Is Chaos Anarchy the new Anarchy?

Question

Insurrectionary Anarchy was big a few years back, more recently Egoist-Nihilist Anarchy was the trend, is Chaos Anarchy the final epitome of post-industrial/post-modern anarchy?


edited to fix tag

Answer 1

The quick answer would probably be no.  Trends in anarchist tendencies in the United States has fluctuated quite a bit over the past decade, but "chaos anarchy" isn't really one that would become popular.  For one, it is a "tendency" that has only been proposed as existing here.  For another, the trend of a chaos anarchy still fits the egoist-nihilist or insurrectionary anarchist tendency, if it is as was suggested by other contributors here.

I or another author could draft writings for this tendency, but the adoption of this tendency seems to fall outside of most interpretations of the anarchist milieu.  Vandalism, sabotage, arson or simply put, destruction tactics are clandestine techniques while those that are "trendy" tend to be adopted by more open groups.  The tactics are used by all anarchists for various reasons, but usually not for the sake of creating chaos.

It might help to define chaos and why anarchists would want to create it.  In some cases, we see from nothing, something created.  What seems to be mathematically sound becomes broken when exposed to reality.  The factors of the unknown are always playing into equations that might seem to be orderly at first.  

Take language.  To some, it is a static force in society.  With various subjects adding their interpretations, language quickly erodes its original meanings and begins to mean different things to different people.  "That's fucking sweet" might mean "the subject strikes hard against a light sugary flavor" if taken literally in some ways.  More vulgar, it could mean "The subject is having sexual intercourse with something nice".  Most times, it means "A subject enjoys an object".  But context more often will define it.

To create a chaos anarchy, it might mean anarchists are attempting to undermine the social order, thus creating chaos of that order.  Anarchists that want chaos, want to be part of the creation of an X factor.  This X factor may unravel preconceived notions on how society conflicts with the dominant order and/or how the dominant order attempts to control society...or something else.

On the flip side, people might see chaos anarchy as a form of order, taking advantage of known and unknown variables that could be scientifically measured.  People might also expose that chaos anarchy has no direct impact and is isolated from social organization and a social revolt where groups of people, sometimes large, sometimes small, challenge the relationships of power and exhibit their own power in one way or another.  

For anti-chaos anarchists, they might say chaos anarchists interfere with the ability for order anarchists to create anarchy by causing reactions from the social order (typically the state, typically law enforcement) that do more harm that good.  Anti-chaos anarchists might be the quickest to denounce chaos anarchists and/or accuse them of working for or helping law enforcement.

Anyways, it would take some time to figure out if a tendency could even come from these thoughts unique from other tendencies, let alone if it might become a part of the status quo of anarchist tendencies.  My opinion is that chaos anarchy and nihilist anarchy are similar enough to be synonyms.  What could make them different is that chaos anarchy wants to create chaotic situations while nihilist anarchy need not create any situation.

Cherry bombs in toilets, unscrewing the bosses chair so when he sits down, he falls flat on his face, stink bombs in the air ventilation system at school, LSD laced cafeteria food at a corporate seminar, smearing feces on famous paintings at a museum, sending letters to everyone at a workplace telling them they are fired, robbing euthanized dogs from the animal shelter and tossing them onto the highway...is this chaos anarchy?  Or is it how anarchist theory meets chaos theory?  Or something else?

Comments

Hello,

I'm still waiting for your response on my other post regarding anarchy vs. anarchism.. Great reasoning here. Agree with a majority of your points. Do you have any print or online writings yourself?

If you search old BBS, old internet groups from 1998- and before you will find more of this stuff. I think the 2000’s era especially 2003-2008 (due to bush and other factors) really made anarchists want to eliminate this concept, and seemed to wane down from what it was in the 1990s and before.

Do you think any movement or person has literally called themselves chaos-anarchist? That’s what’s bugging me. Not one find on the internet.

I do think "jackass" and prank-like adolescent behavior could be classified as anarchic behavior or inciting anarchy through a chaotic act. As cruel, dumb, potentially self-harming, pointless and immature as it sounds it definitely can provide a high thrill or a justified act of revenge (to the person). This may apply to teenagers and pranksters of any age and class more than others) anarchist meets chaos theory? There are different levels of this kind of behavior as well. I'm not really sure it’s that deep or relevant in regards to anarchist or chaos theories (maybe it could be I haven’t thought it out) but has its place in creating chaos-anarchy and so must support any theory relevant to it on some level.

I would say the chaos idea was more related to the UK because of a long and constant history of street fighting and rioting (just look up the 1990 poll tax riots) and hooliganism (which normalized violence, stealing and vandalizing) which effected youth cultures in the UK especially punk, so it gave people more of a platform to live out or justify chaos-anarchy which later came to the U.S.( this is what I think not 100 percent sure)

If you look a the biker movement,  early beats and the Dadaists and to a lesser the surrealists (which was a 'cultish" movement aside separate from the periodic art style) they all seem to be living and/or some form out of bounds chaos that is trying to maintain itself in the idea of no perceived authority.

If you look at both the original punk movement in the 1970’s  and later on 80’s I think that’s where it became popular again and really existed not just as a fashion statement. Also in the more recent 1990’s cyberpunk movies and literature it’s all about chaos-anarchy or maintaining it in a post-apocalyptic future. . Even Role-Playing games seem to have defined this concept for characters as well.

---

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/high-priest-wombat-ksc-quiet-resistance-the-workers-union-underground

This writing was more about the relationship to work some anarchists have taken on.  How the historic resistance to work has looked without guidance from unions.  It gives a nod to behavior outside of work, but that isn't the main focus, so may not apply as much.  The idea is that the abolition of work is what is desired by much of the history of work in civilization.

