals and movements. I would think that any group of individuals working together and being guided by anarchistic principles would choose a worker owned model as opposed to a corporation or some sort of owner employee model -- but the history of worker owned businesses is that there are many disparate examples, so the relations between anarchism and worker owned business has to come with qualifications.

Answered: what is gentrification? I am confused about the concept.

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:31:22 +0000

i think of gentrification to be the insertion of the hordes of the inanely hopeful people armed with Community Visions and the Standard House/Yard Model into areas that are quite nearly polar opposites. it kind of feels like the unwanted embrace of a self-centered aunt whom you only see every ten years, but then they move into your guest bedroom

i.e., i went to the taco truck today and overheard two young people in yoga pants talking about their relationships with artists in the local art scene and i wanted to murder them both

Answered: Examples of autonomous base nuclei/self-managed leagues?

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:04:52 +0000

An initial problem I see is that "autonomous base nuclei" is such a terribly odd sounding phrase that it is almost impossible to imagine it really in practice... But I'll try to demystify it.

a) Other examples that come to mind for me are the recent Occupations, and any oppositional campaign that is self-organized and not geared toward political solutions (i.e. it tends to use direct action, not limited to property damage). So, to throw some random things out there, maybe Idle No More, or resistance to the US-Mexico border, or various forest defense encampments, or resistance to coal mining in West Viriginia, and probably a few dozen more.

A necessary caveat: Many or most of these struggles have seen and will see partial or total recuperation into the channels of negotiation, representation, politics. So, by the standards of I@ theory, the autonomous base nuclei have not ever entirely been--or were but have not remained--autonomous. But the point of recognizing this isn't to demand purity, instead it would be to realize a "tension in practice."

I@ wants to stress that people involved in so-called intermediate struggles can often organize autonomously from unions and political parties, can resist representation, can refuse compromise or negotiation with power, and can directly attack the structures of power/capital, even without being anarchists. And that anarchists can act within and outside these bodies. (We don't have to stick to our own anarchist groups and hostile opposition groups like trade unions.) And that when we engage we want to further these groups' autonomy, self-organization, and refusal of compromise (e.g. agitating to the local Occupy that politicians not be permitted to speak at our assemblies, that we not seek political solutions to our grievances, etc, etc).

b) I don't know anything about that history specifically, but history as a whole would definitely indicate that all such experiments have failed, that recuperation into politics always happens. For some, this leads to an indictment of recuperation specifically as if it could be separated from the rest. For some, it leads to an indictment organization as such. For some, an indictment of history or progress. For some, it leads to giving up on everything, even experimentation.

c) I do think I@ is essentially reliant on a lack of social peace, or at least on the belief that social peace is a lie or facade laid over a reality of deep social tensions and points to apply interventionary force. I have observed insurrectionary morale--but also anarchist morale generally--rise and fall with the waves of general upheaval and general submission, and no surprise there. With that said, I think times--and places!--of decompression are good opportunities to decompress, to take space to relax, reflect, rethink, clear spaces, act in secret (and I don't mean that as code for sabotage), and be open for whatever happens next.

Answered: What does "create your life as you see fit" mean?

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:33:01 +0000

I haven't read very much Wolfi, but I dipped into one of his essays the other week - 'Desire Armed: Anarchy and the Creative Impulse", which I think might have some relevance here, particularly in relation to 'being robbed of your creative capacity and what anok mentioned regarding the distinction between creating your life as you see fit in a civilized, conscious way, and creating it in a wild, embracing-rather-than-defying kind of way.

The argument I perceived was that the creative impulse, in a broad sense of that term, is the tangible expression in our lives of actual desires:

"Desire, in its vital, healthy, fully living form is nothing more nor less than the creative impulse, which realizes itself through the practical application of imagination to one’s life and one’s world."

I think we can reasonably infer from this that creating your life as you see fit is expressing your desires by living them, because living our desires is a fundamentally creative process (maybe even the crux of creative processes in general).

Another way of looking at it could be that if we express real desires (as opposed to ghosts of desire - more on that in a sec), our lives are created as we see fit - they are the sum of our creative impulses, which are the translation or enaction of our desires (those that are real desires).

As it stands, what I've said sounds pretty insubstantial, but when related to individuals being robbed of their creative capacity, and anok's point about amor fati and creating your own life in a more wild sense, it becomes more meaningful:

In the essay I mentioned earlier Wolfi quotes William Blake's phrase 'ghosts of desire' to describe what is commonly meant by 'desire' in everyday language: "a mere longing for some external object that one lacks", which he argues is an economic conception of desire based on scarcity, a general sense of lack that can be "easily channeled...in the interest of whatever powers have the strength to harness this lack".

When you contrast that to "desire in it's vital, healthy, fully living form", creating your life as you see fit could mean the embracing of your own authentic desires, which when lived are creative, as opposed to constructing your life in an overly-rationalized, civilized way by figuring out what you lack and then acquiring it, which superficially could look like creating your life as you see fit.

Here's a link to the essay if you haven't read it and would like to: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/Wolfi_Landstreicher__Desire_Armed.html

Answered: Do the "working class" and "employing class" have anything in common?

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:53:02 +0000

For sure they actually exist ! If you ever work in any hard or ennoying job : you'll experience it soon my friend ;-) .

And actually these two classes have many many things in common : rotten trade unions of class collaboration, the wage system, work ideologies, the use of the means of production in different ways, social antagonism, class struggle, class war, a death match, and the revolutionnary perspective of their mutual destrution as roles in the bloody butchery of social liberation ! :-D

Just a point of view.

Answered: Is there an anarchist definition of class?

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:31:33 +0000

First of all, as I'm french, please excuse my possible mistakes in english.

Then, I would like to plebiscite Anok's intervention as it summarizes really well the various positions anarchists stand for about the twisted question of classes and class analysis.

However, I also have to confess that to me, it also reflects a lack of criticism towards the marxist or marxian analysis.

First of all, the idea that society is divided into antagonist classes is not instrisically marxist in itself. What defines the basic marxist stance about its class analysis is that the most revolutionnary class is the industrial working class. Which is only a part of the proletariat, even when defined by its relations to the means of productions in general. But to Marx and marxists (and some anarchists who share this view, especially the anarcho-syndicalists and most of the libertarian communists) the supposed revolutionnary role of the industrial working class is not only linked to his relation to the means of production, but to the idea that its the only "class" able to take over the means of production (especially because of its supposed "discipline" and its respect of the "work ethic") and consequently "provoke" the revolution.

This conception offers to a lot of revolutionnary anarchists an bunch of critics to make. To sum it up : the idea the society and class structure has changed so much all over the world that this analysis is obsolete for the greatest part of humanity, or at least for the western society (including the old europe where I live); that the deep changes in the wage system, technological progress and in the whole society also redifined the structure of class society so much that we simply could not specify a clear "revolutionnary subject" as the revolution shall be now more than ever the fact of all the dispossessed, workers of not.

Othewise, a lot of anarchist (including myself), considere that if class conflict, class struggle on a traditionnal social and economic point of view is still an important part of social antagonism and at the very heart of the revolutionnary struggle, this question leads to two important conclusions for anarchists who are supposed to confront all kinds of oppressions and dominations.

First, class division in society is not only strictly economic but also social and multiple, and various oppressions and dominations reinforce the class structure and complexify it. Or to say it in another way, there is other major divisions in society that are not less important than Capitalism and/or its class division and older than it in most of case. Like Patriarchy (and what some anarcha-feminist define as a division in sexual social classes, that isn't only a question of "gender binary"), white supremacy and racial segregation (even it often appears today as an "invisible" social apartheid -invisible for people who don't experience racism-), etc... And that depends of cours on where you live and what is your history).

Plus, the traditionnal marxist conception of class analysis and the class struggle, as it's only considered on its "work place" aspect (the industrial working class, the means of production, the discipline, the work ethic, etc...) tends to define itself as central in social problematics and political organisations, and then to give prominence to decisions of economic nature. And this analysis and proposition tends also obviously to cancel or upstage other aspects of class antagonism : for exemple the struggles around housing, squats, evictions, etc... or the situation of margins and populations disaffiliated from the wage system and formal economy that constitute an ever larger share of what is today still called the proletariat. And of course, this analysis tends to hide others aspects of domination and exploitation in society.

To support these contributions, I should only advise you to steer (in addition to the references already given by others) to the italian insurrectionist and autonomous anarchist texts written since the 70s, especially because they are related and linked to struggle practices, critical reflections and theorizing arround this praxis.

- "A question of class", by Alfredo Bonanno : http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-a-question-of-class
- "Class war", also by A. Bonnano : http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-class-war
- "Worker's autonomy", by bonanno and other comrads : http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-bonanno-and-the-comrades-of-kronstadt-editions-worker-s-autonomy
- "Listen Marxist!" by Murray Bookchin, for it's important contribution to the criticism of the work ethic and the supposed role of the industrial working class (and the kind of organisation that this conception suppose).

Enjoy yourself folks ;-)

-------------------

As an appendix to my intervention, I would like to emphasize the fact that class analysis of the Invisible Comittee (or the authors of l'Appel and Tiqqun's journal, who clearly share similar views on this question, not to say exactly the same) that found it conclusion in "The Coming Insurrection" is really poor and credulous.

Credulous insofar as it mostly ignore this question in going much further in confusion than André Gorz, Jacques Camatte or a lot of other french post-situationnists or anti-industrial tendencies (who defend similar positions) : that is to say that classes have disapeared (how ? where ? we never know), or have "merged" into some kind of Totality (the "Spectacle", the "authoritarian commidity", the "bloom", the "Bio-power", the "Empire"... and why not the "666 New World Order 666"). Which leads, as it seems to me, exactly to the same. And I insist on the capital T as all these concepts that merely designate the same thing, are very close to the hegelian idea of Totality. And the influence of Hegel on this tendency is absolutly undeniable.

But this confusion, as the claimed influence of such things as metaphysics or the jewish kabbalah (where the name of the journal and concept -Tiqqun- come from), leads Tiqqun, the invisible committee and their disciples to some sorts of mysticism and philosophical esoterism in terms of social analysis. And the tendency to use spooky langage and strange words everywhere are unfortunately too reminiscent of the religious methods to subjugate and control people.

And this poor conception linked to very arrogant pseudo-philosophical profusion of references could explain that upper middle class and petit-bourgeois intellectuals, college teachers, students, and part-time squatters constitute the essence of the background of most of its "partisans" (as some of them define themselves).

Finally, I wanted to add that if this analysis may seems attractive or interesting on certain points, it's at least not enough. I would not say what I say only to shot a bolt on any people who read or appreciate these readings (or certain aspects of it) but to be very critical with its authors and a lot of people who take this shit too seriously in france.

So as to support this last intervention, I would like to refer you to this masterpiece of modern critical and revolutionnary though :
- "10 commandments", by comrad George Carlin : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-RGN21TSGk

Answered: Does usury toward the rich count as expropriation?

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:26:06 +0000

Based on your own suggestion of an alternative to private property--that ownership be defined by usage--expropriation would be a form of direct action where you interact with available resources in such a way: If it is unused, you use it (expropriate it).

The thorny (and arguably moralistic or authoritarian) question of who are "the rich" wouldn't have to enter into the equation.

A key factor of expropriation--and a pretty key factor in direct action and anarchist activity generally--would have to be taking and not asking. If you run a project (well, business, really) that deals in relations of exchange with people as customers or tenants or recipients of loans, you are asking them for money. They can just go elsewhere for another price, so their unused resources won't be put to use unless they decide to (not unlike charity).

Also you are talking about a project that is an intermediary for redistribution: the resources are moved from point A (higher income people) to point B (those who don't have funds) through a mediating body (the bike shop). Expropriation would have to cut out the intermediary (e.g. people taking bikes for themselves or their friends/families/____).

So no. What you describe wouldn't be expropriation, it would be a kind of business negotiation.

For the record, a fair number of businesses and non-profits do run sliding-scale income-based services similar to what you are describing. I imagine they consider it a matter of fairness or redistribution or something similar. A logic that is distinct from expropriation.

On a different note, I don't really see how could someone loan money to, or rent to, someone who is much wealthier.

Answered: Are anarchists for or against public schools?

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:31:19 +0000

I personally hate all traditional schooling, public or private. The very concept of forcing children to sit in class all day and be indoctrinated runs against the very core of anarchist ideas.

However, I have no problem with tax money going towards education, that's a good thing. Nobody should be forced to do it though.

Answered: In an anarchist world, how would selfish people be 'converted'?

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:42:46 +0000

last first - i think there are a ton of people who want to change the world for the better, but so many interpretations of "better" that it doesn't matter. especially when the interpretation means basically leaving the world as it is -- which it frequently does. i'm not sure if that body of people outnumbers the uncaring or not, but i doubt it matters. the bottom line i think is correct, which is that we (whatever that means) are a tiny minority.

i am not interested in changing anyone's perspective vis-a-vis selfishness, i just want the option to not engage with people like that if i don't want to. i don't want to have to rely on them to give me a loan, or not arrest me, or evaluate my work performance, or feed me, or determine the safety of various things i work with, or determine how much power other people should have over me, etc etc etc.

as for the smiley interpretation - there are anarchists who believe in and count on the perfectability of humans. but anarchy doesn't rely on that. perhaps you'd like to read some stirner or nietzsche or novatore or some other more egoist/individualist anarchists.

