TOTW: To Affinity or not to Affinity?

smashy smashy!

Sever’s "Land and Freedom: An Old Challenge” from Black Seed asks some big questions for anti-civ anarchists that I think deserve special attention as a TOTW.

Going beyond a simple urban/rural divide of civilization/not-civilization, the author speaks to how civilization’s problems aren’t specific to cities alone; its logic can follow you into the woods—reproduced by the people who brought it there—if left unchecked. Considering this, anarchists merely escaping the urban sprawl isn’t enough.

“Will anti-civilization anarchism be a minoritarian sect of those anarchists who go to the woods to live deliberately, because they don’t like the alternative of organizing a union at the local burger joint, or will it be a challenge to the elements of the anarchist tradition that reproduce colonialism, patriarchy, and Enlightenment thinking, a challenge that is relative to all anarchists no matter where they pick their battles?”

As an example of an anarchist tradition we could leave behind, the author suggests “affinity” has had its day. They pull no punches with this polemic and the writing is worth quoting at length:

“It’s time to forget about affinity. Those who currently call themselves anarchists tend to be the warriors and messengers of communities that do not yet exist. Some others are the poets and artists who feed off of the warriors for a while before they go off on their own. We have seen what artists become, surrounded by other artists, and we have seen what warriors do, surrounded by other warriors, and the anarchist struggle has long suffered the consequences. The concept of affinity has done enough damage. It is a thoroughly rationalist notion, based on the idea of sameness as prerequisites for equality, and equality as something desirable.”

This speaks in obvious contrast to the desire for affinity, described as “a reciprocal knowledge between comrades, shared analysis that lead to perspectives of action” in this subMedia video on the topic.


What are you thoughts on affinity? Do anarchists benefit from having aspirational relationships rooted in sameness, or does the concept do more damage than it’s worth?

There are 43 Comments

Affinity good.
Relationships rooted in sameness sometimes good, sometimes not so good.
Sometimes benefits. Sometimes no benefits.
Write new ideas. It’s 2023.
YaAaaaaaay!

"Affinity" is an appeal for herd morality, for sheepish obedience, because EVERY affinity group has a hierarchy and a leader!

Nope. That has literally NOTHING to do with what affinity is or means in ANY context, brow.

I never believed in affinity groups and to me these are rooted a toxic pattern of identification. Do you agree with me on this? If you say yes them let's connect on Facebook! Yeeeeaaaaa.

I've always believed in affinity groups and to me these are rooted in ad hoc, anarchic expressions of being. Do you agree with me on this? If you say yes then let's put it into action! Yeeeeaaaaa.

my understanding of affinity - this was the progression of a critique of the old left, that once we threw most of the stale old ideas in the trash, we're still left with a question about group identity of some kind, should one desire to build anything like that.

What is the bonding agent or social glue of any group that comes together for any reason?

Its weakness is of course that it's so vague as to be disorienting, easily losing its way in the trees. There's always another would-be charismatic leader, waiting for their shot.

Its strength, only the participants and their shared values and desires, therefore, only themselves to blame when problems arise. Only themselves to betray and disappoint. As little cult dynamics as possible, unless they just built another cult without noticing, which would be quite embarrassing after so many other cults and so much writing available about all the cults lol

Affinity is the only theoretical means by which a number of fierce anti-authoritarians could possibly form a group. There's no alternative that i'm aware of, that isn't just the dogma of another cult. Please, feel free to try and prove me wrong!

What theory would you even use that isn't just another form of affinity?

I find this very interesting. From theory I wasn't worried at all about the dynamics of affinity groups. Tho thinking about it I never have been in an affinity group cuz I didn't have a reason. When I do anarchy with people they are just my friends who I do stuff with.

Which proves a really interesting question why is the affinity group a thing, if it's not just friends there is some other dynamic going on.

But this leads to another interestjng point. If friends are important communicating is really important. If the communication and being able to have good friendships is what makes the relationship equitable isn't being able to communicate well essential to anarchy?

Which I think a big issue with life is that life is complicated and filled with oppressive dynamics. So whenever u do stuff it will have some oppressive stuff bc we all live in a society.

Idk, I don't have a good response to your prompt. But I was replying with some of my ideas bc maybe though conversation I can nail down a better solution together.

Theoretically, affinity groups resemble clubs and operate WITHIN and in COMPLIANCE WITH the existing status quo inwhich they function and organized by charisma, not by merit.

Yeah it's honestly really dussapointed. Most times I interact o hear of major anarchist groupings I don't like the dynamics. Something Abt organizing causing bad dynamics to happen. Which sucks, and I don't have a good answer to avoid it. So until then I mostly just make friends and do some with my friends and leave all the anarchist theoretical ways of organizing until I can figure out something better. Cuz the friend model has some pretty big limits

I find that in organised collective affinities, the strong individualistic and often most humorous folk are excluded by the majority of weaker and meakest members and eventually leave.

maybe so, in your experience or in practice? but why is that a critique of affinity itself and not just those particular groups of people you're talking about?

I once formed an affinity group amongst homeless hobos and they all ended up getting drunk and catching the first cargo train heading out of town :(

is there any instance in which relations formed with a shared goal of sameness/a common value set lead to anything other than a coercive in-or-out mentality to protect the group ideal (what is being shared) at the expense of the persons (and their differences) that form the relation itself?

wouldn't relationality formed with a mutual appreciation that each person is more interesting and enriching because, not in spite, of their differences be defined as anarchist far more than the default mode encouraged by all ideologies of social control: traditionalist, liberal, fascist, communist, or otherwise?

response to

Q 1. Yes. There's literally countless instances of that throughout human history unless you're working backwards from the conclusion that it's impossible. If you're being dogmatic, you'll just move the goal posts around. I'm not saying you are, i'm just saying IF you are.

Q 2. ...Sure? Also, isn't that just all relationships that aren't shitty? Or have toxic power dynamics or whatever you'd prefer to call it?

response 1: examples?
response 2: but what makes the relationship shitty in the first place, or where do the toxic power dynamics come from, or what is it about the relationship that allows them to form?

1. i'm not the one claiming that everything, every group, ever, did was [blank]. You are. Therefore, I will not chase your moving goalposts, you're the one making the large claim. Arguably the largest claim possible lol

You provide evidence for your galactic sized claim, I don't have to disprove it just because you spent 5 seconds typing it.

2. come on now, we're supposed to be anarchists here. you don't have a theory for where toxic power dynamics come from? I have several but you'll get a lazy answer because your own post is lazy.

hmmm, how bout - some humans tend to lust for power, they will instinctively grab it and misuse it. the only thing checking it is everyone else's desire that nobody have too much power ... or lackthereof

Different anon here.

"some humans tend to lust for power, they will instinctively grab it and misuse it. the only thing checking it is everyone else's desire that nobody have too much power ... or lackthereof"

Is this not the bad apple logic of justifying the law and police by the state? That the law protects society from those greedy individuals who take it upon themselves to break the rules that keep everyone rightfully participating in a system of checks and balances, always improving if it weren't for the greedy ones. Are you implying that the problem isn't with a system of law keeping power in check, but instead with problem individuals keeping it from succeeding?

My desire is only to bombombombombomb the crap out of any asshole who's in charge and who wants more power for himself, as human targets is all what they're good for.

Boooooomb.. bombombombombomb!

"is this not [etc]"? No. Just no. Not even remotely close. How did you reason so badly? Show your work.

I didn't say anything about laws or police or bad apples or any of that. Do better.

Oh. I thought it was possible to use different words to express similar ideas. Whoops!

"the only thing checking it is everyone else's desire that nobody have too much power ... or lackthereof"
OooOooh nOooo, lumpy just promoted a democratically elected system of human rights legislation to prevent greed and laziness.

Yup, or more succinctly, > everyone else's desire = democracy <

your desperation for a "gotcha" moment is quite cute, if a bit sad

the problem with most (not all) anti-civ anarchists is that they project their own modern views on the primitive's people lifestyles, which are not at all compatible with anarchist universalist ethics.

to make it simple: does your anti-civ affinity includes would include, as an example, the patriarcal yanomani tribe that are face extinction by the same civilization that preaches human (woman rights) rights ? At some point you need to set priorities...

T.K. was pretty clear about these contradictions he saw in the anti-civ anarchists...

Yeah the whole masturbating over anthropology is a trans I am glad people are getting away from a bit. The whole I'm just rlly rlly rlly conservative is something I'm not s big fan of. I think it's far more reasonable to view people of the past of equals who did fucked up shit and did really cool shit to learn from.

So I try to think in this weird blend of cultures tryin get the best of both. Or maybe I've just invented cultural appropriation lol

Where didja get your stats from? I wouldn't consider a bunch of anarcho-hipster urbanites going to tell primitives about their DISGUSTING hunting and meat-eating practice to be "anticiv". There's gotta be a deeper discussion about how we define as anticiv or what it pertains to, as it ain't just some summer fashion for oogles.

On my part, the moment people are starting to moralize people living according to lesser-civilized means, who are living in adaptation with nature and are not relying on mass society's industry not just for survival but for a life, then the former are just being enforcers of civilization.

That's got nothing to do with some white people criticizing some native people on their adherence to private property or eating junk food. But I sure see an issue with some "anticiv" people vehemently opposed to hunting... where in fact a lot of brutal murders of wild animals are caused by cars, that are first and foremost the current civilization's battle tanks.

Anti civ is different than Anarcho primitivism when u interact with past cultural practices to learn from. Anarcho primitivism is some idea that the past was perfect and should be replicated. I don't know any anti civ people who attack indigenous subsistence hunters. I do know lots of anti civ critique on how hunting rears up and enables lots of negative interactions with the environment.

And like why can't people be critical of hunting and cars? I don't know any pro car anti civ people. The only people who get criticized for hunting are anti civ America's who go hunting bc indigenous people did it and don't like people mentioning the harm it causes in the modern day in correct circumstances.

All cultures, ALL "societies" are constructed hierarchical (invisible) contracts which diminish the individual creativity and impose a discreet authority upon its members. Every anarcho-nihilist knows this!

I will add though that if a few people agree on an action like going out to collect firewood, well, ok, it's a shared desire, an affinity to keep warm and cook food, all good tangible actions. But a group who have a shared ideological quest or desire to make people think the same is not tangible, it's bad and not my kind of affinity.

Anticiv is a deeper, "all-encompassing" analysis of the problem of society, where anarcho-primivism has to do with going back to a more primordial social arrangement. And no that doesn't have to be rooted in an idealization of primitive life like JZ and a few others have been doing. Quality of life is nonetheless much better in primitive societies, even if the usual ills such as cultism, violence, and a level of BS may stil be present... yet not induced by hierarchies that are beyond your grasp.

I never said cars aren't worthy of criticism; on the contrary, they aren't enough criticized, including by those "anticiv hipsters" engaged in nitpicking about hunting while avoiding the industrial Leviathan in the room that cars partly represent.

Cya not at the bookfair, while I got my hands busy with Anticiv duties on a daily basis, bye.

'"anticiv hipsters" engaged in nitpicking about hunting"

I'm sOoooo glad you fount the REAL problem, Fauvenoir! These people are the WORST and much worser than the fascists and police and capitalists. I'd go into more details but I have an Rainbow orgy to attend, bye!

catch me up at the Shanti Sena

Hipsters are pretty much capitalists and pro-Soft Power tho. Some are also hardcore fash like some Vice founders or the White dudes running the social media platform you so much rely upon for a living. Affinity!

Hey brah, I agree however, regardless of the use of industry, the real problem is overpopulation. 1 billion people living with a tv, car and airconditioning is sustainable, but not 8 billion. It's a quantitive argument, not a qualitative one.

"the real problem is overpopulation"

Okay Dr Henri Kissinger. The real problem is UUUUU!

Also again, what is your benchmark for your interpretation of " quality of life ". The life within primitive societies can be measured in the same way any society/culture could be judged by. Oh yeah, definitely a lower stress level, less anxiety, the presence of the encompassing social empathy where homelessness, loneliness, suicide, mass homocide, infanticide, rape all still exist, but which coped with and punished in a more compassionate manner. The birth of the Utopian ideal has made the idea of individual retribution a crime, and this has severely weakened one of the most powerful deterrences to barbarity, the power of the individualist to take the law into their own hands.
In the end, it really just comes down to quality of thought and emotional balance calibrated to the individual's capacity to remain jolly and positive even in the direst situations.
I have lived amongst primitive peoples, and the only real difference is the quality of comforts and luxuries, the human element is otherwise identical ;)

"Also again, what is your benchmark for your interpretation of "quality of life"? "

I mostly have a negative benchmark, for LOW, precarious quality of life, such as having to do wage slavery for a place where to stay coz of some completely made-up property scheme, for health care (in the shittier capitalist regimes) and dental care, for electricity bills, for transportation or for swimming in a "public" pool. As you'll see, like the examples in your comment, that a lot of the ills arise from deprivation.

So my benchmark for quality of life is akin to a cat's posh H/G life. Living within conditions of non-deprived access to the goods that make up your life, which would mean a few hours of labor a day (at most) with DIY schedules. Of course there's never a guarantee to have a meal when you want it, but at least that's due to the harshness of life (or "nature"), not of society. Rest of the day is for laying low, or playing Shadowrun coz it'd be now confirmed as a dystopia where we ain't going.

But within this society... we'd need to have a kind of Thieves' Guild in order to have it our ways like billionaires on zero bucks. Proposal for an international anarchist secret society, as a kind of "antimasonry", is still on the table btw.

Eventually a money-less "voluntaryist economy" still has good prospects and looks like something many people would see as a worthy replacement to 9 to 5. We might have a few more centuries to go 'till we got such Star Trek bland utopia, so I couldn't care too much about it. But in the meantime of course there's dumpster poutines!

People of course remain what they are... which is not always great and a kind of messy.

i don't really like being friends with social justice anarchists or leftists/liberals/rightists/etc and i don't care if that makes me weak or a bad anarchist or whatever. fuck duty saying you have to stay in the city to decolonialize everyones brains i don't care about them. and like i don't think its possible to deprogram my brain or erase language from my mind i'm too far gone for that so yeah of course the logic of civilization will follow me into the woods but i'd still like to go there sorry i don't want to hear loud ass machines all day and interact with atomatons all the time.

i don't think anyone is actually telling you not to go in the woods? go! the woods are great. i'm jealous

Oh white a few leftists don't like drop outs. It's considered using ur privilege to drop out of society to live a peaceful life while more marginalized suffer. Their cirirwue I's basically the resources to go live in the woods should be used to help others and make ur an area easier to live for all.

Which I agree and disagree with.

This is actually quite interesting. The anews anons are pretty predictable in that they will just disagree with all prompts. But I got chills from this one. The anons actually seem to almost exclusively agree. Which I think might be a sign of the end times /j

Tho the prompt seem just 90% correct. Which brings up and encourages one to have a very interesting frame of reference. If all groupings often drag in cultural hierarchical bullshit how do u deal with that. And I have no great solutions. Bc getting over the fact that we live in a society is rlly hard.

So the anons seem to be in agreement with the prompt I'm curious how the anons have this knowledge effect their life. How do u engage with others knowing it has a good chance of drudging of hierarchy of civilization?

I predict the answer will be "lone wolf sigma grindset" but I'm curious cuz the anons seem to be in a less troll mood atm so I might get some enlightening stuff.

For me personally my answer is almost all question atm is that all this talky book stuff confuses me. I just try to be kind to people, live my life and keep in mind stuff like this so I can try to minimize the harm I bring up when I relate to cool people or those I love. And I think a culture of joy, laughter and love prob will be an environment where poeple will be more comfortable bringing stuff up like "ur really reinforcing racism, colonialism, mysogyny whatever" so the harmful effects of hierarchy can be mixed in my life and reinforced by me.

Which tbh isn't a great answer but it's the best thing I got besides deluding myself info beliving I'm very powerful and if I just convince enough people the anarchists can mild society with our brains or whatever.

relationships are limiting oppressive whatever with or without the baggage of civilization. norms encourage conformity which last i checked isn't liberating or whatever. no to friends! no to affinity!

Add new comment