I'm not too certain of the history of old bulletin boards, with only some minor participation on them prior to "yahoo clubs" which started in 1998, which was replaced by "yahoo groups", then most relevant discussion switched to Infoshop News and several phpbbs forums.  Around 2008, my discussion and many others went to Anarchist news dot org, though social networking has made a big impact on channeling these kinds of discussions away from open discussion sites.

Anyways, this is a bit off topic.  Back on topic.

The "high thrill" goes with the "peak experience" Hakim Bey says is part of the goal of participating in an immediatist group.  The tong (the highest form of an immediatist group) may be most closely associated with "chaos anarchy" being that it is secretive.

Punk could be considered loosely influenced by the situationists and injected with a chaotic interpretation of anarchy.  Punk, for a long time, defined the culture of anarchists.  While many liberal and leftist ideas also were thrown around within it, the main tendencies in punk looked to rebel so moved towards anarchist ideas.  There is also the rejection of both communism and capitalism during the cold war, which was appealing.

The art movements you mentioned, dadaist and surrealists, were considered advanced by the situationists (an art group) also.  Bikers, street fighting, riots, are good points and anarchists have often been in favor of these things, though the main participation have not been done by anarchists.

Roleplaying games seems the hidden influence.  I would say that is the main thrust on where I got involved as an anarchist.  Not just Dungeons and Dragons, but GURPS, Cyberpunk and Shadowrun all have heavy anarchist themes.  Vampire: the Masquerade and other World of Darkness games revolutionized roleplaying games.  VtM and WoD had a "gothic-punk" theme with the Brujah vampire clan being the most anarchistic with an upside down anarchist symbol as its clan symbol.

Cyberpunk and Shadowrun is also linked to cyberpunk culture.  The first game being a direct interpretation of themes created by William Gibson while the latter is a blend of cyberpunk with fantasy themes attached to it.  Shadowrun has gone on to having a successful series of video games, with a less successful line of fiction books, which I've read little of.

The faux religions are connected to roleplaying game culture, discordian and subgenius religions being the most obvious.  GURPS brought forward the discordian religion by publishing the "Principia Discordia".  In RPG stores, you could get the Anarchist Cookbook, "Assassins/Killer" which became popular on college campuses and was a live action game where you and your friends would try to find ways to "kill" each other.

I do agree there seems to be an overall connection, that isn't talked about much among mainstream anarchists.  Bob Black and Hakim Bey both point out the existence of "Type 3 anarchists" which might be where "chaos anarchy" would fall in the spectrum.  By highlighting it as "chaos anarchy" and pointing out its connection to these various things as ascendants, there does seem to be a real tendency growing.

Hacking and Trolling, Internet culture, is something that is of great interest to me and is furthering type 3 anarchy in some ways, but like all these prior influences, the theory isn't usually that strong while the tactical influences are only loosely based on anarchist theory and methods.

So overall, there might be something here.  While I consider this to be in line with egoist, nihilist, illegalist and insurrectionary anarchist practices, it does also seem to be somewhat separate.  Perhaps best considered the type 3 expressions of these tendencies?

---

Like I said I’m assuming it was a loosely defined philosophy, sometimes not always including those who didn't know difference it and anarchism, and more of an 80's and 90's thing that aside of hakim bey and others was rooted in small clubs/groups/gangs perhaps and individuals/social circles aside of the BBS hacker culture and punk squatter sor other groups. (I’ve yet to find any trace or evidence other than BBS text files and certain  punk paraphernalia  and some "related" books here and there  regarding other names i've mentioned)

Not sure if you intended this but I personally never saw the anarchi(sm) punk bands (like crass) as leading punk into anarchism. I just saw them as groups advocating extreme political anarchism using as punk or nihilistic aesthetic as compatible with it, and independent from other scenes. Whereas the  original punks and the hardcore scene that followed and as with other similar music was more about letting the music or attitude be chaos/chaotic and not intentionally adhering to any form of a political ideology. But I know punk music is just some historical aspect of this discussion. Not to be overestimated with this topic.

I'm pretty sure it died that died out somehow. I think due to extreme left popularity in the recent decade a lot of extreme leftist groups, or branches of political anarchism, seemed to take a stronghold. Also the internet seemed to hijack the notion of chaos anarchy especially because it’s simultaneously obscure (lack of enough sources) and has been wrongly by the media as encompassing anarchism. Also with the amount of easily editable information and bias sites available.

I've yet to order these faux religion books been wanting to for a while. I can't get myself to read illuminati! Series. Even though they sound awesome.

It’s funny I have these old RPG paper and pen games from the 1980's. And there are so many definitions of anarchist relating to seeker of chaos and disorder which is further elaborated in a logical manner. I can type them if you want.?

OFF TOPIC: I have TMNT and other strangeness and some other palladium games. Would you happen to know how to play? With another GM? I've owned these for 6 years couldn't find one person to play in real life.

We're really on to making sense of this definition somehow.

Yes type 3 sounds good. I would like to know which book mentions this type 3 anarchist.

---

I believe the definition started here, from Bob Black
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-theses-on-anarchism-after-post-modernism
It should be pointed out that Bob Black was in the Church of the Subgenius as a prominent member for a brief period.  When he left, I was friends with a subgenius and learned of Bob Black a few years before I became a self identifying anarchist.  Both he and Hakim Bey contributed to my decision to learn more about anarchists.  Shortly after I dropped out of college in 1998, I pondered on many hits of acid if I should become an anarchist for several months before deciding it was the path I wanted to go.

At this point in my history, I was already an experienced vandal and associated my anarchism with my desire to continue.  A part of me was upset that my friends had turned away due to pressure from a Christian friend while we were firmly anti-christian.