Answered: What are some good introductory projects/activities for anarchists?

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:32:12 +0000

projects that teach in a low key, low risk way (for example, a game), the skills that we want to have, whatever we identify those as being.
the identification of skills we want is a big part of that question, of course.

Answered: Many people are greedy/selfish. How do anarchists envisage revolution in this situation?

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:27:16 +0000

a. i don't think i agree about "most people". but i'm not sure it matters. if i had to say something about most people, i would say that they don't seem interested in changing things. and i wouldn't posit why that is, because, again, i don't think it matters.

b. anarchy is not (to me) about utopia. as i have said before, things will still be sucky in an anarchist scenario. they will just be sucky in a better way, a way that is more human sized.

c. i don't know if a revolution is possible, and i know for a fact that it will not be welcomed, including by many anarchists. revolution sucks (bloody, scary, environmentally destructive, etc, with little promise that things will be better afterwards). but then i'm not the kind of anarchist who believes in Revolution as the answer. i don't have to believe that something is possible to think that it would be better if things were different--and different in a particular way, and to try to make things different as much as possible in my life. even if only for myself and the people around me.

Do anarchists agree with compulsory education?

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:55:20 +0000

What is reification? What does it mean to anarchists?

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:07:04 +0000

Examples would be helpful. Also, what is the reification of power?

I've always found it difficult to understand this concept for some reason.

What do you think about not standing for the pledge of allegiance?

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:13:16 +0000

I'm in high school, and an 18 year old senior. When ever people stand up for the pledge of allegiance, I refuse to stand up and participate. I always stay seated. I'm always the only one who does this. The reason I don't stand up is because for me it's as if I'm standing up for greed, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and etc. Do you feel the same way, and what do you think of me for doing this?

edited from "what do you think about this" to
"what do you think about not standing for the pledge of allegiance"

What could you add to this list of things our countries leaders are known for?

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:07:45 +0000

Greed
Corruption
War Crimes
Crimes Against Humanity

Are Infoshops (or similar spaces) beneficial or detrimental for Anarchism/Anarchy/Anarchists ?

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:30:03 +0000

I've found some great zines, magazines, journals, books, documentaries, and other media(s) about Anarchism/Anarchy by visiting and being apart of infoshops (or similar spaces...radical lending libraries, alternative social spaces.) I have met some great people in these type of spaces.

I've also had some very negative experiences visiting and/or being involved in infoshops and the like (mostly the "being involved" part in my experience.)

How do other Anarchists view infoshops (including similar spaces) ?

Anarchist perspective(s) on the topic of overpopulation?

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:21:41 +0000

Is the earth overpopulated as it stands now? Does overpopulation present itself as an obstacle towards creating situations of anarchy? Is the point at which we are considered overpopulated relative to an individual's desires and goals? Does population number have other/any implications in relationship to anarchy?

Spanish Civil War studies

Sat, 13 Apr 2013 23:01:23 +0000

What professors or university departments are actively studying anarchism in the Spanish Civil War?

Who are some anarchist university professors in the United States?

Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:58:39 +0000

I'd like to know the names of any anarchist university professors in the United States and what their department / field of study is.

How would personal belongings be protected from being stolen?

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:50:31 +0000

It is sort of a silly question but my friend brought it up while I was discussing anarchy to him one day. He told me that people would just take everyone else's belongings since there would not be any law "protecting" personal property from being taken. Would this even be a problem in the first place and, if so, how would it be dealt with?

How is crime delt with by anarchists in an anarchist society?

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:01:35 +0000

This is something that people always bring up when I mention that I am anarchist to them. I always tell them that we, as the people, deal with it as a whole. I just want to know specific ways of which we would go about dealing with it and the outcome of dealing with it. Also, it can be any scenario that you guys come up with: murder, rape, etc.

How can I participate in anarchism and still raise a young family?

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:53:39 +0000

I am 21 years old and have a 1 year old, if I would have learned about Anarchism more than I know now, back when i was younger, i might not have had a child and pursued a different lifestyle. But now I do, so what are some things I can do. I have to work, have to buy her things (things come from department stores).. Etc. just need some clarification.

i want to know more about the mediums(media) that anarchist use to express them selfs visually

Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:50:57 +0000