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

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.