I should also point out that my decision to call myself an anarchist came with the thought that anarchists no longer existed as they once were.  By the end of 1998 I was participating in a yahoo club (now a yahoo group) called "the Anarchist Commune".  From influences like Chomsky, who I had begun studying in College, I thought most anarchists were like him, so I attempted to blend my anarchism with politics.  Being a right wing libertarian at the time, like many discordians, it took a great deal of time to work out a desire to blend politics with my views.

After reading Proudon's "What is Property?" and several market anarchist views, like Benjamin Tucker, I had made a group called "The Progressive Libertarian Party".  The party was a blend of libertarian politics (minimize state power, with an emphasis on dismantling corporate welfare) with activist pressure and union ideas (defense of the homeless, with a couple of homeless members in the fledgling party).  The more "radical" part was attempting to create a voluntary communism, called "mutual communism" which was a dual power relationship concept.  

The idea was to build a shadow economy within the mutual communist group where people would work in the dominant economy and pool resources inside a central credit union and allocate resources to cover needs while attempting to work with unions like the IWW to raise the general standard of living for those still in the dominant economy.  Meanwhile, the shadow economy would attract small businesses and use an alternative currency that was valued at the average labor hour participants had earned in the dominant economy.  

Mainly a voluntary leveling scheme that protected its participants who were all expected to live spartan lives, only raising their worth by seizing jobs with higher value or by doing well in other ways in the dominant economy like striking for higher wages or being a successful small business person.  The building of co-operative housing (communes) was to cut costs in the long run.  

Anyways, this doesn't have anything to do with Chaos Anarchy other than to point out how without knowing of the existence of an anarchist milieu, but studying their ways can create diluted experiments.  Ironically the end of the Progressive Libertarian Party was the result of a punk rock anarchist who was also the Brujah clan leader in our LARP interacting with our group.  His anarchist communism challenged our views, so we opted to dissolve the party, never to re-organize it.  I still remained sympathetic to market anarchism up until my participation in RAAN, where I first became an anarchist communist (platformist), then close to a year later, dropping platformist views and moving towards post-left views, eventually returning to egoism and then nihilist anarchy, which fit my implicit views on an anarchy I had thought no longer existed.

Bob Black, Hakim Bey and Noam Chomsky all were part of the 90s anarchism that interacted regularly with right wing libertarians, objectivists and market anarchists.  Even Chuck0 was a market anarchist.  Seattle '99 and the black bloc changed this direction as Internet anarchists began interacting with the larger milieu.  Now market anarchism is largely rejected by those holding the anarchist identity.

Many Discordians stilll hold to right wing libertarian and market anarchist views.  My issue with the Discordian status quo is that it is more about only about questioning ones views on religion and value and encouraging people to think for themselves, but beyond this, offers little that could be interpreted as radical by itself.

Sorry for the long tangent, talking about type 3 anarchy brings me to have nostalgia.  I've always been more of a goth/industrial fan more than a fan of punk, but the "destroy" anarchist themes seemed to make more sense than anything Crass or the Clash had to say.

Read most of the Illuminati, but never finished it.  I have this thing where I can't finish a book I enjoy because I don't want it to end.  Haven't read other Robert Anton Wilson books, though read a lot of his ideas.

I wouldn't mind checking out the views from the games you are talking about.  The TMNT thing threw me off when I first learned it was a Rifts spin off game before it became a popular cartoon.  I never learned its rules.  I mainly was a D&D fan, though played Rifts somewhat.  My current games are still 3.5 D&D, Star Wars Galaxies and the new WoD.

On topic again: The attraction of "Chaos Anarchy" seems to be absorbed a great deal by so many factors.  Perhaps there is a problem with main anarchy recuperating "Chaos Anarchy", so maybe the vein of thought needs detailed so the future delinquents can just hop right in and make destroy rather than go off on a tangent like I did ;)

---

Very interesting. Your tangents are cool. Very good to know. It will take me some time to sift threw these texts.  i skimemd and read through bob's text. Good stuff to hear his stuff which reassures and affirms these ideas we've been discussing on some levels.  While this is good again i still wish there is a wealth of elaboration on this type three. Does bob have any print books where all this is placed in (i'm more of fan of hardcopy books). How exactly is Noam chomsky related to this? just curious. I was reading an interview a while back and bob didn't bring up how chaos can be explained with anarchy I'm really surprised there barely is a base or movement.  Its still all about searching.

This however makes me think twice about what he says in the text that you sent me:

This is taken from : http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101 (read all)

"Q: One definition of “anarchy” is chaos. Isn’t that what anarchy would be — chaos? "

"A :Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first person to call himself an anarchist, wrote that “liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order.” Anarchist order is superior to state-enforced order because it is not a system of coercive laws, it is simply how communities of people who know each other decide how to live together. Anarchist order is based on common consent and common sense."

ummmmmm. anyways

There are a few books ; cyber culture and chaos : http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Cyber-Culture-Timothy-Leary/
 

rules of chaos: http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Chaos-Stephen-Vizinczey/dp/0226858928( the author is a absolute douche i contacted with a brief question regarding any link to philsophical chaos or chaos-anarchy a while back harshly remarks. He's too old to understand i guess
Here's another book I found in regards to chaos theory ( but more applied) http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Theory-Social-Sciences-Applications/dp/0472084720.

I borrowed it from the local library but i found it to be kinda technical  and boring. I could give it another try


I'm still a huge fan of TMNT. Here's an extract from the original and rare game.

