Anews podcast - episode 28

  • Posted on: 11 September 2017
  • By: thecollective

Welcome to the anews podcast. This is episode 28 for September 8. This podcast covers anarchist activity, ideas, and conversations from the previous week.
Editorial: Definitions of Fascism
TOTW - Scarcity of Labor
A101 question: What role do games play in anarchy?
this podcast

This podcast is the effort of many people. This week this podcast was
* sound edited by Linn O'Mable
* editorial read by chisel
* written by jackie
* narrated by chisel and a friend
* Thanks to Aragorn! and Ariel for their help with the topic of the week
* Contact us at
To learn more

Introduction to anarchism:
Books and other anarchist material:
News and up to the minute commentary:



Use one! Also, link is broken. Lots to say about fascism but I'll hold my tongue for now.

I had forgotten that leaflet story. I laughed while drinking my coffee and almost drown! Lol!

On a different note, I wonder about the difficulty many of us have recognizing our spheres of competence and incompetence. That is a journey, it seems, many do not go on and with good reason, I guess, in the world as it is.

There is more to be said about responsibility and consequences and accepting both those, and also being able to hear criticism (and praise) with a modicum of equanimity.

One more bit: the anti-work rhetoric can be interpreted as "I can be a fuck up at my job because work sucks", and sure, to an extent. But when one moves into doing projects in anarchy land that attitude just doesn't get the actual project accomplished.

work is a product-goal oriented attitude, subjugating personal autonomy to a supposed "sphere" or Absolute Reality as in "the world as it is". in contrast; a playful approach to the journey cultivates anarchy in whatever-land thus, immediately accomplishing "the actual project".

Hey, look at all you can accomplish with asinine hippy metaphysics! (nothing) So much so that it's a bit suspicious how strongly some posters push this line.

i guess you'd have me work instead? huh.
where is anarchy-land, again?

I wouldn't have you do anything ... You seem like a hopeless case to me.

hope is a crutch for the morally enslaved Proletarian

Apparently we have thecollective member who's really big on feelings today..? Settle down mod. Sheesh

Is the here to there anarchist of means and ends. What Juego is saying sounds like anarchy to me just a matter of finding the right relations and attractions in life.

Yeah exactly ziggy, water to fish.

and talking about wage slavery. lol

Yeah, almost as if capitalism is a more relevant topic to anarchism!

Yes juego the psychology of the "Now" is 50% of the actual work, the journey and not the destination, which carries with it eschatological yokes and blinkers.

I used to be into DGR before the TERF war and the LBC ITS controversy is reminiscent of that. I think ITS is bad for anarchism and they should be dropped like a hot potato.

who in LBC argues ITS is good for anarchism in and of it self? Because it seems to me that the actual statements about ITS from those involved in LBC seem to say that they don't see ITS as something anyone in the NA anarchist spaces to emulate and have been over all critical of ITS' statements and actions. But they think that they can be used as a catalyst for discussions on violence and other topics concerning what ITS represents. I remember when DGR came about and at the time anarchists did participate in a discourse regarding the various qualities of DGR as well as giving newer anarchists a new and relevant example of the pitfalls of that kind of though and organizing. Same can be said of ITS.

Different commenter: can't argue that logic but I also can't help noticing how there's a bit of convenient historical revisionism going on regarding people's intentions with this stuff. Oh well ...

well people are allowed to change their minds on ITS, there were people (including myself) who were more sympathetic to them back when they were more anarchistic (though I always critique their tactics) and now are not sympathetic to them. People seem to forget the fact that ITS has changed over the years and what they were in earlier in their existence is not what they are now. So as changes the became more pronounced people gradually became less sympathetic. Just because people supported them years ago doesn't mean they continue to.

I was intrigued by ITS when I first started reading their communiques but if it's just going to be deep green serial killers then I don't want anything to do with it.

That's fair. Don't mistake me for the witchhunters. I just started getting creeped out by ITS communiques quite a while back and now I'm a bit smug. The moment that the delusion of acting on behalf of "nature" was mentioned is the watershed moment. How far back was that? Can't be bothered to check.

Sure, that makes sense. Though I would say that revolutionary and other radical discourses tend to express similar sentiments, just replace "nature" with "the working class" or "animals" or whatever and you get a similar delusional thinking, so its not unique to them. Not sure, I'm no expert on their communiques as I haven't read them in awhile.

Ha! Well I actually AM working class and have been extremely poor and/or homeless. Also, I would argue those are demographics, not delusions.

But I see your point. Lapsing in to delusion is an ongoing risk, ego trips can sneak up on you.

It doesn't really matter if one is working class or not, but saying that you act on behalf of the working class or of the will of the working class is just as delusional as them saying the same thing about nature. I mean Humans are a part of nature so how is it different than you being a part of the working class?

Because you can actually talk to or exist as that identity?

How do you talk to an abstract identity? or exist as anything other than yourself? clearly society places you in a number of positions in this world, but none of those positions have universal values or actually reflect who you are, you can find and talk to someone who is in the same economic position you are in and find that they act differently and think different things than you do. You talk to people not abstract identities.

What is it about this website and people thinking they're saying something profound when they're just stating painfully obvious facts? I GET identity ok? I don't require a basic definition of it ffs. Economic class is a relatively grounded, albeit abstract concept. It's a significant source of very real power struggles in our daily lives because capitalism isn't exactly optional. Compare this to anyone who thinks they have magic hippy powers that allow them to relate to animals or "nature" in the same way and the difference should be obvious.

That said, I have reverence and great respect for the natural world outside our little human-made ones but the relationship is pretty damned different than talking to my coworkers about wage slavery?!

instead of relating *to* animals or "Nature" or your *economic class*(blaring oxymoron, btw)
how about striving to *nurturing* relations *within* a respectively holistic, animate ecosystem?
peace-be w'you,Man, and kindness

Fuck off hippy ;)

How exactly is it different? How is it impossible to talk about the way that we relate to the natural world in a similar manor as talking about what economic position we are in? I mean just by existing in this world we are engaged in a relationship with it, so we can talk about what the form of that relationship is taking at any point in time. Talking about how humans clear cut forests, pollute the water and air, destroy the earth by mining, build ever expanding cities, torture and enslave animals, etc is just as grounded and concrete a conversation as talking about the real life implications of being poor. Also I would say engaging in that particular relation with the natural world is also not optional, you can't just choose not to affect the natural world in this way as we are born in to that relation (an ever expanding capitalism and a general civilized mindset), and even if certain people like vegans think that they are choosing not to relate to animals that way by not using animal products, they are wrong as not only is there animal products in basically everything, but the entire daily life that they live every day effects animals in that very way that vegans believe they aren't acting in. So in either case there isn't an option other than maybe destroying the way of life that is reproducing that relation. however all this is a different point than what I was talking about to begin with, you mentioned that its delusional to believe that you are acting in accordance of the will of nature and I agreed, but I also said that its delusional to believe that you act in accordance to the will of any abstraction. Or hell, now that i think about it, what makes it less delusional to act in accordance of the will of a concrete entity, whether it be a particular Human, a particular non-human animal, or a fucking object? We shouldn't be representing or claiming to represent anything other than ourselves.

The mods think I'm being too mean to you but your phrasing has become quite pedantic. You're also "Gish galloping" which is irritating as well. I don't require you to explain these concepts to me. It's arrogant and silly to think you've somehow negated the concept of class so please, don't kid yourself.

well this is the point in the conversation where instead of responding to the particular points I made, you just accuse me of things. as for me "arrogantly negating the concept of class", I didn't really do that, I just argued it was just as abstract an identity as any other abstract identity, also in response to your point that our relation to class is more concrete and grounded than our relation to "Nature" I gave specific examples that grounded those relations as much as you could ground class relations. Now I am critical of the concept of class as well as any of the other abstract concepts and identities you can name, but that wasn't that actual thing we were talking about, this whole argument happened because I said that you could replace "Nature" with "The Working Class" or "Animals" and ITS' statement that they are acting in accordance with an abstract Identity's will would be just as delusional and you took issue with that.

and as far as you accusation that i was "Gish galloping", I wasn't doing that either, look maybe I'm not the best writer and maybe i tend be a bit wordy and ramble a bit, but I wasn't flooding the conversation with a massive amount of weak points to overwhelm you. I mean I didn't even bring up that many points anyway and I was also giving examples of the points i was making (such as the list of things humans are doing to the natural world and the vegan example). Maybe next time I'll title my post top 1000 reasons why abstract identities flatten real life experiences just to get under your skin.

" bit wordy and ramble a bit, "
My scrolling finger has worn down to the first knuckle.

Sigh ... Thecollective deleted my response because I got frustrated with you. I'm not ignoring your points, you're over-explaining and strawmanning me and it's disrespectful. You're assuming I don't understand you and lecturing as a pedant but the simple truth is that economics as a social relation is a lot more "real" than claiming to speak on behalf of animals or nature because it's a category comprised of actual people like me.

It's obviously not my only identity, nor am I trapped within it BUT because it's imposed on most of us by coercion, it's more than just an abstract identity.

Here's a thought experiment: would you say to a prisoner that their identity as a prisoner isn't "real"? Would you lecture them about identity?

They would obviously become frustrated with you if you did. It's not a direct comparison but I'm illustrating a point.

"...but the simple truth is that economics as a social relation is a lot more "real" than claiming to speak on behalf of animals or nature because it's a category comprised of actual people like me."

^Found the marxist, you guys.


Yeah ... It's Marxism. It's also many thousands of years older than Karl, he's just got his name attached to it these days. Rich people have been forcing everyone else to do things since the invention of agriculture.

Where did I say that economic relations aren't forced on people by Capitalism? IN FACT I said as much a couple times during our "conversation". Same can be said of being a prisoner, that's clearly a condition forced upon people by the state. but its delusional to claim that you act on behalf of prisoners or the working class in a general or abstract sense just because you can directly communicate with specific people who are experiencing those conditions. You are only ever going to know what the individual people themselves desire not an entire relation as you can't communicate with an abstract concept and as such you can't make any claims like ITS does without it being delusional. That's all I have been arguing.

Your initial statement was that they argued that they claimed that they were acting on behalf of Nature not speaking to it or even claiming to, so that's what I was responding to all this time, so now you have decided to change it. So which is it? because those are different claims. you can claim to act on something's behalf based on what you might perceive it wants or desires rather than what it actually wants or without actually communicating with it. claiming actual communication with a tree or a rabbit or more generally abstract nature, is very different claim. both delusional, but different.

You think I'm disrespecting you by explaining things to you that you claim to already know. Well, let me ask you this, how am I supposed to know what you know? I mean I don't know you and not everyone who comes here and comments is on the same page, and because you are an anonymous commentator i have no history of comments to associate with you.

Yes, the problem with your essay style is that you make one leap of logic and then another and another without the other person being able to respond. This prevents clarity of the terms of discussion.

My original point was that when ITS claims to speak for nature, it's total bullshit and abstraction.

But when I, as a working class person, talk about my experiences but applied on a broader scale, it's not necessarily bullshit abstraction although there's always a risk of that tbh.

Identity can be used or misused.

first off this is your initial statement "The moment that the delusion of acting on behalf of "nature" was mentioned is the watershed moment.". In this sentence that I Just quoted you stated that they claimed to be acting on BEHALF of nature not SPEAKING to nature. so you have just decided to change what you said for no reason and completely ignore that they are different claims.

since when are people not allowed to talk about the implications of your statements and your disagreements before you have the ability to respond to them when have a discussion on the internet that's kind of the point. I mean we aren't having a face to face conversation so you don't know what I'm gong to say until i post the whole thing. none of what I brought up is leap of logic, I'm engaging with our disagreement. which is something you aren't doing, like I said our entire argument happened because I said that in general claiming to represent an abstract entity by your actions is delusional and it doesn't matter if its Nature (like ITS claims) or The Working Class (like Marxists claim) or "Animals" (like vegan radicals claim), which you apparently disagreed with and started to babble about how concept of the working class is more concrete than that of nature or animals because you can directly communicate with it (which you said here "Because you can actually talk to or exist as that identity") , which I took you be saying that you thought it makes sense to claim that you act on behalf of the working class when you do an action like ITS does when they do what they do but for nature, but one is delusional and one is not.

Also how can you generalize your specific experiences as the experiences of the working class and that not be bullshit abstraction?

Ok, ill try one more time: my point all along was that you can't make a direct comparison here because of intersectionality. ITS's use of identity is total bullshit, mine isn't, although you're right to always be wary of any use of identity, that doesn't negate identity entirely. We agree about ITS but then you're extrapolating and I was trying to respectfully disagree... At first.

Something like Marxist analysis is useful for poor and working class people to understand power and relate to each other. It has at least some validity.

Rationalizing psychopathic behaviour by saying "nature wants me to do this" is dangerous and stupid OR possibly a cynical misuse of identity. No validity.

You're abusing the act of pointing out a Gish Gallop (GG) fallacy. Or, at the very least, you're definitely doing it out of it's proper context.

GG only makes sense in the context of a live debate. The way you keep crying "GG!!" is beginning to make me believe you don't really know what it is. It's about overwhelming your opponent with a belt-fed machine-gun flurry of bullshit points in an effort to make it impossible for your opponent to rebuke the argument as a whole. This is because it's basically unreasonable to expect anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every single fucking point present in the Gallop.

However, this is a comment's forum. This means that you can look at the points a person is making one moment. Leave the computer, go for a walk, a swim, come back, cook a meal, and, having spent some time thinking about it, come back to the computer with a well-crafted proper rejoinder.

Itsrainingcats is making a solid argument using concise points that shouldn't be hard to understand at all. The problem is that you have no way to defeat their logic, so instead you pull up and misuse rhetorical concepts from your 7th grade highschool debate class and scream "GG!!!" when it doesn't make any fucking sense for you to be doing so.

You /say/ you understand these concepts, but your argument overall seems to indicate otherwise...

Just admit it, Itsrainingcats is crushing your shit.

Well either it's a Gish gallop (bad faith) or this is someone who always debates in essay form which is a terrible way to have a meaningful discussion (bad at debate).

IMO my shit can't be crushed because I've spent most of my time here being like "nope, that's not what I'm saying." Another text wall. "Neither is that." "No again." "Can you slow down a bit?" And finally "fuck this ..,"

I can't see any problem in any publisher, anarchist or otherwise, in publishing virtually whatever they want. Before someone uses the old trope of "Even Fascist material?", I say yes, absolutely. The reason being that some of us rely on fascist publications to do our antifascist work. I would much rather but that sort of content from an Anarchist distributor than trying to buy something from a far-right one with all of the extra security problems it poses.

Typo in fourth sentence: "I would much rather but that sort of content..."
Should read: "I would much rather *buy* that sort of content..."

The issue is platforming, which isn't really a binary issue until very late in the game. More like a slippery slope in this case.

Publishing something that came from former anarchists that you find mildly interesting and worthy of critique is nothing at all like attacking and insulting trans people. This ITS stuff is a manufactured controversy from people who havent been paying much attention to the discussion around ITS occuring within LBC and related circles.

Judging by the podcast conversation the proverbial bookburner was primed by others . It is no secret that a few people have been trying to "get at" Aragorn! for months. The situation is highly evident ion Gillis Horizontal Hostility, Fogey Zerzan's Anarchy Radio, plus Scott Crow..
What I want to know is why they believe they have the right to behave like the FBI of anarchism?

I think you are talking about Scott Campbell, not Crow

Also worth mentioning that I (some random jerk from another country) got accused of being Gillis and Campbell just because I mentioned the platforming concern here. People got pretty worked up. I never once mentioned censorship either, it's pretty damned dramatic to escalate any of this to book burning (or ripping) haha

what's with all the SQL server issues lately? is anews getting DDoSd by book fair authoritarians?

You can't rip a website in half, (not that they could rip a book in half lol) so why not ddos it.

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.
Enter the code without spaces.