A possible new nationwide organization of anarchists

From Parenthesis Eye

There has been some talk recently about forming a new nation-wide anarchist organization. This is a project that definitely has caught my attention and interest, and I do think that some of the points that are made in this appeal are valid ones. At the same time I am also a bit skeptical, for I have been around long enough to have seen countless national and regional anarchist organizations come and go. This has all got me thinking though about the topic of formal nation-wide anarchist organizations. The thought of repeating the same old kinds of attempts that have been tried in the past does not appeal to me - whereas trying out something new does.

The real value for having a formal anarchist organization, I think, is that of providing a means for different anarchists to meet up face-to-face and having a venue for people to find folks to work together with on common projects that they all believe in. The focus of an anarchist organization should not be to provide content that reflects the beliefs and views of everyone who is associated with the organization, but rather to be a networking hub for anarchists to find each-other. Having a publication is not necessary, nor is having a formal membership structure.

The idea that an anarchist organization should have ideological unity and should have common positions that everybody agrees on ultimately leads to frustrating endeavors which become a big discouraging waste of people's time and energy. Even the term "anarchist" itself can be left undefined, although if some people want to meet up to discuss that they are welcome to do so. The key thing is for anarchists to be connecting with other anarchists, and from these connections the individual anarchists can create whatever common projects they want.

I also want to emphasize the importance of this organization being based upon people having real-life face-to-face connections with each-other. In this age of online digital connections being so pervasive I think that one of the biggest barriers for anarchists now to confront is the profound social alienation of our modern society. Much of the mutual understanding and trust that is necessary for enacting real solidarity and mutual aid is lost now thanks to an over-reliance and over-emphasis on digital technology. So a new anarchist organization would still use all the modern online trappings – a web-site, Facebook and Twitter accounts, all of that – but all of these things would exist simply as tools to facilitate real-life face-to-face meetings happening.

I picture such a new anarchist organization as being based around having a large annual national gathering, as well as regional gatherings, local and city-wide gatherings of anarchists. The format for these gatherings would be Open Space Technology, a means by which those people who are present at the gatherings determine themselves what the content will be. The organizing collectives for the conference would be concerned only with the logistical matters of making the conference happen, not with the content of what will be discussed at the conferences – that would be up to the conference attendees themselves to determine.

Ever since the National Conference on Organized Resistance (“NCOR”) stopped happening, there has not been an annual national conference for the anarchist movement to converge at. This new organization would exist in part to help support this conference in happening and to be a sustainable endeavor – independent of larger institutions such as universities and independent of any particular anarchist strain, ideology, or campaign. Given that this would be a nation-wide anarchist gathering, perhaps the location should be central for everyone in the country, let’s say: Wichita, Kansas. Unlike NCOR there is no reason to have to have a nation-wide anarchist conference take place every year at the capital city of the nation-state. However, like NCOR there is an advantage to having the consistency of the conference be at the same location every year.

By not endorsing any particular anarchist ideology and by not supporting any particular anarchist project, and by instead providing the means for different anarchist thinkers and activists to come together to meet each-other, it is hoped that the depth of anarchist thoughts and the creativity of anarchist projects would be helped more than if any particular partisan approach was supported. This is because more people from more of a diversity of backgrounds would be involved, with more of a cross-fertilization of ideas and perspectives taking place.

Internet-wise, it would be best for the web presence for this organization to support people in meeting up with their local anarchist groups, projects and collectives face-to-face. Picture a kind of online version of the Slingshot Organizer’s radical spaces contact list. The web presence would also have features available to support people in sharing transportation and places to crash at while traveling. There would be no place for debate or discussion online, all of this would be channeled towards other online anarchist projects that do that, or towards individuals or groups who are interested in having such discussion in-person.

With this kind of approach to a nation-wide anarchist organization, my hope is that quite a lot of new things could come out of it, both practical and theoretical, even new formal organizations! This organization would serve as a launching pad for other, separate, new things. The irony is that with having such an organizational arrangement, none of the new things that arise would officially be officially associated with this organization – they would be things that arose as a result of people meeting up through this organization and then going off and doing something else together.



Meeting people face to face happens by meeting people face to face. Form affinities with people you know. When you travel, meet up with other people that they know, form affinity, etc. Rinse and repeat.

Fuck social networking and the Internet. Cops use that to map relationships. Technology is never merely a tool. Blah blah blah...

There's no need to form a national organization when the U.S. is such a different place depending upon where one lives. We're past the age of summit hopping; fight on your own turf.

Purely local groups have a tendency to become inbred. I agree that we have to continue to focus our energy locally, but getting a larger perspective by interacting with people who come from a different place (or who have different ideas even though they come from the same place) is helpful on both practical and theoretical fronts.

Worker please take this article down on the bases of it being boring.

<3 thanks
-the trloletariat

what summit hopping has to do with anything. We live in an insanely connected world, where the coffee you drink was grown by folks in central America, the packaging for the coffee is done in Singapore and the truck that drove the coffee to you was made in china. "fight on your own turf" doesn't really strike me as a particularly modern or relevant way to think about anything.

This is a good point, but on the other hand, I feel like the original poster's comment about the U.S. being massively different depending on where one lives is pretty valid. In most cities you'll find people who have massively different experiences compared to someone else living in that very same city. Although these people may have something to share as far as perspective, experience, and organizing capability, it's a point that coming from completely different contexts makes working together more complicated. On the same note, it's more likely that someone within the same geographical area as you probably works within a context similar to your own.

It seems to me like comparing organizing in different regions, and cross-pollinating ideas can't hurt, even if those regions are incredibly different.
I was really put off by some of the original calls for an anarchist federation, but I think something that served solely as a meeting and learning space would be really positive.

Yea, thats true. And its precisely why autonomy is an indispensable component of any modern organizing that hopes to be effective. But I don't think regional differences should mean any sort of rejection of inter-regional cooperation, which is what the original commenter seemed to be implying - unless he really thought someone, anywhere, was still advocating "summit hopping."

I still can't see any point in making this a national organization limited to the U.S. If the idea is to share ideas, it seems counter-productive to arbitrarily limit it to Americans. This kind of thinking needs to be excised now.

I can see a need for it to have an american arm, so to speak, but yeah, it should be international. an american arm of this would be more thought provoking to americans... if it just stayed as an international org, than I can see americans thinking that it's not really "happening here".

What the fuck is an "American".

We should be annihilating national identity, not facilitating it.

I prefer Americano Anarchista por favor!

What, from terra delfuego to the tips of nth canada? How is that possible, with language barriers , desert winds and polar blizzards?

Yeah, that desert wind will seriously fuck with my hair at this galactic meeting. I suggest Cancun instead. I'll book the hotel. See you cats there.

Oh yeah, and me gusto espanish mucho bueno so it shouldn't be a problem.

i don't know man, football teams, NGOs and even freemasons meet online these days, it's just expedient. I think the fact that anarchists are too confused and back biting-ey to even have an organization in this country, can't be blamed on the "alienation of modern society" or whatever. half of us think it's stupid anyways because of their "reading of history"(yet how many of them have actually read any fucking history?). These people think that "organizationalism" was the downfall of the spanish war, but don't think much of the fact that the anarchists were running through minefields wearing rope slippers("alparigatas") and fighting a modern military using hunting rifles. Are we so afraid of hierarchy, even extremely subtle hierarchy that the question of efficacy never even enters the discourse?

Short answer? Yeah. And many of us share your frustration comrade.

federalized resistance IS SO ANARCHY GUYS

Why would I want to "find each-other" or "network" or form "real-life face-to-face connections with each-other" when the world I'm fighting for will require no interaction with the beings around me?!?!?

Go move to Montana!

i'm sorry but what exactly is 'new' in this proposal? so you want to have another ncor but ncor was based on the crypto-liberal animal rights/'liberation' scene and constantly revolved around dingbats like craig rosebraugh. national meetings, regional meetings, websites... what exactly is the point? do you think if you keep piling on forms, it will make up for the lack of content?

I think what the author is talking about is needed, but I will agree with the one tiny portion that NCOR always seemed insular and weird. Throughout the past 13 years as a mostly active anarchist I never once thought about attending an NCOR.

The NCOR and Arissa Media Group...all these attempts to form revolutionary groups by control freaks.

black army

Black international.

Bob Black's International Army.

Usually he posts something admitting sex with pigs and being a snitch, but nothing. Maybe he's holidaying. I miss his irony.

yep, hal9000 because you're so much more radical. Love Bob Black's essays more than your stupid comments.

Just a quick question, did you first come to a realization that works sucks and thus needs to be abolished after reading his material? Or did you realize when someone handed you a shovel and told you to go dig a hole?

Many people think that "work sucks" but are completely opposed to "work abolition"

Work sucks, snitching sucks, enslaving pigs sucks, I suck! Pick the odd one out moron.

kill yourself, pig-fuck

people who brag about acting like nazi doctors, and propagandists of fascist lies, should seriously go down in the bunker and splash their brains on the wall

Define work you fucking pig-fuck.

Neo, to bend the nations, one must simply be willing to recognize that there are no nations. International anything is a lie. The black army is coming from the PNW

yeah, this group should include black rain jackets and opaque french theory, then we'd have CONTENT. what's new about this group. what bells and whistles, whiz bangs and gizmos can you provide us? we need a new anarchyist fad, not some lumpy fellows chundering on about "anarchism"

What will we use to block the rain?

an umbrella organization?

good one

How about infiltrating Anonymous and swapping out the catholic terrorist masks for cute Makhno masks?

I find your lack of faith disturbing, anon. *force chokes*

I think its a good idea.

to form an anarchist organization under the higher level organization of ‘the state’ by making it ‘national’ doesn’t make any sense.

meanwhile, the description of the ‘open space technology’ gatherings seems to replicate the aboriginal anarchist organizing format which starts off with a ‘circle’ where each person has the chance to share whatever is important to them and clustering of ideas and actions subsequently forms from this. this is key to ‘anarchist organizing’.

in hierarchical organizing, the clusters that form from initial ‘open space’ discussions that are ‘all over the place’ are debated, reshaped, selected/reduced and shortlisted to home in on and focus on the essentials, hatch projects and formulate goals and objectives which then become the top priority of the group, and the leaders who have the mandate for the most important projects are given the most power. out of chaos, order. this is typical of western organization but it is ‘inverted’ wrt ‘anarchist organization’.

that is, at the highest level in the aboriginal-anarchist approach is the ‘circle’ which is ‘all over the place’ [everyone gets to talk about what is closest to their heart] and in the wake of this discussion, clusters form and initiatives develop and people get together to make things happen.

BUT, at the very next meeting, and at each and every meeting, the group starts with the ‘circle’ which is ‘all over the place’ once again, and there is nothing sacred about any of the initiatives that were hatched at the last meeting. what this means is that anything that is not going according to plan or that is a new opportunity in any of the initiatives gets immediately rolled back into the organizing process, as do new initiatives or one’s that got rejected yesterday. nothing is written in stone as in hierarchical organization; ‘we already decided that, don’t bring it up again, we have moved beyond that, this is not an agenda item’, fred is the project boss, trust him.

that is, ‘all over the place’ discussion that may redefine ‘what the question is’, always takes precedence over what was decided yesterday. this is an evolutionary approach to organizing rather than an institutionalizing construction project that pushes on like a supertanker without being able to turn/adjust.

meanwhile, ‘parenthesis eye’ says;

“This organization would serve as a launching pad for other, separate, new things.”

... as if the open space discussions are just a pump-priming exercise, a preliminary that leads into the ‘real work’ that needs to be done. the heart of anarchist organization ‘IS’ the continuing web of open space discussions [the epigenesis that directs the genesis, as biological cell researchers are now discovering is natures organizing approach, after assuming for a century and a half that it was ‘all genesis’ directed from the central authority of the cell nucleus].

in the established system, the full collective is invited to an open space discussion once every four years, and use it as a launching pad for politician-project managers, empowered and mandated to do their own selection, reduction and goals and objectives setting, and report back four years later in the next open space discussion.

in aboriginal anarchism, the ‘open space discussions’ are like cell ‘receptors’ that are continually shaping the effector cluster-developments, so that the project activity is the collective expressing itself, rather than the brainchild of an elected politician.

Besides your high level theory! It actually makes a lot of sense for visibility, resource sharing and connections.

The problem is that this type of "organizing" is very inefficient at actually getting things done. And when activists think that they are at war with other forces like the state or corporations who are using efficient top-down organization, then they feel a need to match that efficiency. Ignoring as you point out that the inefficient process itself is what yields the change we're seeking not the actions that come out of it.

I think the drive to efficiency is one of our biggest problems today, in all areas, not just politics. In some sense, yes, with seven billion people we need a certain level of efficiency, but at the same time if that efficiency robs us of our humanity, turns us into machines, then we have to ask if it's worth it just in the name of survival (and growth...!?).

But taking about it in terms of an anarchist organization again, the real real problem is that many people will be unable to stop fetishizing efficiency and so will not participate. And these are exactly the people whose participation is the most important, because they need to revolutionize their concept of human interaction the most. And also, without them and their radically different input, "the circle" as you put it becomes lopsided and ultimately loses most of its meaning and relevance.

The solution is obvious: mandatory participation. All anarchists must be rounded up and forced to participate in endless circle discussions at gunpoint if necessary.

‘Efficiency’ is a fraud. It has to go. ‘Efficient cause’ refers to “the primary cause of a change” (Aristotle). But ‘efficiency’ is popularly defined in our modern world in economic terms, in terms of maximizing profit while minimizing costs of goods/services; i.e. in maximizing ‘margin-times-volume’ where ‘margin’ = value of goods and services minus cost of production overheads.

There is a very basic flaw associated with this sort of ‘efficiency’;

1. the flaw is that it ignores destruction associated with production.

This economic definition orients to maximizing the ‘value of goods and services produced’ for a given investment/cost ... but what about ‘what is destroyed’ in the process of production? What about natural resources that are depleted, polluted, health effects, commodity labour chewed up and the empty shells spit out? Economists (Stiglitz’ Nobel Prize) acknowledged that these ‘externalities’ don’t show up in our economics based calculations of ‘efficiency’.

This economic definition seeks always to reduce ‘overheads’ so as to ‘improve margins’. This means stripping out human participation and using machinery and robots instead (radical in agriculture). John Locke spoke to this one, money and wages is used to strip members of the community out of the community. Their membership in community was originally defined in terms of enfolding their labours within the community dynamic thus giving them and their families sustainable living WITHIN the concept of community.

Money and wages segregated people from community and turned them into ‘overhead line items’ in the efficiency book-keeping, ... something to be reduced or ultimately eliminated so as to improve margins.

the pursuit of ‘efficiency’ has achieved its first plateau, of stripping people out of community [those secure in the community are the money-people, the bankers and managers who do NOT appear in the 'economy-minded community' as an overhead-expense line-item].

‘efficiency’ is working towards its second plateau of squeezing everyone in the expense line-item category down to nothing, for the good of the economic health of the community [‘community’ now reads; ‘the community of non-line-item participants’]. the post-modern labour force, machines and robots, have no pension plans and they don’t strike.

the economic returns on 'efficiency' are creamed off through profits. the humongous destruction that is not entered in the books remains a not-entry on the not-books; i.e. it is experienced most acutely by the expense-line-item classes, the primary victims of 'efficiency'.

if you're referring to my post, I said efficacy, not efficiency.

I'm the one that said efficiency. I agree with everything emile said, too, and would only add that every point about economic efficiency can be made about social efficiency as well. There are externalities in an efficient decision-making process not the least of which is the negation of our humanity.

Sometimes ignoring the externalities in the name of simplicity is really the best option, but that's not usually the case and anarchists of all people should recognize when it isn't and be able to interact as real human individuals.

you need to write something (and i know this is contrary to the point you're making) that explains what goes on in your head in totality. because the comments you write on here are the only anarchist theory i really respect anymore.

here at the end of western industrial civ,


It's that either/or portion of logic you mentioned. The technical view of the world, that reduces all to objects. A life of gift and play reduced to the ritual of endless production.

Gift food, play with guns.

I think forming a nationwide anarchist organization is a lot healthier and positive than the usual attempts at hi-jacking liberal protests that only want to reform things be it the anti-globalization, anti-war or OWS movement. Anarchists played more a roll in OWS and yes OWS is or was based on many anarchist principles but it was not pure, concise and solid when it came to what it believes in and what tactics and strategy to use to accomplish our main objectives. The death of OWS is not the end. It is an opportunity for us to build something better in its place. Face it. The liberals have all fallen asleep at the wheel and we are the only ones left with anger, resentment and the urge to resist and risk it all.

I personally would find "black bloc" calls to action a lot more motivating if I knew there is always going to be a large anarchist presence but with out an organization organizing peeps to to start shit I have no fucking clue what's going to happen out there and for all I know, no one will be there I show up so fuck it. I may as well stay home.

We need an anarchist organization because getting outnumbered and beat up by the cops and going to prison is much more likely if no ones got my back out on the fuckin streets.


Agreed but it needs to happen more along the lines of the above and not what has been talked about in the last few weeks. There hasn't been one collective/human that I know of in the state I am in who has been contacted about this other attempt at a national organization.

Not good.

There's definitely advantages to a purely anarchist organization (as long as it's not too narrow in its definition of anarchist), but in the long run we do need to include not only liberals and commies and hippies, but also libertarians and conservatives and Christians and shit, in our discussions. Because we live with those people and most of them will continue to be those people even if there isn't a state.

Definitely if we are ever going to form a truly lasting Anarchist organization, we need to include everyone Fundamentalist Christians/Muslims/Jews, Ku Klux Klan members, Latin Kings and Queens, Science Worshiping Atheists, Obama supporters, warhawks, Maoists, Ron Paul fanatics/9-11 Truthers, Incense-Soaked Hippies, and all people opposed to Anarchy.

I'll go talk to my Klan friends and see when they're free.

This is a good idea, most of the people commenting here are grasping at straws or just responding like this is from a NEFAC bulletin.

1. I am going to be bummed if this new group, the one parentheses eye is referencing is some ideology driven nightmare. We need a platform for spreading anarchy, not a platform for your conception of "the revolution."

2. Personally, I reside in a place that is so much different than the hyper identity based Portland or Occupy influenced NYC. I still think a national organization makes sense due to the ability to share resources and get an understanding of what other folks are doing.

3. There would have to be a sound on the ground way for people in locations to meetup and either join collectives or create new ones.

4. I don't see how to avoid debate/argument on the internet, am open to hearing about ideas.

5. This wouldn't work unless you had wide participation from many areas.

6. I am imagining it is too late and there will be some attempt to form an ideological driven organization when it is exactly what is not currently needed.

7. Parentheses eye is also a really cool, smart person!

8. A national gathering would be good but, it couldn't go the way of a food not bombs national gathering and the date would almost have to be set the old fashion way. Like an "ok, if many collectives are calling for a gathering we set it 3 months in the future with one collective organically chosen to host."

Organizing for anything besides major disruptions is fucking irrelevant at this point. Anarchists don't need to start a fuckin organization to practice lifestyle anarchism. That shit already exists. The only way forward is social fucking war. The only reason to bring people together is revolution. The protests against war is just an excuse for me to revolt against everything. Same with wall street and globalization protest. Just an excuse to revolt against the whole system. Revolution is the only reason to go out and fuck shit up and shit shit down. Fuck reform or little improvements like stopping one war or bringing back the glass steagall act. I don't give a fuck about improving social conditions because nothing is improving anyway and it's just not enough to begin with.

The goal is to eventually topple the regime. Let lifestyle anarchism be a personal decision and not another time waster that dominates the agenda for a new anarchist movement. The only reason to come together at a time like this is rebellion. FUCK EVERYTHING ELSE! TIRED OF ALL THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT!

cntrl+f "lifestyle anarchism" not found

"shit shit down" Thank you for that beautiful phrase.

Even if we're successful in toppling the regime, then what happens? Are we ready as people for what comes after? For instance, what would you do with all your destructive energy if there was no longer any state or financial systems to attack?

This idea is not meant to replace disruptions and attacks, those absolutely have to continue and intensify and hopefully some new ideas on that front could come out of such an organization. But at the same time we also need to be working on our understanding of what it means to be an anarchist who is not at war. Hard as it is to believe, we may someday actually find ourselves in that position and have no idea how to handle it.

Regimes never cease to exist even after you topple them. The revolution is constant. It is a perpetual state of war necessary to maintain a stateless classless society. You can destroy fascism but you'll never rid the world of every fascist. So when the regime burns spontaneously for the most part while organized by us for the most part, no one will survive the minute they let their guard down because there will always be some dictator with a gun trying to take over. This is why everybody must be armed. When the rule of law breaks down or is no longer in function, wannabe tyrants will get the idea in their head that the world belongs to them and that only the strongest man survive. That is true only in a one on one situation where the man is much bigger than just one dude who's not very strong. But if anarchists had already collectivized long time ago it would make it much harder for them to be fucked with no matter what size you are. Bring a gun and you'll have many guns pointing at your face. You dig? We're not taking collapse, anarchy and revolution serious, if we're not already discussing real life scenarios and possibilities in the future.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to have something I makes me feel safe and protected. Something that I can depend on rather than just my own self when it all goes down. For me to shoot down this idea would be no better than for me to shoot myself in my own foot. I choose life over death. Better safe than sorry.


Can someone out there back me up, I sense that a judeo-christian conquest mentality has infected the minds of anarchists, just as Marx and Lenin in their theist interpretation of social revolution and the methodology of scientific evangelism went about proposing crusades against the satan of capitalism, marxism's binary partner, its companion in eschatological fervor?!
So who are the priests of this new activism and do they look in the mirror and see the knight in tarnished armor who espouses a david and goliath battle armed with a spray paint can and a rock?
Even the indigenous tribes retreat and seek isolation against the giant conquest of colonial exploitation and in their wisdom realize survival is the seeking of isolated strongholds and the formation of organic cyst -like siege structures able to maintain mobility and nomadic autonomy, content to just remain and maintain a stress-free pure anarchist lifestyle rather than the endless transitional draining of exposure to the capitalist behemoth!? We are not Moses, we are Stirner!

That is idiotic. First off, for nomads to maintain freedom is a historical aberration. Second, escape might work for YOU but it doesn't do shit for the 99.99% of the population that's ruled by capitalism. Abandoning them may be your choice, but it makes you a selfish asshole. Anyway, living constantly on the run is hardly what most people would call "freedom".

Damn you are a moron stuck inside the coccoon of capitalist dependency. Fuck the 99.99 % if they lack the reproductive and creative mechanism and will to let go of all the sedentary complexes which enslave them! Again, damn your sheepishness! I am abandoning a sinking ship!

I was talking about guns and possibly explosives. You're the one talking about rocks and spraypaint. LMAO!

Damn! Explosives are negative, infrastructure, if it is a sustainable asset, remains the possession of the workers who constructed it, not an ideologically irretrievable substance. Human life also is the possession of oneself, whatever the indoctrination, beneath the veneer lies you and me and our potential brothers and sisters. Guns are for hunting food, not for imposing fear and contemplating a hateful conquest of an ideological purge, because this just lapses into the same old binary rivalries that have plagued humanity since the semites at Ur. You may LMAO, I am less militant, unless you burst through my personal space, then you will cry!

But yes, you were against extreme gun and explosives and I was against spray paint and rocks, I took you out of context, yes, LMAO

But we can all agree to fire, right guys?

How about water balloons and silly string?

Guns and bombs will be second nature, nothing new and shocking to anybody in the aftermath of regime change or overthrow. Many would be numb to violence by the time it's all over because much violence will have already be seen before the end. I hope you don't misinterpret my words to include bombs and guns to overthrow the state. I was simply referring to using guns and bombs as a means to defend the future anarchist collective from right wing fascists trying to re-establish the old regime since people with in the far right have always been heavily armed and ready for war and are no strangers to black powder bombs and perhaps other explosives like tannerite exploding targets and flash powder etc etc. I don't suggest going on a crusade killing anyone who is not anarchist. Just those with intent on assassination of anyone not interested in a return to the good old Republic of the United States.

People on the right have already made us as the target for when this shit comes tumbling down. You know, the ones who blame welfare people for the recession and so on. Nazi's and other people who don't have our best interest at heart do exist. They are out there waiting and preping for all this shit to go down. And the only thing anarchists do is fight on the interest about how every anarchist proposal is wrong but their own. Meanwhile, far right fascists are getting their shit together stock pilling weapons and practicing at firing ranges and blowing shit up in the desert. WTF? This makes me feel like a sitting duck. SERIOUSLY! We are not being smart. We're not getting with the times. I will not align my self with the (right) for protection just because they are the only ones with arms. Even if there isn't a single anti-authoritarian group to join say in 2020 when the shit drops or when ever it falls. I'd rather fend for myself than turn into a nazi and that's really fucked up if I have to do that because a bunch of so called anarchists only exist to object to any proposal with actual brains and substance every fucking day on the internet. So anyone strongly disagreeing with an anarchist organization at a time like this to me is like denying my right to exist and survive the hellish future that awaits me. FUCK YOU! Quantitative easing won't last for very long and so for you to waste time and relax is like pointing a gun to my head. With no movement in place since Occupy assuming things stay quite for the next decade until the inevitable demise of this civ, where the fuck am I supposed to go for protection? Who the hell could I turn to now that occupy has eaten it self out of existence and say all hell is breaking loose? I don't want to collaborate with people in my neighborhood who more or less don't give a shit about freedom, equality or are not politically minded or activist oriented left leaning. If they are left leaning then that would be easier but most people just want money. There is a real demand for something organized now that things are really quite in the streets. Turning your back on this opportunity is making a very big mistake. It would be pure negligence. Why would anyone do that?

IGTT 11/10

All this union of egotists(sorry, egoists) stuff is absolutely ridiculous. Organizations and collective forms in communities, workplaces, and for struggle are utterly necessary. Unless that is we are resigned retaining maximum ideological purity in the face of catastrophic social disruption brought on by mass poverty and ecocide. Bully for organization... try, fail, try again, fail better. Good on those talking next steps for anticapitalist organizations, I'll join. Then I'll argue about tactics, strategy, ideology, etc. from a stance of involvement and capacity instead of armchair philosophizing about Stirnerite movements that are imaginary, in both reality and coherency. We need to think in decades, not months or moments.

Institutions try, fail, try again, fail more! Individual tries, succeeds, joins up with other individualists, tries , succeeds, someone gets , 3,000 tribal sheep and forms club, fail, reforms, fails again. It's about numbers, the ideal working system harkens back to hunter/gatherer clans of about 50, so imagine decentralized unions with familiar bonds. This is all very possible, the dismantling of mega urban ghettos and the freeing of geographical highways without fences or borders. This is 101 decolonization. I'm not a primmo, there can be small towns with artisans producing machines and developing innovations. Basically the first step is dismantling the military industrial complex, the wealth saved thereby and redirected, we would all be rolling in clover.

Individualists sure have had great success in 'dismantling the military industrial complex.' Institutions can outlive their usefulness, totally granted, but they dominate the political landscape and have to be confronted. We'll never defeat the state and capital by ceding the territory of social organization, cause we sure don't have a military and at the moment cannot foster mass non compliance, or deal with social needs arising from mass noncompliance, both situations that might benefit from or require as a prerequisite an organization of some form.

It's nothing but an effort to sabotage this proposal so anarchists remain non-organized and there for not a threat to the American way of life. Some of these nay sayers actually work for the government and think power never dies. I have news for you. "All empires fall!"

This thread is a living example of why, 'Complain about what others are doing' is running a healthy second in the poll. With your help and vote, we can forward a strategy of 'do nothing, bitch about everything' towards it's glorious future. Goddamn y'all.

Maybe: The modern human no longer has the capacity to adapt with evolutionary drift. We are a material anachronism in stasis.

Or: anarchy should not (could not) become a system of salvation; a proselytizing institution of resentimental prophecy.

We shouldn't trap ourselves in another industrial civ script.

Revolution is a joke, The only thing left to "fight" for is personal dignity and the ability to evolve back into life that is, as emile pointed out above, inefficient. Inefficiency is what we should really strive for, deescalating the delusional logic of the current slew of human systems.

Unfortunately "the Humanity of 2012", the lumbering beast that western civ has so effectively reduced the totality of our moments into, may be unable to return into this form, or even deflect or diffuse into new forms. As seen again and again, the anarchist movements of the world have consistently been the victims of cultural assimilation by stronger hierarchical systems and dynamics. Whether its selling out into a capitalist lifestyle, or fruitlessly and incessantly projecting the same platformism over and over again (and slowly become fascists) anarchists become part of this "efficient" world. Antagonism becomes the missing piece in the dichotomy that helps the spectacle thrive. It helps it develop its own evangelical relevance (and vice verse and vice versa...)

My question is this. Is it because this hyper efficient beast is the inevitable conclusion of human evolutionary drift? Or is it that the current system is so effective in maintaining its totality that no truly different forms of collective dynamics, not even the holy indigenous/aboriginal peoples, can survive it?

Emile, is there no holy spirit of anarchy?

You nailed it, perfect summary!

but my question wasn't rhetorical.

But you're aware that the automobile is the reification of the nomadic instinct, no? And how does one turn around the objectification of primordal desires? At least Stirner had a shot at it !
And what is rhetoric then? I'm a Lacanian, my dreams are my reality, nothing more.

how DOES one turn around the objectification of primordal desires? Is objectification and desire purely a capitalist construct?

Some more rhetorical Qs hmm?

Ughh what do you mean aargh?

Is this really the kind of thinking that we've been reduced to?

Some of us anyway, yes. I think the thing that gets me the most is that this individualist nihilist tendency is overwhelmingly in practice an exercise in philosophy, an exercise in misanthropy, and rejects egalitarianism as a principle for political organizing. Shit, it seems some of them reject organizing. Which is just defeatist as all hell, even if some critiques of organization are valid. I say let's ignore the commentary and move forward. Naysayers be damned! Let 'em complain on the internet.
"For me, I repeat, the dispute between individualists and organizers is a simple dispute over words, which does not hold up to careful examination of the facts. In the practical reality, what do we see? That the individualists are at times “organizers” for the reason that the latter too often limit themselves to preaching organization without practicing it. On the other hand, one can come across much more effective authoritarianism in those groups who noisily proclaim the “absolute freedom of the individual”, than in those that are commonly considered authoritarian because they have a bureau and take decisions.

In other words, everyone organizes themselves — organizers and anti-organizers. Only those who do little or nothing can live in isolation, contemplating. This is the truth; why not recognize it.

If proof be needed of what I say: in Italy all the comrades who are currently active in the struggle refer to my name, both the “individualists” and the “organizers”, and I believe that they are all right, as whatever their reciprocal differences may be, they all practice collective action nonetheless.

Enough of these verbal disputes; let us stick to action! Words divide and actions unite. It is time for all of us to work together in order to exert an effective influence on social events. "

Here, here! Thanks Malatesta.

Some of us anyway, yes. I think the thing that gets me the most is that this individualist nihilist tendency is overwhelmingly in practice an exercise in philosophy, an exercise in misanthropy, and rejects egalitarianism as a principle for political organizing. Shit, it seems some of them reject organizing. Which is just defeatist as all hell, even if some critiques of organization are valid. I say let's ignore the commentary and move forward. Naysayers be damned! Let 'em complain on the internet.
"For me, I repeat, the dispute between individualists and organizers is a simple dispute over words, which does not hold up to careful examination of the facts. In the practical reality, what do we see? That the individualists are at times “organizers” for the reason that the latter too often limit themselves to preaching organization without practicing it. On the other hand, one can come across much more effective authoritarianism in those groups who noisily proclaim the “absolute freedom of the individual”, than in those that are commonly considered authoritarian because they have a bureau and take decisions.

In other words, everyone organizes themselves — organizers and anti-organizers. Only those who do little or nothing can live in isolation, contemplating. This is the truth; why not recognize it.

If proof be needed of what I say: in Italy all the comrades who are currently active in the struggle refer to my name, both the “individualists” and the “organizers”, and I believe that they are all right, as whatever their reciprocal differences may be, they all practice collective action nonetheless.

Enough of these verbal disputes; let us stick to action! Words divide and actions unite. It is time for all of us to work together in order to exert an effective influence on social events. "

Here, here! Thanks Malatesta.

Toward the second...it's a belief system. All belief systems need adherents.

Nature is the final dictator? McDonald's was inevitable? I'm not convinced that complex systems have anything to do with evolution. They all carry a time limit. Eventually they break down.

It should be a federation of local and regional federations- Pacific Northwest, NorCal, SoCal, South-West, Rockies, South-Central (Texas/Arkansas area, possibly New Orleans), Central (St. Louis-Witchita?), North-Central (Minneapolis-Chicago?) South-East, North-East, and split up Mexico into similarly socio-bioregionally. That's where day-to-day organization and action should happen, and, let's face it, it's how things work today. When necessary, they can send delegates, and ONLY delegates (and DELEGATES, not representatives), to a continental meeting. Instead of EVERYBODY going to a big party, we just send like a dozen experienced, respected, and professional facilitators and negotiators with specific instructions AND SHIT ACTUALLY GETS DONE! Not that we could scrape together a dozen such people among anarchists today.

strike that "into"

I would much prefer a big party, thanks.

Fine. Just don't expect to accomplish anything.

"professional facilitators and negotiators"

yeah you definitely lost me at that

"professional" in the sense of demeanor and reliability, not occupation

If revolution is a joke to you, why are you an anarchist? Why are you even here if that's not what you want? Shouldn't you commenting on Huffington Post or something? This is not the place for reformists. I think your confused about what you are and don't really have a clear goal. And whats up with some of these comments.

excuse me? If you don't like Amurrka, you can just geeet out?

Good proposal. I like it. A nonideological meetup is def needed. Most of these comments are seriously wingnut as fuck.

i tend to dislike both violentist nihilist insurrectionism and primitivism as well as quasi-leninist platformists. i think the best way is a revival of synthesis anarchism without adjectives in the form of a network. i think those are the main tendencies. while the first ones are "anti-organization" the second ones want an authoritarian type of organization. there definitely has to be a third way for us more pluralistic eclectic types of anarchists.

"violentist"? Does disliking insurrectionism usually include sounding like an idiot while discussing it?

(hint: yes)

"insurrectionism"? Does disliking fucking shit up usually include sounding like an idiot while discussing it?

(hint: ATTACK!)

Insurrectionism <---- arguably a word, definitely fair to mock but still a word

violentist <--- definitely not a fucking word

(hint: choke on my shit)

you see, because of your violentist ways you forgot delving in the adventures of language

Damn thugist!

I am an anarchist, however.........The capitalist system has not provided me with the capital i need for travel expences, or the savings I would need to take time off from my wage-labor-slave "job" in order to travel to a centrally located anarchist convention in the united states of stolen property. I can only guess that those who would show up to a "national" convention of anarchists would be the sons and daughters of the rich and the retarted----those who know nothing about history and civilization, and just want something to rebell against................and have the money to do so.

I agree, Mitt Romney, that anarchists nation-wide would be disillusioned and dis enfranchised by a "national" anarchist movement. Just think about a "national" anything and I hope you will realize the stupidity and oxy-moronic notion that anarchism or anarchists could be solidified into a nationalist movement...,...,,GENIOUS!!!!

I think that amalgamating nationalist and liberal ideology could result in an ultimately pan-ultimate, beneficial situation for society and civilization at large-----------------the trains will run on time..........................regardless of their death camp destinations.

I don't care if the ultimate statement of humanity is a death camp or wall street. The trains entering new york from new jersy will run on time. We must provide the over-priveledged commuters who own overvalued land and property in the New Jersey suburbs with tax-funded public transportation so that they may rape the resources of the world through thier corporate management.

Yo, check out my tags on the NJ metro!!!!......fuq yeah!!!!.......capitalism--3rd generation.....straight outta Bergen....

what does this even mean? how is this useful? who needs this?

If you don't want tp be a part of a nationwide anarchist organization, don't do it. But don't tell others what to do. Let them decide for them selves. I personally like the idea better than black bloc and other random calls to action that get us arrested all the time. I'm not against organization. With out organization I wouldn't be able to keep inventory on food in the house. With out organization, I'd be searching everywhere but my tool box for my tools because tools would be scattered everywhere. That's not anarchy. That's called being retarded and I am not retarded. Not a genius either but smart enough to know that if you don't have your shit together no matter what try to accomplish, you will always fail in the end.

this definitely sounds like more tools scattered everywhere

Anarchists have always been scatter brains and don't have a problem being such for the most part. At least some people try even when getting shot down left and right by fellow comrades. Some comrades they are.

WTF amnarchistys aint fuckion svcatter braiuns yo fuickinb lerftist piecve oif shjit wre doinyt fuickin shopot down are fucklin coimrafds you basdtard!11!.,.,8ball

You need to get your shit together anarchist.

I don't live in the States. If I joined (or was able to) an 'Anarchist organisation', I would not honestly be able to enter the US, as you have to explicitly state that you are not and have never been a member of a Communist or Anarchist organisation. (Maybe Fascist too, not sure.)

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Subscribe to Comments for "A possible new nationwide organization of anarchists"