Copywright 1985 TMNT and other strangeness:

Anarchist (selfish)

"This type of character likes to indulge himself in everything. He is the insurgent, gambler and high roller. The uncommited freebooter who is more likely to be a crimefighter because he enjoys the thrill of danger and excitement than any cause. THis character will at least consider doing anything if the price is right or challenge great. Like moths drawn to a flame, the anarchist is attracted to the lure of hte impossible, dangerous and the underdog. They are intrigued by power, glory, and wealth. Life has meaning but his has the greatest meaning. Innocent lives are protected, but occasionally some must be sacrificed for the greater cause. Laws and rules infringe on his personal  freedom and were meant to be broken. He wil not hesitate at using strong arm techniques, breaking and entering , theft, harrassment, and destruction of private property, and so on. This includes acting as judge, jury and executioner. After all there is the wrong way and his way. These characters are usually the daring vigilante or anti-hero who feeles the end justifies the means. The anarchist aligned person is always looking for the best deal and self-gratification and will work with good, selfish or evil to attain his goals. The anarchist is continually teetering between good and evil: rebelling and bending the law to fit his needs. "

"Anarchist characters will...

1. May keep his word.
2. Lies and cheats as he feels necessary
3. Are not likely to kill an unarmed foe, but certainly knock-out, attack or beat up and unarmed foe.
4. Never kill an innocent but may harm or kidnap.
5 Will use torture to extract inforamtion but not likely to do so for pleasure.
6.Seldom kills for pleasure.
7. Is not likely to help someone without an ulterior motive even if its only to show off.
8. Rarely works within law unless it serves his purpose
9.Constantly breaks the law to achieve his goals.
10. Has little respect for authority, the law, or self-discipline.
11. Does not work well wihin groups, tends to do so as he pleases despite order to the contrary.
12. Will take "dirty money" or items without hesitation.
13. May betray a friend"

END

Industrial music even goth related music certainly has more depth and flavor than punk( to me at least)  was just mentioning it within a historical context)

Personally i'm just revisiting things like anarchy and occultism etc... trying to see whats interesting and useful.

I've been through phases of especially  during teen years of trying different things and being into a lot of different ideas.

Just revisting some, just for the sake of it. See what i can relate to what's meaningful on some level. Its also an interest.

Off topic :Do you know anything about the origin of the  typical over used A symbol with the sides of the A coming out of the O? was it before the punk movement? How did it come to be?

---

The over-extended A is a result of graffiti.  I'd say it is more in agreement with chaos than order, when done.  The Brujah clan symbol for Vampire: The Masquerade, as White Wolf designed it uses it in this manner.

I use the dirty circle-a in my graffiti as well and it must come from punk graffiti.  I really want to say its relationship is tied to punk culture as a rejection of order and the establishment.  A rejection of the status quo.  The interpretation of anarchy as order sounds like a bunch of bullshit.  Perhaps that is what it meant to Proudon, but Proudon's use of "anarchist" was more a shock value because his system happened to be anarchist.  If I wrote "KAOS" on the wall, the "A" would be a dirty circle-a.  I've seen it this way many times as well.

I'll touch on the rest later after some time.

---

Was wondering if you lost interest in this subject or discussion.

If not :

Here's another article i found: http://libcom.org/library/socanlifean4

What do you make of this? Seems riddled with sarcasm.

---

Well, I suppose Noam Chomsky doesn't matter too much to Chaos Anarchy other than he is an example of the low point of the anarchist movement.  It got so low that people forgot what anarchists were all about, only vaguely remembering anarchists were bomb throwers.  Chomsky was someone that wanted to be different from the Marxists, perhaps also wanting to avoid Cold War attitudes to his work.  USA vs. USSR was a strong mindset.  You still see this desire to move as far away from what could be considered Marxist-Leninist in today's anarchists who might otherwise be considered close to some of the libertarian Marxisms in Europe.  So while Marxism descended, anarchists ascended in interest.  Noam Chomsky is a reflection of this, just as "chaos anarchy" is a reflection of it.  However, chaos anarchy is less attached to academic pursuits and is more an expression of juvenile delinquents, graffitists, gang members and so on, as we have sort of already went over.

I'll have to have time to review these links, maybe draft an article for discussion related to them when I can.  Sorry I can't give more time at the moment, as a chaotic, I go in many directions and attempting to commit to things sometimes causes me to lose commitment.  Not a good thing, as I probably could be a successful writer if I could stay focused.

---

http://en.contrainfo.espiv.net/2012/07/09/greece-chaos-just-around-the-corner-by-the-r-o-conspiracy-of-cells-of-fire-and-theofilos-mavropoulos/

this also proved to be of interest.

---

Well, the links are broken and I did manage to get the basic idea that was wanted to be covered found here, I believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

The "butterfly effect" seems to be of particular importance to the development of a chaos anarchy.  Through propaganda of the deed, we feel there is the ability that our small actions will create unknown affects on society, which may help create further disorder that leads towards the undermining of the controlling order.

The problem with chaos theory or perhaps it isn't a problem at all, is that is actually another form of order, in a way.  To discordians, this is an eristic/aneristic dilemma where we can see "all the order in the world" and "all the chaos in the world" by simply shifting how we view it.  http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Eristic_Illusion

To then build the theory of "chaos anarchy" we have:
- The spreading of cookbooks for diy experimentation.
- The use of sophisticated pranks, hoaxes and general mischief similar to Hakim Bey's concept of poetic terrorism.
- Propaganda that is about the spread of chaos, discord and destruction.  This differs a great deal from the left, which is about how enemies are getting their just deserts.  To a chaos anarchist, the enemy might deserve it, but is secondary to the spreading of chaos, which is more interesting and important.
- An attempted focus on spreading the message of chaos to juveniles, gangs, musicians, hackers, internet trolls and artists.
- Having an invisible effect, where chaos anarchist actions cause others to act in different ways to create ruptures where the chaos anarchist is not implicated.  Heightening the conflict of opposing forces to where a rupture might occur despite none of the forces holding any views that might be "good" to the chaos anarchist.

Not really sure if this is going anywhere and if this is something that can actually be practiced by anyone.  It is not a tendency that would be accepted by the wider anarchist milieu and would probably be the most reviled.

A group that practiced this type of "chaos anarchy" could of been the Lords of Chaos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Chaos_%28group%29

---

A criticism of the "Lords of Chaos" is that some of their activities had little to do with fighting domination, but rather doing acts of chaos that sometimes were enforcing racist or homophobic narratives.  On the other hand, the variety of devices and the style of activities were almost always done in a way that could be compared to Hakim Bey's "poetic terrorism".

The Trenchcoast mafia, the natural selector, the Beasts of Satan and other similar groups could all be looked at for inspiration.  As far as anarchist content to be found within them, they might not have much going on other than on a deeper psychological examination.  These individuals and groups may of acted as a result of bullying and being more disaffected as individuals than feeling some sort of collective oppression or exploitation.  Who they acted for is primarily themselves.  They are expressing their own power and that power may be egoist in ways, but not really anarchist.  If they are fully embraced as practitioners, "chaos anarchy" may be more of a "chaos egoism" that is separate from anarchists.

---

You’re back...great. I do see a lot of valid and good points and examples here.

Did you find any bits of the other books online I mentioned? I'm planning to order some.


I wouldn't give up so fast: I do think that chaos anarchy theory could be more grounded in a similar way to taz, deeper containing more of a  dada like manifesto style and imply chaotic anarchic behavior within more of  the context and order including more depth in the subject.

 Maybe we can come up with it or I will elaborate sometime later.

The reason why I posted a link to chaos theory in the social sciences is because it’s linked to real case studies and other things and it’s also less jargony than reading stuff about physics etc... Its worth a check
Thanks for the names. Here's what I think. Feel free to disagree though. No prob.

I can see what you’re saying as these groups maybe had a nihilist-image  but your right they don't have much to do with chaos anarchy, but rather some kind of pseudo nihilist-egoism rooted in teen alienation/angst or and mental imbalance/ disorder.

I didn't read a whole lot of their TCM's writing don't know much but i
don't think would qualify as even a proper movement as lot of stuff seems drawn straight from 90's industrial bands and video games and movies . This natural selector guy seems like a school shooter copycat. All these people seem to me as teens with a suppressed misguided rage and/or mental disorders posing as pseudo-nihilists

Beasts of Satan seem to be a satanic group. Most of these actions were done in the satanic panic and Scandinavian black metal crimes in the 80's and 90's.  A lot of it is centered on cult-like, misguided or fetishized violent crimes. Find it rather different these subjects altogether have a different nature than this "anarchy chaos" we have been discussing.

I see an ironic similarity with Anarchism and Satanism. (Not a Satanist here or advocating any beliefs) But Devil Worship or paganistic theistic Satanism /dark or evil worship is often treated in the same way chaos anarchy or egoist anarchism is treated when compared to Anarchism or Laveyian Satanism.

The funny thing is both Anarchism and Laveyian Satanism are metaphors unrelated to the original meanings. (anarchists don't accept the unpredictability that anarchy allows for, Laveyian Satanists don’t worship a devil or acknowledge Devil/God exists (only a archetypical symbol they are fixated on for which they select on the "good –humanistic -rational" traits only of) Both seem to be the majority in their fields and reject their older definitions (citing they don't exist, they don't represent the real or true version of this belief etc..)

I think devil worship even the more constructive or non-violent or malicious types - are still pretty fascistic and leave a lot more room to be self-destructive. With spell casting and ritual practice. Think that stuff has more control over you and has more of probability to harm you than chaos principals.

With chaos anarchy you have more of a chance of controlling your chaos without having to prove yourself in the same way.

I think the cyber punk movies provide a great deal of insight into chaos anarchy at least superficially :

Re-watching Robocop, blade runner, strange days ... wait for neuromancer  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1037220/

I do feel like we are moving into more of a state where cyberpunk themes are becoming more relevant:

Large Corporate control and ongoing globalized branding
Things moving or being significantly centered around - computers - digital technology; which has become less expensive and more compact Online monitoring, and profiling
Greater loss of the Paper and Ink era
Constant Economic/Political crises   

I do feel like this more relevant now that it was like in 2004 or something. I do think that it perpetuates a certain order as opposed to the chaos of the internet or free will.

But I believe "cyberpunk" was more relevant and interesting when specific things about computer technology were not developed enough (used by a  much smaller percentage and therefore the intention as subversive tool for or embracing chaos was much innocent and different than how it turned out to be after it was consumed by the masses as an evolutionary process.Making it seem kind of irrelevant and dated today to me in some way. Still it has it's place though and some truth to an extent.

I think there is also an anti-technology role and anti-civilization of current trends I’ve read amount in some links relating to this chaos topic.

I definitely think technology evolves and is good but it’s good to boycott or at least be aware of certain new tech trends and how they are made to sell or control.  Even the internet steals tangibility, real dialogue or underestimates the real value and benefit of “physical" existence of the written word, conversation, music, photograph etc... Under the disguise of practicality, communication and instant access.  Which is part of an order that does not see the values in such things, and works to sustain itself sometimes for extreme power and control, alongside progres and good use but not necessarily useful for the rest of us or always good.

Thats why i think its good when you can to do as much as possible without the depedancy of such a technology. Not because of its dark side but because you gain so much more in the real world, even though you might not have the benefits that come or previously came with it

Also the idea of chaos being linked with a primordial lifestyle is an interesting thing to explore


I think punks, Dadaists etc... Have been tossing around anarchy in the time when political anarchists existed as well. I don't think it should concern them as long as these ideas are not trying to fit in the same pool as them.

I recently made a post responding to anarchy vs. anarchism again check it out. I responded to someone who said dismissed chaos from anarchy. Might be a little exaggerated and redundant...but still..

