Easy Ways to Spot Authoritarians Within the Anarchist Milieu

from Warzone Distro

au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism
Noun: the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

We decided that a fun way to kick off the new year would be to encourage a more critical and confrontational examination of authoritarian elements within anarchist spaces.

Throughout our time as both a zine distro at events and individuals active in the streets, we are amazed to see the continued protection and perpetuation of authoritarianism in anarchist spaces. When we say "authoritarianism", we mean both socially, wherein it materializes as a power dynamic at play between individuals, as well as organizationally wherein it manifests as so-called anarchist events that collectively enforce rules, state-like solutions to conflict, and even body-policing.

None of what we are presenting here is new. Remember the Smack a White Boy Round Two CrimethInc. Eviction? For those of you who don’t know or remember, in July 2009, at a Crimethinc convergence in Pittsburgh, about a half a dozen people (some who had participated in the convergence, some who had come into town just for this action) stormed into a hall full of people, screaming slogans and reading a prepared statement about gentrification and white supremacy. Immediately after, they began forcefully evicting everyone inside, throwing any items they could find into the hallway or at the heads, backs, and bodies of anyone who attempted to stop them, all the while screaming at them to ‘get the fuck out of here’, ‘get out of Pittsburgh’, and ’“Go back to Europe! I’m sick of looking at your white fucking face!” The group screamed that they wouldn’t stop what they were doing until all of the white people from the convergence were out of the building, out of Pittsburgh.

The problem of these types of authoritarians attempting to dominate and control anarchist spaces never ended – and probably won’t for the foreseeable future. With everyone on guard looking out for armed right-wing militias to show up, authoritarians posing as anarchists waltz right in and either loudly or discreetly start up their bullshit. And because they don’t display black and yellow Fred Perry’s, confederate flags, or blue lives matter emblems, most people either freeze up or look the other way. Conflicts continue to break out at almost every anarchist event. Which wouldn’t be a concern if it was just personal drama. But the people who instigate them utilize the cover of a radical facade in order to disguise their true authoritarian intentions – and they’ve built up confidence in their ability to succeed.

It is our opinion that anarchists often allow these authoritarians to take control of anarchist spaces out of a good-natured solidarity and allyship with any and all marginalized individuals. This is in addition to what we feel to be a desperate attempt to avoid negative publicity or public calling-out. While we of course support the idea that marginalized voices should be heard within anarchist spaces, we do not support authoritarian ideas, goals, or practices, regardless of whose voice is proposing them. It seems to us that the anarchist fear of potentially being labeled a racist, white supremacist, sexist, transphobe, or so on outweighs the importance in confronting authoritarians, especially in anarchist spaces. In practice, this fragility allows for the co-opting of events and spaces, creating an atmosphere of confusion for individuals new to the scene who find themselves caught in the middle of a paradigm shift that re-defines anarchy to fit the worldview of these authoritarians. Once in control, authoritarians - emboldened by the internet - encourage others to hijack anarchist projects, using them as a platform to further their own version of anarchism - a version that inverts the current settler-colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal power structure rather than abolishing it, conflating any and all resistance to the demands of these authoritarians with structural oppression.

With the rise of social media being used as a tool for social networking, information spreads more quickly, causing anxiety for many anarchists whose reputations have been largely built online. Authoritarians have perfected weaponizing social media for smear campaigns, bad-jacketing, snitch-jacketing, and other forms of character assassination. When anarchists are viewed as gullible, diffident, and desperate for social validity, acceptance, and political involvement, they are considered easy targets, timid and unwilling to jeopardize their membership within the movement - especially by openly defying those who possess social power. Due to what we perceive to be an over-reliance on social media for anarchist networking, any number of online social manipulation tactics can mean an abrupt ending for even a respected and seasoned project.

As with all power that seeks to control and dominate, fear is the weapon of choice for authoritarians disguised as anarchists.

“Fear. Fear is real. There are times when fear should be listened to. Like when shots ring out and fear tells you to duck and run. There are other times when fear needs to be pushed through. We leave it up to each person to decide when to push and when to run. The fear we criticize is not that of those who stay away from violent and chaotic scenes, not that of those who listen to their bodies telling them they cannot handle yet another trauma. We find no fault in those who make these choices for themselves.

The fear that we would like to critique here is the fear of forming one’s own opinion, the fear of developing one’s own analysis and then acting upon it. We do find fault in this fear of the White Ally. To be a White Ally is to stop thinking for one’s self, to blindly follow a leader based on no other criteria than their identity. At least this is what is demanded of us by those who would make us into Allies.”

- Another Word For White Ally is Coward

As a zine distro that started in the hood, distributed free literature in the hood, and was founded by an anarchist of color who grew up in that hood, we appreciate the importance of being honest and upfront about how we feel - as well as the potential danger that comes with this type of honesty. We are aware of the potential consequences we face by not sanitizing our opinions on shit. We at Warzone Distro have never been afraid to speak our minds and criticize those who enjoy protection and ideological immunity from cowardly allies. We have no motivation to be nice about the way we identify authoritarians who use identity politics as a ‘get away with shit’ card.

We also have no interest in debates centered around who is how much of what identity, who has what or how much privilege, or any other form of oppression olympics. While we acknowledge the myriad of oppressions that plague social life under capitalism, we have no patience for this oppression being used as an excuse to invert social hierarchies for personal power trips. We are only interested in aggressively confronting these hierarchies altogether along with the social and institutional power bases that uphold them.

And sometimes this includes those who, at least on the surface, would appear to be our accomplices.

“Demographic categories are not coherent, homogeneous “communities” or “cultures” which can be represented by individuals. Identity categories do not indicate political unity or agreement. Identity is not solidarity. Gender, sexual, and economic domination within racial identity categories have typically been described through an additive concept, intersectionality, which continues to assume that political agreement is automatically generated through the proliferation of existing demographic categories. