Anarchy101 Q&A - Recent activity

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

Thu, 07 Jul 2022 03:58:48 +0000

yes. in particular "obviously" and other such absolutes get my hackles up.

Comment edited: is it consistent for anarchists to be school teachers

Wed, 09 Feb 2022 20:52:08 +0000

funkyanarchy: "the only vagueness in the question is in how different people define "anarchist" and "teacher"."

yes, and the only other words in the question other than "consistent", are "is, be, to, for, and it".

lets face it...the question sucks as written...and your original answer points that out.

bummer we can't post any more....just when i felt ready to write again! well, i'll miss it for sure....

Commented: connecting dangerous ideas to anarchy...

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 02:05:56 +0000

all publishing is almost identical to promotion...i've read both Attasas now and they are both invitations, even though the first one had criticisms.

It isn't exactly clear what happened at that bookfair, the version i got was some angry kid tore up that book and then basically got their ass kicked. Who attacked who? I'm glad nobody really cares about eco-extremism anymore...just stupid simplifications of just about everything: people, attack, murder, the cosmos, "the indigenous", to me it will always be an appeal to anti-oppression politics.

There is the whole problem though of anarchists telling each other which books to read, which of course still goes on. No wonder some folks tried to make a pro-murder ideology.

Commented: What is egoism?

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 01:53:00 +0000

egoism is anything you want it to be...

Comment reshown: Anarchy is against authority. What is it for?

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 01:49:06 +0000

I like the concept of "forcing" (lol the ironicism in this) someone to clarify what they want or not

Commented: Can anarchists who join others' action separate themselves from those who planned the event?

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 01:45:40 +0000

colorism...interesting. Sometimes one trait of a person becomes the most important trait, i guess there's always a time to re-access the trait...

i wish people used this term "colorism" more so than racism, because racism more properly just means talking about eugenics and how they've impacted things.

Comment reshown: What games do you like?

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 01:40:48 +0000

I looked up insurgency, it seems like an awesome game

i noticed as well that there is a tradeoff in video games between difficulty and instant gratification, i find that league of legends tows that line pretty well except a lot of the players don't appreciate the complexity behind the game mechanics and want winning to be easy. It's definetly not an easy game but it seems like it is to some people. The cool thing about it too is that paying money in it is optional and they set it up so that spending money on it doesn't give you an unfair advantage over other people (they make a lot of money off selling skins for champions and that doesn't have an effect on your abilities, spell effects, and mechanics), BUT, one of the things that people get rightly frustrated over is the programmers are constantly modifying the champions to make them more or less powerful, it's a constant experiment....and a pyramid scheme

Commented: Is the will to power relevant to your anarchy?

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 01:38:14 +0000

"...i guess i use kinda awkward verbiage to express that."

not really, perfectionism is an alright activity but a stupid goal or fixation.

Comment reshown: Will disputes in anarchy be resolved on a case-by-case basis?

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 01:31:49 +0000

@Denver: I think you're missing the point...anarchy, at least in my mind, is a state of relations that is relatively devoid of ideas. When one starts talking about imposing a counsel, democracy, ect, they are talking about putting a permanent structure above the needs of the individuals involved. People who teach history often phrase things with the word "we" when talking about governments, but states are never agreed upon collectively, they develop out of previous hierarchical forms of organization.

Comment reshown: Without police wouldn't violent crimes/rapes be more prevalent?

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 01:27:47 +0000

actually, if you compare the number of people the police kill and the size of the policing population, and compare that rate to the number of homicides that occur in the US vs. the US population, the US population commits far fewer homicides...however, the screwy thing is that the police don't count the people they kill as homicides all the time, im just going by the "justifiable homicides" statistic tabulated by the FBI

Comment reshown: Thoughts on Trump's win?

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 00:06:40 +0000

to me, trump is a wild card, but he certainly isn't up to anything good, my prediction is just he will continue fucking people lower on the socioeconomic ladder, and the united states seems to be slowly gravitating towards being like a third world country. Trump's win definitley signifies a shift towards a larger role of russia in the world's power grabbing.

But you can't really predict anything with certainty in politics unless your looking to be poetic about it...for example: phillip k. dick predicted in his books that advertisements would fallow you all over the place in the future (which is now since his science fiction was written in previous generations). A lot of free-marketeers pride themselves on predicting the housing bubble, but the economy just consists of lots of bubbles, always being on the trend towards collapse rather than surplus and post-scarcity magic

Commented: When Anarchy comes about...wouldn't the different types of Anarchists just get along?

Sun, 09 Jan 2022 23:01:48 +0000

"Thinking is over-rated by those who make distinctions between who they are and what they do..."

Yep, wise words from a dissenter of anarchy, wish we had more of those...anarchy: internet dictatorship. No need to start calling yourself names, that's a self-defeating behavior.

Comment reshown: What is the best way to share God with an anarchist?

Sun, 09 Jan 2022 23:00:19 +0000

What a shame that nobody here likes god

Comment reshown: Can you have money and still be an anarchist?

Sun, 09 Jan 2022 22:59:44 +0000

funky, I completely resonate with what you say. I too disconnect myself from people who like to control me and all the alienating things that go on in politics, like during the last election I payed as little attention to it as I could, and if I talked about it it would be in encouragement of feeling hopeless about both options.

However, I am entirely unable to completely disconnect myself from the system, and I still have desires to change "the world" as dellusional as that is. There are plently of things I enjoy doing, and I would like to do them better. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is still a hole that I'm trying to fill, I'm still trying to figure out what it means to live well. Currently, im very strongly feeling that we all need to figure out how to better integrate what goes on in our heads and what we do with out bodies, or atleast, i need to figure out how to better integrate what goes on in my head with what i do with my body

Comment reshown: What ancient cultures organized themselves without a state?

Sun, 09 Jan 2022 22:59:11 +0000

I remember that anarchist writer/dude Aragorn! talk about how Against His-Story was not a very accurate book from a historical perspective, more or less mythological (which is fine by me), but since you seem to know about a lot of these books, could you share your thoughts on against his-story?

Answer reshown: How have you convinced another that anarchy is not chaos and anarchists are not just window-breakers?

Sun, 09 Jan 2022 22:58:46 +0000

I don't think I've ever convinced anyone that anarchists aren't window smashers, and to tell you the truth I like the image a little bit better than "normal, reasonable people.", even though there's no reason why someone can't be both :-). I also don't care what people think of anarchists as a group anyway because some deserve the bad opinions that people have of them.

I have, however, on numerous occasions tried to convince people that police, authorities, and nation states don't actually make the world a better place, and unsuprisingly people often don't need much convincing when it comes to this point alone. When they do, there's not much of a point in arguing with them, because trying to make someone else think a different way starts to defeat the purpose of being an anarchist. I don't want to live my life feeling responsible for other people's thoughts, just the same as I don't want to be responsible for the "greater good" whatever that means.

Commented: Lenin's Revolutionary Strategy

Sun, 09 Jan 2022 22:22:47 +0000

i still don't see the connections...maybe i should start asking questions like "was hitler an anarchist?", ugh, the spectrum...how lame

Commented: What does third wave anarchism mean to you?

Mon, 11 Oct 2021 21:57:19 +0000

Why would post-left be considered it's own wave? The critiques/ideas within it aren't new or unique, historically speaking. Post-left folk sometimes come off like Jordan Peterson to me.

Commented: Open Source Software?

Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:29:14 +0000

I think a few of the licenses are due to living in a capitalist society where intellectual property and copyright is a thing. Books I got from LBC mention the creative commons license. I think it's to literally let a person know they can do whatever with the book because many people have probably been conditioned to believe they can't do whatever with it due to copyright. Many books flat out state all these things a person cannot do. So, like, a few books published by AK and PM Press that I have have blurbs stating one cannot reproduce, photocopy, trade, resell...etc without AK/PM Press' permission.

I do agree these licenses are basically just tools for the law and thus incompatible with anarchism.

Comment reshown: How do Anarchists make their income

Sun, 19 Sep 2021 17:27:53 +0000

thanks, DD. i'll elaborate a little, but i hesitate to say too much mostly because i don't want to imply some sort of blueprint or prescription for living without money. i find it most important to have a mindset of wanting to live more free of money, and keeping that mindset as much as i can has led me to all sorts of things i never considered.

in my earlier efforts to live with less money in my life, i mostly reduced my consumption dramatically....not going out to eat, not buying stuff i don't really need, creating "entertainment" for myself and with others, etc. i also started living in much smaller spaces, and often with other people for varying amounts of time. i don't have a cellphone, i no longer use shampoo or deodorant, etc.

but as i continued this path, i found other ways of doing things....going to really, really, free markets....i've grown fruits and vegetables, done a little fishing and crabbing, picked wild berries, apples, mushrooms....gone to food banks (one in washington state also has an organic garden where i planted vegetables, weeded, etc.), got food that was thrown out by various stores....

and i also find stuff all the time....one day, my mate said she wanted a nightstand, and put her attention toward it, and two days later we saw a pair of nightstands on the side of the road that someone gave away for free....for the last 6 years, i've also found wood to heat the small cabin i live in part time from a variety of sources. i've found sunglasses, jackets, all sorts of stuff.

another important aspect for me is giving away what i have, whether my energy or skills that i have to help someone else, or stuff that i no longer use. this doesn't always happen as easily as i thought, mostly because other people often get suspicious when you say you'll fix their computer for free, or watch their dogs for free, or give them a haircut, whatever....i think that, generally, people feel uncomfortable not paying for something. but i keep offering, anyway. i've had a few people stay with me via the couchsurfing website, and i've stayed some places like that myself. i've experienced so much more joy in feeling like i can freely give and freely receive than i ever did when thinking about or actively seeking more money.

all of this has led me to feeling much more creative, in how i live my daily life, and in other ways, like making some music, short films, etc....and i only wish i could find more people who desire the same sort of life....luckily i have one person, sometimes two.

a couple of good reads on the subject....charles eisenstein's "sacred economics" (and "Ascent of humanity"), mark boyle's "the moneyless man", daniel suelo's blog....that keep me thinking, and more inspired.

like i mentioned, the hardest aspect for me has been the reaction of people in my life to this different way of living....especially because at an earlier point in my life i made an above average income, with a big house, etc.....but a few do see how much happier and creative i feel now.

so much for the short elaboration! :)

edited to add:

i also began spending a lot more time outside every day...i really enjoy staring at stuff as it turns out....woodpeckers, clouds, the moon (i try to watch it rise each day), leaves falling off trees, even cars and city lights if i can find a perch a couple miles away.

Commented: Are anarchists for or against public schools?

Sun, 19 Sep 2021 15:25:03 +0000

so many years later, let me say that i voted down this answer because a, it's not an answer to the question, b, it proposes a contradiction (at least on the face of it) that it doesn't explain or defend, and c) anarchists are not for taxes ffs.

in case anyone was confused.

Commented: does anyone believe in archangels

Sat, 18 Sep 2021 06:15:42 +0000

Can't say I've ever heard someone suggest anarchists are the protectors of humankind, brah. Nor insinuate evolution created anarchists. That leads me to wonder if people that aren't anarchists are a different species... Homo-sapianarchists. Man-o-man you can read unique points of views on here. I'm gonna try to remember macabroni & cheese lol.

Comment edited: Can a 'man' be a lesbian?

Fri, 17 Sep 2021 20:59:16 +0000

Correct-a-roo dot, the meanings of many words do change or have added meanings to the definition of the word over a period of time. Since we're on the subject of sexuality, the term faggot, comes to mind, for a word that has gained a new meaning. It initially meant a bundle of sticks/twigs bound up like hundreds (500-600) of years ago. A broom is an example since it's a tool of bound up twigs. Since a broom was a domesticated tool that was mostly used by women, men began referring to women as faggots. Then a few hundred years later it meant a male homosexual. It comes from to burn someone on a stake, you need a bundle of sticks (faggot). Male homosexuals or men accused of sodomy were burned on a stake in some areas, so faggot was a slang term that was slowly adopted to mean a male homosexual. I'm thinking the slang for a cigarette in the UK being called a fag is because it has a stick like form that's burned. So, yes, it's not only academics that try change or add new meanings to words that have a commonly held meaning, but when they do it it's less likely it'll catch on with the general population. The same for these queer activist A-Zed mentions that apparently say lesbian doesn't just apply to a female homosexual anymore. I doubt the queer activists meaning for lesbian will catch on with the general population.

It's "they" ;)

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

Wed, 08 Sep 2021 00:32:47 +0000

The lack of empathy thing with autists, such as I, is some have difficulties identifying their emotions and then isolating what they are to then express and address it with another person. It's like there's a disconnect from the moment. When something depressing or crazy insane occurs to someone else, I may appear to be blank to them since it's difficult to identify the particular feeling at that moment. If someone asked me how I am feeling, I have like five or six words to try to describe what I'm feeling, but if they try to probe deeper, I'll say "I don't know" or "give me a month to mull it over." The technical term for this is alexithymia.

That makes it more difficult to identify what someone else is feeling and then put oneself in their position. If I have difficulties doing it with myself, it's much harder to put myself in another persons shoes at the moment. I can identify more obvious feelings of another, like if they're crying, I conclude they are sad, but it doesn't get much deeper than that. To others, it makes it appear that I don't care because I'm have difficulties with their pre-established "rules" for how I should respond or behave and in some time frame. On top of that, I'm a poor communicator in person which is another story for another time.

Sometimes I feel like I'm Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation in his quest to be more "human." He's constantly asking Geordi to explain human emotions and then when it's explained, he's just like "interesting" and carries on whatever he was doing. With AmorFati answer, I find it very confusing and don't really know what he's talking about. The question itself borders on being meaningless to me. So I hope that helps clarify the lack of empathy thing with autists.

Answered: Is your anarchism positively constructed?

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

I am positive about nothing being sacred.

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

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

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

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

Comment edited: How do you distinguish between the state and state actors?

Sun, 22 Aug 2021 22:08:48 +0000

in my view, an individual acting on behalf of the state is a state actor in that behavior, regardless of their intent. however, context is everything. i see a huge difference between someone who inadvertently acts in a way that benefits state power, and one who consciously chooses to support/impose state power as a matter of course, eg cops, politicians, military, snitches, etc.

does that sufficiently answer your question?

Comment edited: Is there a non-revolutionary anarchism?

Wed, 18 Aug 2021 21:08:03 +0000

indeed, of course there are shades of gray in any comparative spectrum. there are more and less overtly authoritarian institutions. democracy can easily be seen as a form of authoritarianism (tyranny of the majority/plurality), albeit a much milder version than, say, military dictatorship. but any revolution that does not have as its intent an anarchistic result is not one that any anarchist i find interesting is likely to participate in - at least not with any expectation of anarchistic outcomes. as you pointed out, neither of those revolutions (fr and us) - indeed none in history that i am aware of - had anarchy as its intention. so perhaps we are speaking to different points.

edit: in terms of the institutions themselves, i am referring to generalized structures such as government, economy, religion. which apply to nation-states of all types, including monarchies, democracies, theocracies, etc.

Answered: Which conversations feel tired and which feel vital?

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

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

1. Critiques of individual justice

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

2. Critiques of non-violence

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

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

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

4. Living anarchy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answered: What is anarcho-transhumanism?

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think of cancel culture?

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

What are your thoughts about cancel culture?

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

Answered: What would happen with the internet in anarchism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answered: Sexual double-standard and anarchism

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

my 2c:

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

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

Comment edited: Anti-civ books

Mon, 26 Apr 2021 14:34:18 +0000

Funkyanarchy, let's say between 500-1,000 years ago. I'm asking if there is an anti-civ book where it focuses on the everyday average peoples lives prior to industrialization in Eurasia and why it is a negative or problematic. I assume there's an anti-civ book/writing that examines the structures of everyday life somewhere in Eurasia and at some point prior to industrialism. I've noticed indigenous people of some area are mentioned a lot. If there is an examination of peoples prior to industrialization, it seems like the focus is mainly on the elites.

The woodworking and fishing thing was to attempt to indicate they're fairly recent and slowly became more accessible to the commoners instead just certain people.

@Nihilist, yes, the commoners didn't go fishing. I guess if they were part of a crew they did, but outside that not really. They had no easy way to get to a river or the ocean. Even if they did, the fish along the shoreline were depleted by the people of higher status than them, so were rivers. With the rivers it was dependent the location. The plebs in now what's France and Germany weren't allowed to fish in the rivers. They didn't have sailboats to go deeper out to sea to fish. Preserving and transporting the fish was problematic for the people that did. They could obtain fish from a merchants though. It was a tiny part of their diet. Most of their diet was from various grains and cereals, and occasionally salted beef. yumyum

The mechanical saw was mostly what made it possible and easier to do woodworking. It relies on sawmills. The plebs didn't have sawmills.

There are many things where you'd think the past pleb was doing this or that and had this or that. Like the fork, you'd probably think the fork has been around for a long time. It didn't appear until 17th century and didn't become widely used until the 18th century. People, especially priests, thought the fork was some sort of diabolical tool and bickered about it for like 80 years.

Is Ismael the one with the telepathic or talking gorilla?

Answered: is "anarchist" a group identity?

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

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

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

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

Comment edited: what does trust mean to you?

Sat, 20 Feb 2021 14:36:10 +0000

dot - indeed. values (principles?), desires.... hopefully that all results in some clear priorities for how one chooses to move in the world.

a word - however ill-defined and over-used - that comes to mind is "authentic". how can i know that something i desire - or even some principle that i hold - is authentically my own?

it is entirely possible that, after much critical thought and analysis around it, i still cannot know with certainty. i long ago learned to accept that, and to trust myself enough to both listen and challenge. i refuse to be stymied by analysis paralysis.

another thing i think this points to - which many activists and leftists seem to deny or ignore - is that sometimes NOT acting is in fact the "authentic" way to proceed, and the path course of action most likely to jibe with one's desires.

Edited: Anarchists Thoughts on the Development of Capitalism?

Mon, 11 Jan 2021 11:29:00 +0000

What are anarchists thoughts on the origins development and origins ? Do they have their own ideas about the origins the development and origins of capitalism that isn't just a derivative of Marx's ideas in Capital. In particular the 'so-called primitive accumulation' (part 8 of Capital)? If so, could y'all tell me who and the name of book/long essay?
There are numerous books/long essays by Marxists that try to explain how capitalism came about like Michael Pearlman, Harry Braverman, Ellen Wood, Karl Polanyi (not a marxist, but some claim he was a socialist of sorts), and probably more I'm unaware about.

I have found writings by anarchists that tries to address it, but they usually defer to the ideas developed by Marx and other Marxists. For example, the anarchist faq (F. 8) tries to, but they fall back to Marx. Kevin Carson tries to too in Studies of Mutualist Economy, but defers to Marx and/or other Marxists too most of the time. However, I have difficulties finding books/long essays on the beginning of capitalism (development) by an anarchist that is unique.

Perhaps y'all might know if there are anarchists books/long essays about the origins of capitalism that diverges or is different from Marxists ideas about it?

I couldn't find any questions on this site about capitalism origins development and origins. You can leave your personal thoughts on the origins and development of capitalism, if you want to. I couldn't make up my mind if I should ask this question or not. Primarily because there isn't really a simple-ish answer to it. I'll try to clarify questions y'all have if confuzzled.

Edit: Tried to improve my question to make it clear and understandable. Here are the names of people that have different ideas about the development and origins of capitalism: Frernand Braudel, Balki Bartokomous, Karl Polanyi, Adam Smith and def some more. You can duckduckgo them for more info

Answered: What are your favourite anarchist texts?

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

The Old Calendrist

species being and other stories

The Impossible, Patience and How to Live Now or Never

"Anarchism" by de Cleyre

Letters of Insurgents

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

Answered: What is your favorite anarchist novel?

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

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

Answered: What is the best anarchist text about love?

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

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

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

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

Answered: What do you think of the Great Reset?

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

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

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

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

How many Anarchists are in the world?

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

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

Do anarchists write romance novels?

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

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

Answered: What does the black star symbolize?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How best to help immigrants fleeing broken countries?

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

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

Answered: What are Alan Moore's anarchist influences?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answered: What fiction or other art portrays anarchic society?

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

pippi fucking longstocking.

mic drop.

;)

Answered: Sources/Books on Revolutionary Communists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(punctuation edit for clarity)