Some more links:
http://freenet.am/~verq/article_manifesto2.html

http://www.roninpub.com/cybpun.html

http://www.391.org/manifestos/19180323tristantzara_dadamanifesto.htm

http://thinkexist.com/quotations/chaos/

The only issue I see with chaos is when it allows for malicious or evil intentions (whatever that is) to roam free. But then again I think when you want chaos a lot of comes with the territory that you either have to fight or manage, as the good that can potentially come for and from the person can outweigh the bad (whatever that is)  

Do you have your own website, profile etc.. : Are you familiar with this blog what do you make of this guy mixing of the two:
http://anarchyandchaos.wordpress.com/

Answer 2

I think you have a very trendy fashion view of things. It seems to me we have to point out to adolescent or post-adolescent punk rockers that anarchism sometimes struggles with a stereotype of anarchism equals nihilism and chaos which goes back to the propaganda by the deed and illegalism days. the word "chaos anarchy" almost sounds like a media sensationalistic superficial creation made to sell something to give it a rebel, wild edge. The other day i saw advertisements of a deodorant who used the words "anarchy" and "chaos" in this sense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-nqMo-TVJc). Even Johnny Rotten got bored very quickly of "I´am an anarchist" in this superficial,adolescent sense and left the Sex Pistols and Punk Rock and proceded to form a more intelectual and complex rock band. As far as "insurrectionary anarchy" it is sad that too much of it ended in personal tragedy such as the case of chilean insurrectionist Mauricio Morales (see "Anarchist in Chile dies from explosive device" http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20090523013528979).  

Personally I think a more appropriate and real case of anarchy is something like A.S. Neil alternative schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School) rather than punk rockers fighting cops (which doesn´t mean I personally don´t participate in barricades, fighting cops and that kind of stuff) or the world wide movement of Social Centres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_center).

I also don´t think egoist and individualist anarchism can be equated with "nihilism" and "chaos". Personally I appreciate a lot the writings of individualist philosophers like Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche but like humanist inclined individualist anarchists of the past such as Emile Armand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Armand) I have been able to extract positive, life affirming and wider themed insights from them.

Comments

Answer is ageist and condescending.  It would've been a better answer to address the many people that take on anarchy as chaos and point out how you disagree with this POV.  I don't know what "adolescent" means as a descriptor, but it sounds like "things you did as an adolescent" and if done by people that aren't adolescents, they must be immature.  This ignores the vast number of people that have practiced this form of anarchy.

The point on Johnny Rotten's group being more intellectual I'd disagree with.  PIL was a far less interesting band that went into obscurity while Johnny Rotten's views hardly advanced anything towards a type of anarchy I could agree with today.  However, I still find "Anarchy in the U.K." to be a sympathetic song.

While I disagree with most of your sourcing as offering anything I'd agree is a type of anarchy I would enjoy, it would of been better if you had pointed out how the type of anarchy is the "new anarchy" as a counter point, to remain in context of the question.

To me, "chaos anarchy" doesn't exist in a way that can be exactly affirmed as a self-identity (yet?).  It would be better to point out how those that casually identify their activities as anarchist or anarchistic activities because "anarchy = chaos" aren't informed on real traditions of anarchy.  You point out stereotypes and advertisements creating this form of anarchy.  Your answer would of been more interesting if you'd expand on these points more.

On the other hand, nihilist tendencies of anarchy do exist with self-identified nihilist anarchists participating in groups like the Informal Anarchist Federation and have connected their POV to historic traditions of anarchists.  You might want to explain how most anarchists don't practice this form of anarchy and might strongly disagree with nihilistic associations.  

Your answer overall is misinformed and biased.  I'd appreciate it if you could comment or give another answer that addressed the concerns I brought up or at least presented your ideas in a more focused and informed manner.

---

"In the current social milieu anarchism extends from Tolstoy to Bonnot: Warren, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Ravachol, Caserio, Louise Michel, Libertad, Pierre Chardon, Tchorny, the tendencies they represent or that are represented by certain living animators or inspirations whose names are of little importance, are like the nuances of a rainbow where each individual chooses the tint that most pleases his vision."

Émile Armand
"Is the Illegalist Anarchist our Comrade?"


1. The age factor is an important one. One expects an adolescent not to have to much experience in politics and very likely just starting to read about politics. So one cannot expect too much depth in their views if they refer to a discussion on anarchism and anarchy since that involves experience and knowledge of history and of political philosophy.

2. The Anarchy in the Uk song starts with these lyrics "I am an anarchist, I am an antichrist". Up to that point both "nihilistic" anarchists and more humanist anarchists such as me or Emma Goldman or Francisco Ferrer can very well agree. It is clear both nihilism and humanism in an anarchist context will reject mainstream religion.

The next line from that song goes "Don´t know what I want but I know how to get it, I want to destroy the passerby". Of course a certain nihilism will symphatize with this almost desperate violent view of things but the humanistic anarchist will point out to the senselessness, idiocy and arbitrariness of this and actually taken on itself this second line can also find sympathy in fascist and authoritarian types. I will suggest that this line can find sympathy in both nihilistic punk types and fascist skinheads.

I found interesting reading about the views of american goth band Christian Death, Rozz Williams on the musical scene he moved in "Despite being in the same area as the emerging west coast hardcore movement, by the beginning of the 1980s, the group were not happy with the local scene, especially the crowd that liked Black Flag and the Circle Jerks, claiming that much of that audience hated punk rock a few years earlier and were all about beating up punks, but started cutting their hair short and beating up hippies instead after punk became more popular in the United States. Christian Death dismissed the followers of this movement as "''hillbilly punks''" in an interview.''http://vampirefreaks.com/cult/RozzWilliams

It is clear a post-punk sensibility is on display here which distances itself from the dumb, violent senselessness of these tendencies within sectors of the punk and rising hardcore scenes. That as far as the US.

In the UK there is the similar development of the Oi! subgenre. I take these lines from All music. com site from their description of the Oi! band Sham 69 "While most of the early British punk bands spoke of working-class concerns -- primarily unemployment and the shrinking U.K. economy, which was leaving a generation with nothing to do and nowhere to go -- many of the pioneering groups had working-class credentials that were suspect at best; the Sex Pistols' career was being molded by a haberdasher and would-be artist, while the Clash were led by the son of a diplomat. Sham 69, however, was different; proletarian and proud of it, Sham 69 was the voice of the people in the first wave of British punk, and if they were never as fashionable as such contemporaries as the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Wire, or the Jam (who, in their early days, shared Sham's provincial outlook and "we're with the kids" fan solidarity), they enjoyed a long run of chart successes and were a major influence on the street punk and Oi! movements which followed." http://www.allmusic.com/artist/sham-69-mn0000160054 (the following from the allmusic.com review of Sham 69 first album "Tell us the Truth") "The first wave of British punk was overrun with smart kids from upper-class backgrounds playacting at being working-class yobs. (The Clash did this first, and did it better than practically anyone.) But Sham 69 was different; every bit as thick-headed and provincial as the band sounded, Sham 69 took a perversely populist pride in its lack of musical or intellectual sophistication. If there's a point where British punk began to evolve from smart, edgy bands like the Sex Pistols and the Adverts into beer-soaked Neanderthals such as the Exploited and the Anti-Nowhere League, Sham 69 marks the spot, and while its first album, Tell Us the Truth, is the band's strongest work, the album also shows that most of Sham 69's flaws were in plain sight from the start." http://www.allmusic.com/album/tell-us-the-truth-mw0000073692

I am aware this is walking very close to an elitist and classist view of things yet I find this a hard truth to face just like Emma Goldman did in the controversial essay "minorities and majorities". Nihilism exists and has existed in sectors of anarchism but also it has been pointed out to be a feature of fascism. allmusic.com so says in this issue that "However, there was a fly in the ointment for Sham 69; the band's rowdy, sing-along attitude began attracting a violent and undiscriminating audience, and fighting became increasing common at the band's live shows. The group also found their gigs were becoming recruiting grounds for Britain 's extreme right-wing (and racist) political party, the National Front; while Pursey often spoke out against the NF, for some reason it was an association that wouldn't go away. While the group's third album, The Adventures of the Hersham Boys, was a commercial success (as were the singles "If The Kids Are United" and "You're A Better Man Than I"), the increasing violence at concerts made it harder to tour, and Pursey began producing other bands and investigating new musical directions."

As far as "chaos" of course chaos is present in a street fight between cops and black block anarchists but chaos is also present in a crowd fo fascist skinheads terrorizing a crowd of immigrants or an event of  alternative culture. But the first scene might be indeed "chaos" but clearly is not anarchy. So that is why I said that a "I think a more appropriate and real case of anarchy is something like A.S. Neil alternative schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School) rather than punk rockers (or anarchists) fighting cops (which doesn´t mean I personally don´t participate in barricades, fighting cops and that kind of stuff) or the world wide movement of Social Centres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_center)."

---

So that as far as violence and nihilism in punk rock. This issue also is present in the decision of harcore icon Ian Mackay on distancing his band Fugazi from hardcore and thus pioneering what became known as "post-hardcore". This from the wikipedia article "Post-hardcore" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-hardcore "During the years 1984 and 1985 in the "harDCore" scene, a new movement had "swept over". This movement was led by bands associated with the D.C. independent record label Dischord Records, home in the early 80s to seminal hardcore bands such as Minor Threat, State of Alert, Void and Government Issue.[ According to the Dischord website: "The violence and nihilism that had become identified with punk rock, largely by the media, had begun to take hold in DC and many of the older punks suddenly found themselves repelled and discouraged by their hometown scene", leading to "a time of redefinition". During these years, a new wave of bands started to form, these included Rites of Spring, Lunchmeat (later to become Soulside), Gray Matter, Mission Impossible, Dag Nasty and Embrace, the latter featuring former Minor Threat singer and Dischord co-founder Ian MacKaye. This movement has been since widely known as the "Revolution Summer". Rites of Spring has been described as the band that "more than led the change", challenging the "macho posturing that had become so prevalent within the punk scene at that point", and "more importantly", defying "musical and stylistic rule". Journalist Steve Huey writes that while the band "strayed from hardcore's typically external concerns of the time -- namely, social and political dissent -- their musical attack was no less blistering, and in fact a good deal more challenging and nuanced than the average three-chord speed-blur"." REturning to Johnny Rotten, his band PIL actuall was a pioneer and influential on the post-punk genres alongside Siouxie and the Banshees who also developed quickly something more sophisticated and with a different sensibility than the stardard punk rock of the time.

That as far as the relationship between punk rock and nihilism and violence, though of course that cannot be reduced to this tendencies within it which I have pointed out. So it is not hard to find someone pointing out that violentist nihilism can very well feature in it rebellion and authoritiarianism or also "macho posturing".

3. But of course the main issue which a person who symphatizes with anarchism and anarchy as a vision of voluntary non-hierarchical relationships between humans clearly clashes with a view of nihilism and violence as a frame of mind. A view who stays within a nihilistic and violentist vision is not very capable of exposing a good alternative both in theory and practice of alternative anarchic relationships to the violent authoritarian dominating ones. As such individualist anarchist Emile Armand, while dealing with the illegalists of his time said this "But with this caveat, it must still be pointed out that in order to be seriously practiced illegalism demands a strongly tempered temperament, a sureness of oneself that doesn’t belong to everyone. As with all experiences in anarchist life that don’t march in step with the routines of daily existence, it is to be feared that the practices of illegalist anarchism take over the will and the thought of the illegalist to such an extent that it renders him incapable of any other activity, any other attitude. The same also goes for certain legal trades that spare those who practice it the need to be at a factory or an office." ("Is the Illegalist Anarchist our Comrade?)

4. On the Informal Anarchist Federation (Federazione Anarchica Informale) I think I can point out to an opinion which I tend to symphatize with. I am talking about the opinion of the other FAI, the synthesist Italian Anarchist Federation (Federazione Anarchica Italiana). I read this in a spanish translation and it is a sign that in the anglo or perhaps in the US the most visible anarchist texts that get translated are the insurrectionist ones. the synthesist FAI said this about the insurrectionist FAI "Between a letter bomb and a shot in the knee, they obtain pleasure in the glory on paper and the fame that the media payed by bosses and parties offers them... Beyond the use by the media of the attack of the boss of Adinolfi, the rest is a politics of a recurring armed vanguardism, which is on top of the semantic temptations, a copy of the parable of a small armed authoritarian group, which maintains the ilusion of being able to guide those who they judge, as "intoleable" the word which we live in."

"Della lotta armata e di alcuni imbecilli" ("On the armed struggle and on some imbeciles" Federazione Anarchica Italiana http://federazioneanarchica.org/ spanish translation "http://www.ainfos.ca/ca/ainfos11951.html"

---

1. You apply essential features to an age of individuals which are hardly true for those that may practice "chaos anarchy".  Anarchists in general may have the very same features applied to it.  Many feel anarchy and anarchists to have a naive understanding of human nature and the world.  This is fallacy when applied to anarchists in general and is also fallacy when targeted towards chaos anarchy.

2. The lyrics can hold many meanings as it is a song that draws on emotions of angst and rage.  I would say the lyrics mostly meant this and because it is part of UK pop, the political leanings you want to assign it is bullshit.  However, it is linked with the ideas of rebellion without any attachment to ideology.  The abuse of nazi imagery by early punk was because it pissed off the parents, not because of sympathy with any ideology.  The lyrics should be read in the same manner, yet you'd prefer to fit it into hinting towards ideological tendencies.

On nihilism, there are many forms of nihilism and nihilistic influences, though you seem to suggest nihilism has particular trajectories.  This is false.  The nihilism of anarchists is not the same as the nihilism of capitalism, the nihilism of Christianity nor the nihilistic behavior of fascism.  When anarchists self-identify as nihilists, as the Informal Anarchist Federation does, it has more to do with individualistic anarchist nihilist influences like Novatore.  The "chaos anarchy" brought up by the Original Question may be able to draw from such influences, but it seems the author is more concerned with developing a connection to something like a "left handed path" of anarchy.

3. I more fear an anarchist philosophy that attempts to limit the rebellion of individuals in the name of freedom when domination is still present.  As such, I find Armand to be more akin to fascism and has more in common with it than an anarchy of violent rebellion.  Complacent views that propose individuals limit themselves in the face of domination have no reason to be embraced by anarchists that desire a full life.

---

1. personality traits exist and philosophies do account for psychological states and tendencies
2. The National Front also recruited punks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_punk
3. Precisely nihilism as pointed out by Albert Camus tends towards suicide. Doing overtly risky things which achieve nothing  and who will not influence anyone but only cause your ruin is called suicidal stupidity. That doesn´t mean you shouldn´t do anything. In some cases violence is the only answer but in others diplomacy or campaigning is the best answer. Thinking only violence is the answer or something else is also limiting your possibility in struggle.

---

1. Personality traits exist?  What that have to do with you applying "chaos anarchy" to something only youth practice?  Chaos anarchy can be practiced by many different ages of people.  If they opt to educate themselves on the historic movement of anarchists, this would be different.  What you are really arguing is that when people first hear about anarchy, they may equate it with "chaos anarchy" and then later educate themselves on the historic movement of anarchists.  Those that become anarchists do so at many different ages.  Some opt to leave a long life of politics to become anarchists while others are born into anarchist families and live as a self-identifying anarchist for as long as they are self-aware.

Those that choose "chaos anarchy" can just as often be older as well as younger.  The simple fact of the matter is that "chaos anarchy" doesn't actually exist.  If chaos anarchy were to become a real identity that combined the popular conceptions of anarchy as chaos, it would be attractive to any anti-establishment person of any age.  It makes sense that since it isn't a real thing, that those who become "chaos anarchists" today do so only briefly in their lives when most people are still finding how they want to define themselves, which is often when they are young.

The problem with essentializing this is people tend to find identity in many things when they are young.  Young people often become criminals only to drop out of the criminal life and become upstanding citizens.  This doesn't make criminal life mainly attractive to young people.  Most successful criminals tend to be of all ages.

2. You are changing the subject, which was about the Sex Pistols.

3. Albert Camus also didn't talk about nihilist anarchy, did not confront the ideas of Novatore, Aragorn or the Informal Anarchist Federation.  It is ignorant to think nihilism is just one thing.  There is plenty to learn about within the many varieties of nihilism, some of which has an influence on today's metaphysics, others on the religion of Buddhism.  When nihilism is a pejorative, it has nothing to do with any of the above.  When nihilism is used as analysis, tracing from Nietzsche, it has nothing to do with the above.  Nietzsche abused a lot of words in the construction of his views, from nihilism to Greek mythology.  If I speak of Dionysus as understood by Nietzsche, I'm not speaking of Dionysus as understood by Greek pagans.

---

As far as nihilism and nietzsche check http://anarchy101.org/3556/anarchists-critique-nihilism-anarchist-supportive-nihlism Nietzsche in fact could be argued that he opposed nihilism.

You make "nihilism" such a broad category so as to lose meaning. Anyway if you want to refer to the definition by Nietzsche go to the before mentioned post. but by now i am starting to think some people do mistake nihilism with scepticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism.