TOTW: Anarchist land projects

‘Cause there’s tons of guys moping about the workday. Dimes by the dozens. Their song weighs a thousand pounds. But there’s nothing like a lady with a buzz saw. I just might build your house but I just might tear it down.

Topic of the Week - Recently I’ve been watching a rather playful YouTube channel about building stuff in the woods. The YouTuber is a 20 year old neophyte experimenting with survival skills and building their own place to live. The popularity of individuals documenting these experiments in alternative living and the public consumption of such content across the medium of places like YouTube and TikTok is evident in the number of people making a living off such van life, homesteading, and other off-the-grid related social media content. This week we are setting up camp, getting out the cameras, logging into social media from a satellite and gathering together around the bonfire to talk about anarchist land projects.

How might you define an anarchist land project? What have your experiences, near and far, been in terms of anarchist land projects? What historical examples are there of anarchist land projects? How have they been done well and poorly? Ideally, what would your anarchist land project look like and where would that be? What annoys you most about this topic?

There are 210 Comments

I have 20 acres very off grid and live on it mostly full time when I am not traveling around camping. I work online but could easily support myself with a job in the small town I am near. To me personally it is an extremely ideal way of living in the USA, putting money into creating a sort of home base and being able to go where you want.

With that said, living off grid is not for everyone. I really suggest anyone who fetishizes the concept itself not to sink a bunch of money into it. You will likely get sick of it. If you enjoy nature and bouts of solitude I really suggest it.

In terms of projects, as in multiple people, I highly suggest one motivated individual or couple making it happen instead of with a singular group. That sounds like a recipe for failure. It would be awesome to have sort of land projects that dot the west and southwest where people could travel to and from meeting people. Of all the ones that fit into this category I know of, they are more so libertarian types. What I think would be really interesting would be sort of meetups for "nomads" and van life types specifically for people who have anarchist leanings. For instance there's a schoolbus festival next month and I guarantee there's some of us there.

One last note on "failure," even if you only ended up using your land for 3 years thats still longer than most people last in a new city. So, if you want to try it go for it.

My personal lifestyle is eerily similar. I'm on a much smaller lot, however.

I've had several loved ones come and go over years I've been here. The isolation isn't kind on most folks. People who need others to keep them out of boredom are going to have a much more difficult time with this lifestyle. It helps to be the sort of person always immersing themselves in their own interests.

Setting up a "commune" of strangers to live this way seems impossible to me these days. Even couples and families who attempt the lifestyle are often pulled apart by the tensions and change of pace. It's been tough on romance & love, too.

i swear more than a few of these projects live and die based on the little mundane details like whether you can catch a bus nearby or the difference between a 20 min drive in to town or more like an hour. those little details that really add up.

also whether it's a fukin cult or not! ...oh and love triangles that turn sour, can't forget that tale-as-old-as-time

Yeah, if it's going to be an actual land project where people are coming and going a lot the roads have to be at least OK and the commute no more than 30 minutes out. In Arizona it's possible to find this sort of land still for relatively cheap but it will not be the most ideal landscape or anything like that unless you've got $$$$

One area of the country I really like is around Raton NM/CO, I wonder if anyone is doing anything over there.

Mine hasn't been a "project" ever. I just happen to be an individualist with land and a few friends who are like-minded, although not nearly enough.

I've started to suspect some stuff about all this lately, and I hesitate to dump it here because I'm trying to turn it into a shareable piece of writing. The gist being that dropping out and moving off grid with folks with similar values ends up testing those values. I feel people who considered themselves autonomous individuals often realize after moving to very rural areas they're not so interested in autonomy after all. They essentially get a taste of freedom and realize how uncomfortable it is. Perhaps things are the way they are because the majority like being part of the herd.

Controversial thing to say here, but I'm not a supporter of "project-ism" at all. Also a totally separate discussion that I'd like to avoid derailing this one with, please.

no? there's no controversy. i'm just teasing you. not sure how that particular word became loaded for you, is all

Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows — to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

— de La Boétie

Always found it odd that the one who's perhaps the earliest writer in anarchist theory was also a statesman... tho it was the High Medieval era and just like Machiavelli it's better to have an insider view of every cult and hierarchy's inner workings in order to fully understand it.

I'd say that buying land will often end up being another form of servitude. Disguised as a very-liberal notion of "freedum".

It's also never certain that one will or won't be assuning their state-defined role as landlord, with all the power dynamics this might imply with the non-owners. Any land project disregarding the potential influence od ownership gimmicks might be looked with caution by those willing to get involved.

Then there are coops (the real ones I mean, kids... where all the members are equal-part owners). But aren't they just another kind of communal property?

How about just abolishing the whole property bullshit at the onset? Then maybe you can get FULL anarchy, right?

to want to abolish property requires to practice doing so. to want to practice doing so requires to start doing so. im not sure about "cultivating oneself" ala situationists but there are some thresholds folks aren't gonna step over unless they go ahead and do it, and then keep thinking as they go.
every anarcholib out there who believes in abstract ideas is stuck in a cycle of pre-execution. you know all the repeated arguments: "should a person not have say over their own home?" "even though this house has 10 rooms the 3 of us who live here now believe we ought to have more say over what happens here than the seven people on the streets who we have room for." even notions of residency and belonging can be mobilized to preserve the quo. let alone the fact that objects are objects and living things are living things: a most obvious observation that could easily lead to the inference that assigning rights and use limits to them (objects) is just creating spooks of false personhood, or else falsely extending people's personhood outside of their bodies and into objects such as houses, cars, clothes... no, whether i borrow or smash "your" car doesn't actually have anything to do with you, you're just a bit spooked by settler logic of ownership, monetary cost, wage slavery, sin vs innocence, individual control of trajectories of fate...

"to want to abolish property requires to practice doing so."

This reminds me of that famous Dick Gavett talk show when the latter asks Lennon about how can he possibly be atheist... Anarchy just fucking DEW IT, right? Or feel free to have a hundred more BASTARD Conference 'til maybe maybe.

That's illegalism?

...and!?

people learn through experience, people form desires through experience, if you believe in subtly manipulating their minds to get them to choose their own freedom you need to come to terms with these features of animal learning. and otoh some give up on the coaching/training and leave it to the concerned parties to never break their own molds.. just take which friends make themselves available. which way do you want it?

It's funny but when I started pursuing a more minimalist lifestyle and giving away stuff I felt this enormous inner relief and less anxiety. Like you say about experience, folk have to first give some of their surplus goods away to know how good it can feel, they probably have to be mindful also to really benefit from the experience and to continue doing it. The potlatch custom of some indigenous tribes comes to mind, and I wouldn't be surprised if these tribes were the least warlike and aggressive, selflessness flows down into everyone around you, and when everyone gets into that groove, anarchy.

Dick Cavett.

More to do with material comfort than belonging. Land projects are so hard now adays partially because technocrats have a pretty good understanding of how to make basic comforts available to everyone, as long as we can keep paying the bills. Autonomy is a pretty fiercrly cooperative act without infrustructure, and people have a hard time bring productive in isolation.

Productive in isolation

100% you've got to be OK with isolation. Even if you are going into town 2 or 3 times a week it's such a different situation from going into a job daily, walking around a city etc.

For me it makes me appreciate being around people more when I am. Which is actually kinda good for me at least personally. I actually get excited to go into town. One thing I have sort of learned to hate though is spending time in big cities I don't like. It was almost impossible for me before and now it is totally impossible.

The commune is also something I can't imagine, that is why I think a network of travelers and places makes more sense. I really don't see vanlife etc going away even when housing becomes cheaper. Point here is that, once some of these folks get older they will definitely see the addition of land with a small space on it for "belongings" as very beneficial.

I share these feelings, largely. The intentional community model is a no-go. I think we're actually talking about tribalism, now—a different societal amd cultural norm, completely.

Having home bases, hubs, bunkers even that are available for fellow tribespeople to visit freely is definitely the move. A federated network. Then get everyone decked out vans and I think you'd have an incredibly important and unique community going.

The greek philosopher Epicurus had a school near Athens that served as one of these "hubs". I think an Epicurean "university campus" founded by anarchs could become a similarly important cultural hub.

There's also the question of locale. You've got to put these networks embedded in what few zomias we have left. Perhaps strategically connecting them. I'm over two hours by motor vehicle from any large cities or nuclear power plants, which is close enough to interact with the cities now and far enough to stay away from the mess they'd create during any kind of worsening social crises.

Van lyfe is a compromise to living cheap and free-er within an increasingly unlievable soxio-economic climate (i.e. most of Canada by now). Just a compromise. Don't believe the hype pushed by social media hipsters with their 100k modded Promaster vans, lol... tho "PV Feces Rig" by the great Conner O'Malley check it out, it's masterpiece.

So yeah... open spaces for travellers is still the best alternative to privvy communes and private land projects. Make them, as much as you can!

What is the difference between van life and open space for travelers. Seems like it's the same thing. Also, you don't need 100k to mod a van. That's silly. These things definitely cost money but I think the point is, they are way cheaper and longer term than giving rent to some landlord in Portland.

or did you just skim-read through my rather short comment?

I didn't say you need to burn 100k on a van, I said that's what the yuppie trendies have been doing. OF course they're self-absorbed dumb fucks with a lot of money to burn on pointless crap that could be used to fund better projects that achieve some good.

So it's very tricky when it comes to be opening spaces for stealth campers on on-private lands, unless you're lucky to have found some abandoned lot no one cares about... Contaminated lands or long-discarded paved areas could be a starting point, among others.

No I understood what you meant. I'm just not convinced that even with the "popularity" that it's a quick passing fad. My guess is it sticks around and morphs into other things. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that is land projects tbh

If you're living off-grid, how are you accessing the internet? Like where are you getting the energy to charge a device to access the internet? Solar panels, generator, and/or batteries?

Not sure who you're asking but I use solar panels and batteries. 8 panels and 4 batteries. I have a generator that I've never used as well. I would assume the vast majority of people use a mix of propane for heating and solar for electric.

The North-American supply of solar panels is mostly from Amazon... same if you want expensive LiiFePo4 batteries that are the best, as well as proper charge controllers. All this hardware -at least the more quality stuff you won't discard after a few months- has got costly. And what are you gonna do with solar panels once they break, wear out? Same deal with this other abomination coming from yuppies, i.e. inflatable PVC trash. Solar tech has only grown in efficiency over the years... not green-friendliness.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Burning Man solar punk ain't exactly the most autonomous and sustainable approach to energy.

Why are you assuming the point is to live some green Greta van thunberg lifestyle bro I just don't wanna pay for power.

Also idk who told you it's expensive, solar panels are a dime a dozen these days and last for decades. 4 batteries (lifepo) run you what 1000 bucks these days? Unless you are an idiot and buy battleborn.

Your comment regarding solar not being autonomous is bizarre. I don't even know where to start. Its hard for me to imagine youve done this sort of thing before. Or you were really bad at it. No offense.

Trolling/derailing is here. Everyone knows electricity is bad for the environment! If you wanna be a purist, then smash your computer, RIGHT NOW!

I know that was the overall "point" of their comment but it was a very poor attempt. Idk if it was trolling though, I think they really believe it.

Also, the average lifespan of a solar panel is seriously like 10 years before it loses 10% efficiency. You can get used solar panels for like .25 a watt or less from recyclers.

Maybe we are both responding to William Gillis.

Where are you getting that “The North-American supply of solar panels is mostly from Amazon”?

That amazon has high sales numbers in every category relative to traditional businesses doesn’t make it noteworthy to single out PV equipment. I would go out on a limb and say that most residential pv installations do not source their equipment through amazon. Also amazon is flooded with low quality equipment you have to wade through to hopefully find your way to a reputable brand with a decent warranty.

And fuck the idea of sustainability. Sustaining the nightmare

The person we are all responding to obviously has no idea what they are talking about. I think that is all very clear.

Solar panel costs have dropped like 60 times their value back a few decades ago and have become more efficient.

" I highly suggest one motivated individual or couple making it happen instead of with a singular group. That sounds like a recipe for failure."

Yeah groups of people makes things too complicated and fast, and honestly it makes me sad to think about.

group arrangements come and go. it's just as they change, one might hope to steer those changes in some or other ways... there's always more to learn. also settler time is constructed

of lazy/tired people, than these are just as good of an idea as they were in the 1960s. IMO, it's really the only sensible direction for anarchists to go in, because just accepting the daily shit service economy and the internet just leads to a lot of hypocrisy and mis-placed hostility. Getting up and walking around does a lot more to make everything better than stewing in your hatred of white and rich people. Even hating cops is kinda over-rated, despite their high likelihood of "being bastards".

The only thing that stands in the way of this are people who rate others based on the work they are able to do, which will prevent any of these projects from being more productive and enjoyable. I recently read LBC's "why you should move out to the country" by "mistral", and jesus is it a fucking terrible book. It's really well written, but the author over-simplifies identity politics AND country people to a pretty criminal degree. The worst part of the book is the call to "revolutionary self sacrifice". It's been tried: it's called martydom! Stop repeating the same shit and expecting different results, people.

Yeah I'm not interested in some "defense of the country" or other ridiculousness. But for those of us who want to be more "nomadic" for lack of a better word there's a lot more resources now. Basically the entire western half of the USA (and Mexico) is a place you can just move up and down depending on the seasons.

Encouraging anarchists who want to do this and having some sort of "help" would be ideal. Even having a hub of sorts would be cool and a presence at the myriad of events makes sense.

Also just getting people who are sick of the drama in "scenes" out in a better environment is always good. Like you said, getting out and walking around. Having to rely on yourself or others you know etc.

A friend and I have long joked that a person’s social disposition determines their opinion on land projects, and then people do that silly thing where they say that what’s right for them is what’s right for everyone.

People who crave constant stimulation and social activity want to live in cities and then claim that cities are where anarchists can have the grestest impact, or something like that. People who crave less stimulation and more stillness will move rural and espouse a dropout ethic.

I’m an anarchist, hence I want everyone to do what they wanna do. Where I see land projects run into trouble is when they try to make money off the land by farming or what have you and then end up having to navigate division of labor bullshit. Or, as other people have said, being too far from loved ones and general social interaction.

Also, and this is weird to me, I’ve seen people (myself included) be very motivated to move rural and do land with friends, but very few people seem to actually want that these days. A few folks I know really want to do it, or are doing it, and like nooooooneeeeee of their city friends come through. It would definitely be less isolating if more anarchists were interested, but a lot of anarchists seem to prefer cities I guess? I’d love to get other reads on this.

"Where I see land projects run into trouble is when they try to make money off the land by farming or what have you and then end up having to navigate division of labor bullshit."

So yeah, then for it to be "true anarchist" you need to be against businesses and "the capitalists". Thats i fucking hate activism, and the "right thing" i can do is try to be honest, try not to insult, try to empathize.

it's called anticapitalism ... that's most of anarchist thought for most of anarchist history.
doesn't have much to do with activism?

This request will require brain pics to determine cuteness before we can even begin to consider not derailing.

To a word. Im very familiar. Fuck your condescending bullshit. I have not seen a correlation between anti-capitalism and eating breakfast. Fuck you.

i get it, it's a mighty condescension, that even great psychos like me can't even begin to comprehend, it is lordly like the psalms of the land.

And like you, all your friends, your comrades in revolution...i can do nothing but worship.

Capitalism and the state ensures that people have to do something to acquire money to be able to survive. That is what 12/11/2023 - 11:24 anon was getting at. It's not rocket science to figure that out.

I'm quit curious how 12/11/2023 - 11:14 anon acquired a device and access the internet to post comments here since they have issues with people trying to make money to survive in this world? I assume they dumpster dive, apply the five finger discount, pick veggies and fruits from plants in their area, and/or hunt for sustenance. For clothing they must do something similar. After all, they're a pure anarchist

My point was that people who try to extract value from the land by starting a farm or mushroom grow op or fucking whatever else run into the issue of needing labor and having to coordinate that labor. For me, it seems simpler for whoever is trying to make money to do some regular old job or gig work off the land. I wasn’t suggesting that people can/should live without money. (Although I do think that’s waaaaaay more worthwhile to explore than anarchists tend to give it credit.)

So yeah, I wasn’t implying that land project people should escape capitalism. I was saying perhaps make money somewhere else, off the land, so that you don’t ruin your friendships by becoming a small business rather than a friend group.

This makes sense to me, the amount of money you save by having the infrastructure makes work "in town" or whatever only slightly needed. It really becomes a sort of question of lifestyle at that point. Which is ideal and rare.

My monthly cost for car insurance, well usage and cell phone bill comes out to like $200 or so. I figure a job pulling in 1k a month can provide a decent lifestyle specially if youve got other people around doing similar.

what i hate about activism.

I don't disagree, disposition is a huge thing. In the general world it seems a lot more people are interested in these things generally maybe not communes specifically but different lifestyles and ways of living.

That said, there's obviously a big chunk of anarchists who come from a certain social class and do things like go to college who are more afraid of shitting in buckets than some van life yuppies I've met....so...that seems to be a general issue.

These people make up every excuse on the planet to avoid anything outside.

sincerely caused me to use leaves to wipe my ass while camping. And then, ashes from the fire were a good way for me to feel cool not-so-fecal about it.

But as i've said before in so many ways, i never escaped the self-consciousness that one would have to have in order to make money. We never left the earth. Let us all hold hands after I am done wiping them with Assh.

I made a "bidet" with a water pump, battery and hose. Haven't tried to take the setup camping but it would be possible.

Regardless they are fucking gross, especially when it's just a bottle or, worse, a tiny glass of water. I still gotta get the arcane secret art of how the fuck you're supposed to get your butt all cleaned up to gay levels.. without soiling your genitals, etc. And that's always based on best-case kind of shit.

I'll stick to forest moss.. which is the cleanest, greenest, most effective and comfortable of doing these shit jobs. Thank you.

You should just go old school back when people used a stick with a rag on it, their hand to wipe, or just not wiping at all.

I don't ever remember reading in history about people using "a stick and rag" for that, but it does remind of those greek bathrooms where everyone shared a communal sponge with a stick attached to it, that is waaay more fucking gross than what i was doing when camping.

Did you mean to imply that i should shove the stick up my ass?! Using your hand to wipe your ass is pretty fucking lame, even with soap and water, which i have done before when i found there was no more TP.

people have used their hand to wipe their butts for most of history is my understanding. usually the left hand was reserved for this function and people ate with the right hand. which is why "right" also means "correct" and "left" in many languages has the double meaning of "bad".

just wash your hands and clean under your nails, shit is part of life.

This has never happened once in the history of buttholes. Nobody has ever used a rag on a stick. WTF is wrong with you?

What about a T Rex I think a stick with a rag on the end might really help in this case.

I go down to any lake, stream beach and pretend to swim, then stand and release my bowels, it's better if there is surf to conceal the floaters and folk playing in the water, salt water preferable for anti-bacterial bonus. Butt is as clean as a whistle.

That's real anarchist brah, adding nutrients and food for dwindling fish stocks destroyed by overfishing, chemical pollution and habitat destruction for the recreational industry. Good poop!

Indians do that all the time in the sacred Ganges, and anyway, dahl, their staple vegan diet makes for healthy poop. They're Hindu, (multiple gods) and not Abrahamic, who's poop is foul and toxic cos it's red cow meat, kosher(Judean)/greasy fastfood(Christian)/hamal (Islamic)

"but a lot of anarchists seem to prefer cities I guess?"

People in general?

There was a great talk about this at the Anews podcast a few episodes ago. City or rural areas, that all depends on what you seek to achieve. If your anarchism is all about riots, then rural towns will be pretty awkward, but for land projects that'll be unlikely to have them in big cities unless you're part of some green yuppie urban eco-farming BS. Disruptions and sabotage, good in both cases tho. But developing free economies... that can be done pretty much everywhere. But in rural areas there's generally more chances for open spaces that welcome drifters and other travelers.

Big cities got some advantages, yet what most urbanites are unaware about is the repulsive, anti-human environment that big cities have become,and how it can be fucking hard to navigate through and find the people and activity you're into.

I think if you can get a bunch of hippies and commies and bunch em up all together and make them live far away from me in a rural place in the middle of nowhere so they can self-destruct, that sounds great to me!

On my side of things, I can't even afford rent, let alone own a piece of land and the money that goes into making it livable. Squatting works for a little while, but that's not the same as a land project. Though if you're doing that with other people, namely leftists who are also strangers, you'll run into similar problems.

You can't even figure out how to afford rent yet you want to give advice on life choices?? OoOokay...

You know this is the same type of person who has convinced themselves that camping is bourgeoisie. Like mfer we know you haven't been outside in years.

Where did I give advice? I didn't give advice. I was rejoicing at the mere existence of communes, they're a plague onto themselves.

When squatting stops working you just crack another squat right? Aint that just how it goes? Do anarchists prefer to work and pay rent? I don’t know why I’m even asking, the answer is obvious and I guess I just don’t want to accept it. I’m tired of seeing people pay fucking rent. Squatting aint the only alternative either.

Anyone who has parents could just move back in for a year, save up money and buy a van. Convert it into a home and live basically anywhere you want on the West Coast.

I mean if you like the comforts of an apartment in Portland that's fine but don't act like paying 1k a month for rent and 150 for electric is some sort of cheap way of living.

days is kinda rough. Many times i've acted like i've figured out how to be lazy and enjoy my little utopia, but as Crimthinc. said: "not working is a lot of work"

This seems very true, when I hear about the economy this and that and different idiots talking back and forth about it the one thing I know is true is that it's way harder to live easy and cheap "on grid." Apart from owning your own home or having some sweet deal that is not precarious.

2013/14 is when things really started changing and it's gotten so much harder to coast. You used to be able to find a place with roommates almost anywhere and get by with a monthly overhead of maybe $500/month. And that is for phone, internet, rent, electric etc. Now? No way. It's forced a lot of people to rethink different ways of living and for a lot of people I think it's opened up a different world. Pretty interesting tbh.

Large part of the why has to do with anxiety, stress and tech consolidation. It's harder for people to get into the idea of staying stuck in the same job forever with the rapid pace of social change.

The workerist side of things, glad to know its working out. "We need more control"

*blows brains out*

That i dont have pay rent because of my family situation. The back to earthers just dont have solutions, that would have been been awesome if leftism worked, but they always have to "come to the table" with the mafia...to me, thats the difference between anarchism and leftism.

I do pay for my phone and internet though, and a lot of other things, and it still sucks. I am self destructive. Kill me.

Honestly, I just really like the lifestyle. It's not a political thing even though it gets seen that way.

to me means you go into a bank and ask for a loan for a house. They basically need to already know that you won't default, and there are multiple political/socioeconomic factors in deciding whether they give you the money for a house that you will be paying for, for at least a couple of years.

"they", omfg THEY! No wonder why trumpian conspiracy theories have almost beaten respectability politics.

Oops this was supposed to be a reply

Umm, what's the time scale for doing these projects. With the largest iceberg in recorded history free to drift north into the southern Atlantic, there's gonna be some exponential catrophic global climate events in the next 10 yrs, including epidemics, so like yous better all get at it and find a place 50metres above the present high kingtide mark, not at the bottom of a valley or on steep avalanche prone mountains, in tbick forested areas or places dependent on underbround water or close to populated areas from where hordes of desperate people will panic and overrun and eat everything in their path. I myself will bugout in a 4-wheel drive loaded with rifle, water, lentils and Spam AND waterproof matches. I can't nor have I the patience to rub 2 sticks together. Enjoy!

Unfortunately land on Miami Beach is quite expensive. Maybe Vanilla Ice has a land project going on who knows. You could warn him.

back to the land was already kinda ruined by hippies and religious nutjobs, even though i applaud their attempts.

What i like about these topics:

i still would like to find an excuse to stop paying for my internet and phone bill, hang out with friends, and burn all my past resentments about money.

As far as the other questions are concerned, it would be awesome to finally buck private property, but I don't ask other people to do it because in the end everything is controlled by the banks, major technology companies, the utility companies. When i was younger, i did find more of a sense of catharsis in terms of surrendering control...and as an adult i've been pretty miserable that the self-consciousness keeps coming back.

You're always in a land project if you live on land. Even if you live at sea the boat, barge or rig is land. I've spent time out in the country and it gets boring if there's not much to do or if you're stuck there. I prefer to live in the city with the amenities. A land project like skatopia might be fun, there's videos online, I haven't been there.

Give it back...no entrance fees!

I've spent a lot of time living in a van in both cities and in rural places. I've also lived in a utility trailer I turned into a tiny home. In addition I've lived in a few squats in Philadelphia and Oakland when that was still something people did. I'm a person that vastly prefers solitude, but it is actually extremely difficult to live in this world with no support from other people. Most communal situations I've experienced, i.e. Slab City and various squats, fell apart because people live on top of each other. I think a little space could go a long way in making these sorts of projects more viable.

Total isolation is hard on all humans that experience it. Myself included. I experienced it both living in my van as well as when I was incarcerated. I can weather and even at times enjoy the isolation at times, but not everybody can handle the fact that your friends don't visit and the people you do come across are often very difficult to be around(isolation can be amplified by being around shitty people, like the Bukowski quote; true loneliness isn't limited to when you are alone).

Isolation isn't the only problem living off grid though. Access to clean water and access to food can be really hard, especially if the environment makes it difficult to get those things.

On the other hand, most of the issues surrounding communal living are social in nature. Those problems tend to compound as a function of time. I haven't yet found a group of anarchists living together that could work together once they've decided they don't like each other.

Perhaps there can be a middle ground.

Something more like a village, where people come together for events, where people don't have to even see eachother every day, but live in close enough proximity that some level of mutual aid can be sustained amongst neighbors. I've seen this amongst people that live in rural communities, where the person who has a well provides water for others, sometimes in exchange for something, other times, just because they can. In slab city, there was one guy with a working hot water heater that let other people shower in exchange for help getting water and propane. When I was workamping in the high Sierras, when somebody would go into town, they would offer you a ride. I would say this level of cooperation is necessary for rural life to work for poor people.

Lastly there is the matter of income, which can be as easy as a remote graphic design job, but for people who cannot do the kind of work offered remotely, this can be a big problem. One that I think could have a collective solution if people could work together. I have seen a few rural drive in movie places where the employees live there full time and the money from doing movies floats them. I think you've gotta have something. The collective living doesn't have to be tight knit, in fact I think it works better when it's not.

Anarchists comprise all the best DIYers I now. So if there is a solution out there, I know we can find one. Most recent, high profile examples of communal anarchist living have been pretty disheartening, but that doesn't mean we have to give up and abandon eachother to our indefinite solitude. We need to allow for the fact that solitude is just as much a human need as its socializing. Every person will balance somewhere different, but we all require a bit of both. So we should get better at finding the right balance.

The point about villages and the village-model of socio-cultural organization is appreciated. Sounds ideal for me, too. If it sounds ideal, it probably won't be. But I do think people having max distance and foot paths plus communal kitchens/halls/spaces would go a long way.

Also, to me these villages would be so much more worthwhile than fighting cops and protesting and doing crime. Anyone agree?

"much more worthwhile than fighting cops and protesting and doing crime. Anyone agree?"
Only if the village model of socio-cultural organization allows for free food, accomodation and sex, otherwise it is a materialist status cult.

you ruin everything around you. sex is not a good that can be handed out to a needy guest, you fucking pest. it's the outcome of two people who engage in the subtle play of seduction and it can never be a guaranteed outcome unless it's creepy, coercive and rapey. if you want more opportunities for sex, don't go to the village where if the only three people there don't want to fuck you, that's it. in cities, the tinder swipes are endless, there are millions of people and plenty of sex workers.

No, I think the commenter was just listing the 3 most physiological requirements for survival, shelter from the weather, food and companionship leading to sex of course cos that's what everyone does and it means the survival of the species. But an intellectual would say the 3 things were a library, coffee and conversations with scholars. Everyone is different bruh, we are not all brutish peasants.

Seems to me that cars have made everything like that more expensive and harder to do, there's also states and municipalities that make anarchist versions of villages harder too.

I guess cars dissappearing would force things to be more local, but most anarchists wouldnt like it. I personally would trade my moderately bourgie living situation for communal living, yet its just a fantasy that won't materialize without people who think like i do.

I wouldn't want to be isolated 24/7. My ideal situation is being in a city maybe 4 months out of the year. This of course takes more money than just subsistence. That said, it is totally possible and even if you can't get enough cash one year poverty in the city can be way damn worse.

Someone mentioned a village model, I think this is cool but it really doesn't need to be intentional beyond people moving to a general area and getting together fairly often.

I still don't think it's for everyone. I think nomadic living makes way more sense for a wider range of people.

Cars aren't making things harder, it's designing everything around cars that does. Taking the cars away wouldn't make anything easier, it would force us to redesign, but in the meantime we'd all be having an extremely hard time.

Cars are making everything harder. They contribute to everything being expensive. People raise the bar on services that require a lot of effort and work, contributing to the health problems related to tech, lack of exercise, and poor diet. Humans arent meant to sit around all day. These factors converge due to increasing amounts of isolation, pollution, and poverty.

Im not trying to be a SJW, this is just how it works.

YES, i totally agree, in a "creepy" but not misogynist way

oh yes...

Not really a project person myself, but big fan of the rural lifestyle. Entertained the idea of doing something on the land with folks but having a bunch of kids makes me drama avoidant. We have our hands full and daily life is challenging as is. Maybe once a few are out on their own (if it even happens). In the meantime hit me up if you want to hang out in the woods, camp out, or ride dirt bikes.

Still my favorite land project:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gerald-edmonson-yuppies-with-spears

I've been living out on land for a few years with some folks. I also grew up way out in the sticks so it's more like coming back to something than having to make a huge adjustment from city living. We aren't going for some intentional community or commune but it is intentionally an anarchist space. Mostly a small group lives here year-round and then our oogle friends pass through seasonally. It can definitely be isolating and that hasn't worked out for some of our friends. I mostly like the isolation and it gives me the space I need for animal rescue stuff. I really like the idea of it as a flexible space connected to nomadic and semi-nomadic living and hopefully that'll keep it from stagnating or having an isolated commune vibe. The challenges here are mostly social isolation being hard on some folks, some hostility from some locals toward us queer freaks but it's definitely not a broad stroke kinda thing, and having trouble meeting other weird anarchist ppl being outside of an established scene. Our nomadic pals do run into folks who are interested in making it out here but the follow through isn't always great, cause, you know, oogles aren't really known as a group for sticking with a plan (no shade, I'm also an idiot with sometimes poor follow through).

I know of a few projects like this that have just randomly picked up oogles along the way. I'm always very weary letting people come out to my place cause the road is rough and an oogle getting stuck an hour into the wilderness would be rough.

one thing i haven't seen much (any?) talk of here is doing a land project with children in mind.

the longest running land project i know of has been going since the early '70s and is still pretty functional. there is a working farm but most people there work in town or not farming. and the parts of the farm that require much labor are more or less parties with many people from the cities coming to help, think harvest etc. I've been going there for harvest parties for 20+ years, and over that time as i age the work gets harder, which is where the intergenerational aspect comes in. the children who were tweens when i first went are now parents, which is great because us old folks can do other tasks and the younger ones do the heavy harvest tasks.
of course, they don't organize along ideological lines but along "what needs to get done to make this function in the long term" lines.

I think you'd have to have a real sort of cultural shift for many multi generational projects like this to get going. Not really sure what that would look like. Most of the people I know who are looking to do what I do are just waiting till their kids are a little older. My guess is when travel gets a bit cheaper and work becomes not as necessary nomadic lifestyle will become increasingly popular. Who knows when that happens tho

Theres a couple cultish projects out where I am and most of them also have a small sort of farm project (lavender farms where I am) and they work in town most of the time otherwise.

My guess is it's a pretty common model when it's more of a group project type deal.

i would also like to see more perspective and thought on that!

as a general point when talking with people with various degrees of history and interest in being involved, the conversation has often ended up at more or less non-ideological or ambiguously ideological spaces run by people who can focus on maintaining them (and setting expectations for engaging with them), but which are also useful as touchpoints and meeting grounds for others. too often it seems like the expectation is for the space itself to be political or ideological or whatever, which creates abstract expectations by different types of people trying to use it and can make it seem inhospitable or just absurd--or irrelevant.

Back to the land hippie projects are supposed to have FAILED.

I am old (age 66), so old I'm on Social Security. But I am still able to do up to 5 hours of hard labor in a day (with breaks). Work on my anti-rocking-chair, anti-retirement backwoods homestead will keep me that way.

Am transitioning to "savagery" and laying the foundation for what will outlive Collapse. This project will have to be finished by generations after me.

but I think the hippie factor on this project ebbed soon after acquiring their farm, which btw, was already established when they got there, though a bit seedy too.

having a group of people where a critical mass of them are able to take responsibility for stuff seems key to avoiding failure.

as for how to do intergenerational / long term projects, I don't know of any surefire way to get that to work, but part of it is having enough people involved such that one or two leaving doesn't collapse it.

A little bit of comfort with isolation:

"having a group of people where a critical mass of them are able to take responsibility for stuff seems key to avoiding failure. "

I personally really liked (and still sorta do) like anarchist individualism because groups of people can make THINGS GO HORRIBLY WRONG...like think nuclear power/weapons...and also the axis powers in WW2.

my only land project will be when i’m buried

A small cemetery at the back end of my 10 acres. I have someplace to go when I'm done.

This is in Appalachia, so the cemetery is old.

Are your really 66? Show us your balls and prove it or get off that stolen land!

in appalachia, and how trees tend to block any sort of satellite signal...i doubt he lives as deep in the woods as you might imagine...but you never know!

Got run on the road at the bottom of my land last winter. So I have wifi. Everyone here says satellite sucks.

I have most modern luxuries because county codes require them, way out here in the sticks. When I was living in a megopolis in my truck w/camper shell, I had few of them.

at it...civilization...you use it. However, i want to keep it as close inland as possible, figuratively speaking. I was "internet poor" because I'm west virginian but got fiber optics installed a couple years ago like these fucking city slickers because dysfunction and fragmented stress kinda blows. However, you can't get this further west, which is cool with me. The end goal for all anarchists should be disappearance of the internet and any other impersonal exploitation of the wilderness. I want it, it sometimes seems like nobody else does, which is why i upgraded from mobile internet all the time (tethering helps if you want the real goodies).

However, let me give you the downside, the cops. For example, with my shitty mobile internet, i was able to pirate impunatively. Now, i just use my mobile connection to pirate, because something about fiber optics and cable allows the copyright spies to readily find you and send threatening messages to your ISP.

If you want the both of best worlds...here's the thing: the copyright police don't care about older movies, music, media not in the public domain. You could pirate 90's movies with impunity, but that's awesome that you like your work so much that you don't have much time for it. I commend you badpanther/redkitty to leave the hell hole called "the worldly metroplis" behind.

Hey brah, take it easy, he might have 5% indigenous dna, that covers his 10 acres, mkay. If not, everyone is cosmically entitled to a 7x3 foot plot. You ever seen how ferocious a panther is when it's cornered?

I was merely using THEIR own science to negate all reference to identity politics, race and borders. What the hell is 23andme, some cyber-rhetoric?

politics. I understood that when i responded, but i decided that even though i knew you were joking, that i would use the opportunity to criticize genetic testing.

"Dude! You can use 23andme, it's private, they don't give away your information", YEAH, i never fucking did because my family already sorta knows where my ancestors came from because i'm basically just a mix of a bunch of fairly recent european immagrants, HAHAHA!

I think you mean the Frankfurt School brah.

Alright then, the Earth is flat and DNA stands for Definitely No Ancestors. Latest DNA is actually challenging the previous white history of migration into South America because ancient tribes in Brazil share more DNA with Australian, Polesian, Papua New Guinea, and Madagascar indigenous posdibly because they migrated BEFORE the last ice-age, whilst the present native folk of North America came during the iceage across the Bering Strait which explains their different features/color, But stay ignorant, deny scientific empirical data and follow an Inquisition-esque belief in some political historical rhetoric. Oh yeah, and gravity doesn't exist *levitates and drifts away*

Those Indian Ocean islands you mentioned include the Andaman island group and yes, they have a unique people theretotally different to the Asiatic mainland, and it does suggest that there was an ocean migration west to east from Africa to South America before the northern migration via the Bering Strait.
Nothing wrong with pondering empirical data to debunk fake history and politics.

genetic harvesting of all our DNA, you proved that. Give it to the cops as well so they can falsely convict some innocent of murder while you're at it.

It's honestly kind of disgusting to me that you would trust some genetic identity company over your fellow commentators. There's a huge problem with regurgitating some approved statistic you heard as opposed to going with your gut.

Arctually I don't need DNA data, I go by physiognomy and skin color, mouth, lips, eyes, hair, it's all obvious, I postulated years ago about this when I first saw Andaman Islanders, Easter Island and the pyramids of the Inca's. The Tera del Feugians are fascinating. Yeah, fuck gene data going to cops, totally hate it. It's like the oil industry, I loath it, but I'll still use an automobile.

Wow, seems like you're living TedK's dream without his problems and stresses. There's nothing like having the companionship of a purring cat to smooth out all the angst and lonliness of the boondocks huh?

funny you mention that, i live out in the boondocks, and because people suck at adopting cats (or maybe they just ran away and these are descendants that reproduced, idk) i have 6 cats because they all came to me. I love all of them, honestly, some of them are even totally stray/feral, but having to visit veterinarians because your friends are sick kinda blows. One of them is sitting in my lap right now, he's so cute and he's like 4 months old. I love cats. I'm totally in the camp of being responsible and doing the best you can with pets out of love. That even means the fucking vet sometimes because we shouldn't ignoring animals the way we do as "a society".

sure except that cats fucking suck for birds and rodents (and insects, etc)...
we love them but they brutalize lots of creatures that are already having a hard time with habitat, pesticides, herbicides, etc.

just sayin...

Way out here in the sticks.

As for big kitties, everyone says cougar-kitty has returned, but I've seen no evidence of this.

The Bambi dears are overpopulating. Not even enough humans are hunting them anymore. I will have to eat them myself if I can't keep them off my Politically Correct vegan crops.

it's kind of messed up (for example, the anon you are responding to) that people judge them for just being the predators they are. They are only an issue for us because people decided to start breeding them to sell to people as pets! All 6 of these cats I have came to me. Cats kill young rabbits, but there are still tons of rabbits around here in the summer, and they generally feel pretty comfortable coming near the house. If rabbits aren't very afraid, it probably means that there aren't too many cats in the area. I get really sick of the whole academic-ecology think where some species are "bad" and invasive. No, dummies: we are the only invasive species on the planet, stop projecting! Every other invasive species pales in comparison to what humans do to the environment.

But yeah, killing deer is just fine. Ideally, you use a bow and arrow to reduce the led poisoning in the environment, but lead from guns is okay as long as you aren't shooting too much. Wanting to protect the environment really fucking sucks now adays.

i'm not making a moral argument. it's not about fault, except, as you acknowledge, that humans have fucked up any kind of balance, partly (not mostly but partly) by valuing cats and dogs (and humans, of course) way more than other creatures.

not telling you or anyone to do anything different. we all make our own calls about how and how much we participate in the world as it is.

You're doing ok dude, you've found your own "anarchy", All the best, and as DH Lawrence once said in his poem "Mountain Lion", man is actually the most dangerous animal to fear.

The thing about cat-values is they try to control you for food, and opening doors, and if you don't give them food when they want it, they give you a "fuck you" look. Whereas a dog if you don't feed it will give you a "c'mon, I'm your buddy, I would die for you" and there is no malice in their opinion of you.

Actually purr, rather loudly due to their size.

A lot of the commentary thus far has been talking about off-grid but i think that topic is a subset of the larger “Land Project” topic. It doesn’t have to be off-grid to be a land project. If one is to take seriously the anti-civilization observation that wildness also exists in cities, albeit usually in a suppressed state, then theoretically land projects do not require rural locations. As the land project is a reconfiguring of rural lands to meet the needs of one or more people, so it may be with reconfiguring urban swaths to meet peoples’ needs. If many land projects start with raw land and over time add infrastructure like a water source, living structures, and gardens; the hypothetical urban land project may start from a place of dismantling some or all legacy architecture within an arbitrary area. This is in contrast to projects of repurposing say a building for a squatted social center. To put it another way, the rural land project often develops upon raw land and (hopefully) stops before doing too much habitat loss, detrimental type conversion of ecosystems, and replication of the worst parts of suburban living — while the urban land project goes in reverse and opens up space, allows native plant succession to once again take hold. How to do it is another question, for those more creative than me.

All that said, I usually bristle a little bit at how ‘land project’ is almost the only way people can conceive of anarchists living on land. There is an embedded assumption that the land and effort is in service of the wider milieu or there is some activist basis for it. Not everyone is so intentional. Some lands meet those criteria but don’t explicitly strive for such things, they just happen as such orientations may be integral to the participants lives to begin with. When i hear ‘land project’ my brain always goes to a place of what are they fixing? why are they fixing it? does it need fixing? As opposed to a ‘commune’ which conjures up other images, and then ‘intentional community’ with its own baggage…

A previous commenter cautioned against using the land to make money. I think that could be one of the more interesting and beneficial outlets for anarchists. Any group of anarchists doing anything together is in danger of “running into trouble”, so I wouldn’t caution against figuring out creative ways to put more money to anarchist ends. Having space to do so, as in land, can be useful. Unfortunately many anarchists are knee-jerk moralist against interacting with the capitalist economy as if it is guaranteed corruption of all involved. I think anarchists should get beyond that and use the tools at our disposal as appropriately as we can, keeping in mind the anarchist question every day while doing so. Dropping out is cool too, so whatever…

One of the things that is intriguing about living on land is the possibilities for artistically arranging the space in ways that may not be feasible or last long in an urban environment.

More open-ended analysis.

"A previous commenter cautioned against using the land to make money. I think that could be one of the more interesting and beneficial outlets for anarchists."

YES, having a very rigid attitude about capitalism doesn't negate that we are already involved. The biggest danger is the self-damage involved in farm work, which is why anarchists just shouldn't be too hung up about being productive...
with every business, theres a research phase, and division of labor doesn't need to be static. With skill in subsistence, the labor can go at a more relaxed pace.

However, i also agree that it sometimes isn't feasible to have a farm (or whatever) without waking up at 5 or 6 and working for 8 hours, so that's the conundrum. It's hard not to injure yourself in farming, even when you use machinery. I think working 3-5 hours a day as a farmer could be consistent with what many anarchists want, yet many modern people would have hard time with this in isolated farming conditions.

Do you have a blog or anyway to follow up these posts? Really great ideas, would like to read and consider more

My caution against using the land to make money isn’t coming from some purist anti-capitalist stance. Otherwise I would be cautioning about work, period.

It’s more like the age-old sentiment to not kill what you love by turning it into work or school. Relationships can really struggle when your loved ones become your co-workers. And home hits different when your home is also your workplace. Like when people who work from home feel like they are never actually off work.

That’s my caution, and it’s not universal. It could be an easy pill to swallow for some. But I think it’s worth it for each person to consider, rather than assuming that making money off the land is a given.

Change over time, and unfortunately work and school are everywhere, and the vast majority of the human race would look at you wierdly if you suggested that people don't need to work.

Ive lost several friendships mostly because of distance...i think all relationships need a balance of intimacy and distance. Before capitalism, it was all about the family and tribe, and clearly our brains are having trouble adapting to internet society.

I’m an anarchist. Why the hell would I ever be concerned about the vast majority of the human race looking at me weird? The vast majority of the human race likes work and prisons. I really, really don’t.

And again, I’m not saying don’t work. Please read my words. I’m saying think twice before turning your friend group into a farming workers collective or whatever. Maybe it’s the move for you, maybe it isn’t. There are a million and one ways to make money these days. It’s fucking tiresome to see anarchists lack creativity in this area.

Just trying to point out that there are basic issues with the phrase "anarchist" and "land project".

"And again, I’m not saying don’t work. Please read my words. I’m saying think twice before turning your friend group into a farming workers collective or whatever. "

And what would make think i have the power to just automatically turn people into my helpers? Is that what you think of archists, that getting other people to work for them is some stress free process?

" the vast majority of the human race would look at you wierdly if you suggested that people don't need to work."

Oh christ... am I really reading this moronic normie shit on an anarchist website? You're lucky they're allowing for comments without signing in. Also, tell about all this majority of the "human race" that looks at you weirdly coz you don't dress as your defined gender tells you to.

"Ive lost several friendships mostly because of distance...i think all relationships need a balance of intimacy and distance. Before capitalism, it was all about the family and tribe"

No it wasn't, you ignorant fool! There were several instances of public institutions before capitalism started to happen, and the Commons were a thing... that you most likely never heard of with your Muhrikan high school knowledge of history.

One that must impose "their anarchy" on others.

Okay, have fun just shoplifting all the time, not exercising, not sleeping. Anarchists who hate normies to me are a special kind of stupid.

My argument from way above is just that utilizing cheap living (lots of space that is paid for, cheap structures, free power/water) etc might not be work itself but allows a much easier lifestyle. Easier to get a job and save, have expendable income for whatever etc.

You don't need to monetize the land directly since it is in a way already making money. Couple that with nomadism mixed in and you have a pretty cool setup that allows you to be wherever.

The more people living this way the easier it gets as well.

Buying land is not liberating the land, or "land back", but rather more territorializing of space according to laws defined by the state. Does that irritate you to consider this notion? Yeees? So perhaps it's time to accept that you're just a liberal like so many others.

"Unfortunately many anarchists are knee-jerk moralist against interacting with the capitalist economy as if it is guaranteed corruption of all involved."

Will you ever put it in your bird brain that pursuing anarchist goals means, pursuing anarchist goals? Of course I can just become a billionaire out of gold and lithium mining then reinvest on "land projects" for the benefit of anarchy. No reason to get suspicious here! So why being so reactive about mah billions you lowlives, as I"m the one in charge and you gotta trust me.

Another poster here, yes, prefigurativism is a prerequisite for any anarchist.

Except it's not. It's just Tiqqunist crap, which isn't anarchist.

No, tiquinists were Marxists, the transitional stage i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT prefigurative. Read some Marx, oops, no, don't read Marx, look up prefigurative politics,

Tiqqunists totally talked about prefiguration and there's Marxian theory that evolved beyond the Dictatorship of the Proletariat stupidity, that few people can talk about openly in 2023 without looking like total nutjobs.

I will! And what you say about tiqqunists is 100% true. I remember how the tiqqunists wrote about buddhism being a weird milkshake or garbage (not exact words, i can't remember) and so is tiqqunism. Tiqquns also sin by trying to mix Marxism with Stirner. Not cool bro!

"Of course I can just become a billionaire"...

You can't even pay rent and auto insurance

The poster - " of course I can just become a billionaire" WAS PARODYING a non-prefigurative methodology you dim noobie to anarchism!

Anarchist children are far more stimulating than anarcho-leftists...

Replying to "Read D & G, You DIMWIT":

I posted above about living on land with some ppl and sharing the space with our nomadic friends as they pass through. I don't I'm "liberating the land" but I know 100% that we're keeping it from getting developed which is occurring at a dizzying speed in this region. The land used to be mined decades ago (along with a lot of the land around here), then it was heavily logged, and now developers are moving in and clear cutting shit left and right. At least by living here we are keeping the space from getting ravaged by the number of development companies sucking the life out of these mountains. And while we're here, we're leaving as much space alone as possible and just giving room for the ecology to recover.

Ok good, then. But read D &G still, at some point. Or don't!

How can you be found if I'm a Nomadic War Machine, then? Word of mouth or FACEBOOK? I'm asking coz I'll be traveling across the US hellhole sometime next year.

Be aware that we've consensed that at the next gathering anyone who says "read D&G" and can't correctly pronounce their names correctly out loud gets throat punched.

GRINDR. All the land anarchists are on there check it out

A gay dating app? What's it gotta do with radical (woops... liberal?) land proyects... or anarchists?

Telling people to read something and just listing acronyms that could have multiple meanings.

The person you are quoting is completely correct: one of the things I did like about LBCs "why you should move to the country" is that that the author points out the stupidity in being overly sensitive to everything related to capitalism.

My thoughts on capitalism...

It's a socio-economic system related to the use of currency and private property. Capitalists themselves are not "evil", but they are egoists, and can sometimes do really horrendous things as a result from being detached from their business operations...if you want me to join your anarchy cult, then no thanks.

A group of people working on land projects at an intentional community called The Garden and other places. A lot of travelers spend time there and other places people have or know of where people are welcome. It was on TV recently to share how it can be done and the ideas behind it. On the show anarchists were mentioned in context of not having a leader and a good portion of the people identifying as anarchists. Criticisms of society were also shared on it. An ethic of not contributing to the problems that society creates like environmental damage is one of the reasons that have been expressed for the minimalism, being offgrid, and mutual aid there. People have posted on anarchist social media spaces to invite people to gatherings and are organizing a network of lands they call the Permaculture Mutual Aid Network. And people who are a part of it not needing money. Free land for free people. Share the land. Grow food together. Meant to increase autonomy from needing money as much. Thought I'd share.

Link?

Let me google hbo for you so you can be tapped into pop culture literal rainbow gathering tiktok anarchy spectacle that the other anon is consuming

it's funny watching these BOZO CONSUMERS ask for links, link dude, i use arch linux, and we don't have links...we have, plinks. They're so much better! Like, it takes 4 hours to install the software and it's so sweet cuz we can do it ourselves, we don't need to be like those McDonalds eating comsumerist HASBRO-milking blowhards.

YIKES you use Linux? Talk about computer colonization. Obviously liberalism, participating in the system of operating systems as if this isn't the same as renting your 32 unit apartment complex that you bought because capitalism is in fact easy to do if you decide you aren't an anarchist.

the self-assured arrogance of the post, and their colonial computer activity. Arch linux users just use it basically to brag about all this extra work they have to do both when installing it and updating the system. It can be fun, but the whole point of having a computer is some sort of task automation. Arch linux users also perpetuate weird conspiracy theories about people who use other operating systems.

I do use linux though just because i put myself through the process of getting used to, and I've ended up liking it better than windows (the OS is simpler and performs better, even though i should warn you that linux distros do suck in general).

Now let's sit down with me on the park bench and talk about Systemd for a moment...

the anti-systemd thing is mostly hype, the critics haven't been able to find any concrete issues with it (if it were an issue, it would be some bug or performance thing).

People who use linux are displaying "self-assured arrogance"?? What does what computer operating system you use have to do with Land Projects? My goodness your life must be sOoo interesting, Winbro.

If you had land with people living there you could build a private network with old computers and routers. Linux is ideal for this sort of thing because it's free and you can use minimal installs to get the job done. It could be retro like old BBSs and MUDs.

We Contemptuous recognize no land or project beyond our feral hunt of those whom would refuse our reptile savagery. We cracks squats and plot revenge

"the pretensions of the individualist forms of anarchism have always been ludicrous..." 'The Proletariat as Subject and Representation,' Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle.

"On 29 January 2009, fifteen years after his death, Christine Albanel, Minister of Culture, classified the archive of his works as a "national treasure" .
Statist dawg!

Know what? Back in '68 being a Maoist or even a Pol Pot supporter was the trendy cool shit in France. Then 40 years later, McDonald's all over the place. What's been happening over there?

Stinky hippies. Anarchy thrives in the city. Crack a squat!

i've lived off-grid and very rural for over 20 years. it is definitely not for everyone. but for those interested in super-simplifying their life, reducing their dependence on money and "the system" for sustenance, and learning a shitload about how to do what is necessary for your own survival, it cannot be topped. intentional communities and communes almost invariably involve levels of interaction, decision-making, "rules"/guidelines, coordination, and ultimately interpersonal politics, that i learned very quickly are not in my realm of desires.

also, nobody seems to be talking about the eastern u.s. when talking about anarchist land projects. the rural west surely has more land, but it also has serious water issues and wildfires galore.

I'd rather eat sushi and get hot stone massages after a long night of dancing and discussing D&G with my anarchist friends in Oakland

Real?

As someone who has lived defiantly, joyfully, and authentically in the mountains and off-the-grid for almost two decades with my tribe of anarchic luddite rebels, I would like all the urban-dwelling hipsters who want to play rural for a while because they watched some YouTube or TikTok videos to stay where they belong. The urban terrain is better suited for your hyper-domesticated ways and politics.

my god, my most authoritarian belief is that we need to ban the word domesticated, domestication, etc. from vocabularies of anews commenters. it feels like a buzzword at this point. instead of clarifying what you really mean (presumably "urbanites lack the skills to live off the land and this is bad because xyz"), you sort of just pepper it in just because it feels correct.

dude, they've been reading too much zerzan. get it together.

zerzan loves to talk about things that he doesn't really understand, and he has an almost pathological aversion to citing his sources properly. Ted K grills him for this in his anprim essay, too. not to mention his drift away from his more sciency persona and into spirituality lol. you should've told me to read camatte instead, a lot more respectable considering he's the creator of that sense of the word. (that's three Big Names dropped in one comment!! write that score down for me.)

Hey brah, Zerzan's spiritualism is subjective and accelerationist and in no way institutionalized. TedK was just a glorified Luddite who wanted to slow things down and go backwards.

"zerzan loves to talk about things that he doesn't really understand"

Back up your assertion, 12:56, or realise you're guilty of your own accusation of "an almost pathological aversion to citing his sources properly"

Or continue with your seething ressentiment that you simply do not understand Zerzan because you have never actually read him or because your pea-brain was too taxed..

I'm not going to make my god-damn anarchist news comment into an academic document, simply because the burden of proof is on Zerzan to prove his bullshit, not me!! I also invite you to simply read the Ted K essay on anarcho-primitivism I was talking about, I believe it's pretty to the point about primmie claims in general. More than enough citations are to be found there.

My foaming-at-the-mouth ressentiment in question:
Anyway, I initially got this impression of Zerzan, that he doesn't really understand what he reads and talks about, when I read about his Numb & Number essay, in which he claims that numbers cause autism in the last paragraph or so. Even with the information on autism at the time, Zerzan would've been able to figure out this is false. The varieties of human behavior that we classify as schizophrenia, autism, ADHD, etc. still exist in nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, without the "disordered" behavior we usually associate with those neurologies. If anything, it would've played more into his hand if he said this instead! I also can't forget his essay on language. It's a critique of language in the loosest terms possible and at the end he pretty much advocates language abolition like it's a possible thing, and is what I mean when I say his writing is shallow and kind of meaningless. In both essays, he claims that language & numbers dominate nature. He also dedicates a part of Future Primitive to this languagelessness he's got going on, where he makes the claim that Freud believed in telepathy prior to language. This is just not true. Freud considered the possibility of telepathic dreams and he was, in his own words, ambivalent towards it. Like, tell me how anyone reading his essays is supposed to take his shallow writing seriously.

You are literally parroting the opinion of and pulling a quote of ranty assertions (with zero substance or backing) from Ted K and THIS is your proof that Zerzan is talking about things "he doesn't really understand"? Do you think philosophical scholarship is just team sports where you pick your white man to ride of die? The brainwiped incel Ted K is your big man? I'm embarrassed for you.

No, the second paragraph you didn't read was an opinion formed prior to my reading of Ted K (for example he doesn't mention the number essay). He's not my big man either. lol

dude, jz admitted (both implicitly and explicitly) that he didn't know what alejandro de acosta was talking about (i think it was the eating stirner piece) and still did a whole workshop on how bad it was. that was on e of the last @ bookfairs jz attended, i think.

there have been other places where he took quotes from people's works in his writing, that when you know the source material was clearly saying something different. it does suck that i can't remember specifcs for that one, but it happened at least once. and i knew because i knew the source material. who knows how many times it happened more than that, especially since i haven't even read much jz. i know tha t without page numbrs and titles there' snot mch reason to believe me, but then you're one of those people who just comes on here to say how great jz is anyway, and you give even less explanation than this, so whatever.

finally, corrosive consciousness by fitzpatrick has plenty to say about circular reasoning and other rhetorical weaknesses of both jz and kt, but i'm sure you'd never want to read a whole book about it.

i concur but also find myself in the same boat as 8:37 here.
i don't want to go back through all that just to satisfy someone else's curiosity.

my copy of Elements of Refusal is from 1988 so that's how long ago my JZ period was. by 1999 though, after being in a study group for a while and looking more closely at his essays it does become apparent that he has a tendency to use quotes out of their original context and thus shift the meanings around.

but please don't take my word for it, go look up the source material for yourselves, as any anarchist would.

Y'all are a bunch of seething ressentimentismos. Just because you're too under-educated to know what good writing and scholarship is doesn't mean it's not as based as your self-published screeds like Fitzpatrick (who admitted the retardation of that book in one of the podcasts he appeared on after). Acosta hides in academia licking the boot after John tore him a new one. Alejandro's writing on Stirner is gibberish.
Just admit that John is an incredibly important, once in a generation anarchist thinker that has done more for anti-civ anarchy than most anyone before his work and you're all a bunch of nobody seething ressentimentos that spend all day complaining what others do while doing nothing yourselves.

What are you asserting that John loves to talk about but "doesn't really understand"?

Inb4 "uUhhH evErYtHing! I hATes hIM! gollum, gollum"

Don't you see, anon? 12:56 is saying that the guy who literally wrote the book on anarchist primitivism and domestication doesn't really understand what he's talking about because REASONS that 12:56 is WAY too smart to explain! Bruh!

*levitates and floats away*

actually the issue is that jz (and plenty of other people who use domestication, civilization, and primitive and primal, etc) use such wide and varying definitions that those words basically just mean "bad things" and "good things" respectively.

but i've now given too much energy and respect to your meaningless attempts to talk shit

Although this is actually not the case and not what John does (because your assertion is a fabrication and deflection), suppose an author did do what you're accusing him of. What truly is "the issue" with using a "wide and varying definition of words [that] basically just mean 'bad things' and 'good things' respectively". Is your tantrum against the meaning of words or the duality of definition in language? Are you saying your words ("domestication, civilization, and primitive and primal, etc") are sacred and it's an "issue" when people use them in ways you disagree with? What do you think about the word: truth? What about "seething ressentiment"?

You and your time trying to spread your grudge against John's work is so cringe.

I am totally uninterested in your squabble about Zerzan, but you are now named SR Troll. You have mentioned “seething ressentiment” 6 times in this thread alone, not to mention all the others. Its hilarious because if anyone is seething it seems to be you lol.

Sr: (abbreviation for Sister) for female members of religious orders in the Catholic church and other churches, and women generally in some religious organizations such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

wow. way to a. misdirect, b. misread, c. strawman, d. obfuscate.

but the one actual (and idiotic) question you raise, what's wrong with being vague as fuck, i can answer thusly. who is against "good things"? who is for "bad things"? if one is not making an argument about why something is bad or good, then one is basically just virtue signalling to others who already agree with one, and who already make assumptions about and accept the jargon. like you, apparently.

Different anon here.
You're not really answering the question but instead avoiding the accusation of deflection by deflecting and doubling-down on an empty assertion. I'd also be careful about the term "virtue signaling" if you're at all converned with not being "vague as fuck" because in common parlance it's a reactionary dog whistle. But maybe that's appropriate for one?

As someone who has lived defiantly, joyfully, and authentically in the mountains and off-the-grid for almost two decades with my tribe of anarchic luddite rebels, I would like all the urban-dwelling hipsters who want to play rural for a while because they watched some YouTube or TikTok videos to stay where they belong. The urban terrain is better suited for your hyper-domesticated ways and politics.

my god, my most authoritarian belief is that we need to ban the word domesticated, domestication, etc. from vocabularies of anews commenters. it feels like a buzzword at this point. instead of clarifying what you really mean (presumably "urbanites lack the skills to live off the land and this is bad because xyz"), you sort of just pepper it in just because it feels correct.

my god, i think you got what was meant. it wasn't a long comment, you domesticate.
it is usually the people who have no use for what the word, meaning those have no critique of its dynamic, that have no use for it.

How might you define an anarchist land project?

An anarchist land project is one that does not employ a mediating authority in the relationship between a person and their environment (the land).

I reckon that what most people think of as "having land" is having a place where they have the right to exclude others access to. The only way that exclusion can be done without offense to anarchy is if is an agreement, not an imposition. When a mediating authority is employed in this process, exclusion may not be agreed upon, this would be most prevalent in common areas, and their caretakers.

For personal spaces I suggest this:

Every human being should be able to make themselves a home, a place to rest and sustain themselves on one acre of land, they say there are 27 billion acres of human-habitable land, at an acre each we would be inhabiting a third of the planet and leaving two thirds to the rest of the community of life.

This suggestion exemplifies not needing a mediating authority to implement:

I recognize this in each and every human, we all need a space in which to grow what we need to feed ourselves, a place to rest and recenter, I recognize this in each and every one, and if we all recognize this basic need we can take down the gates for this sort of access.

Add new comment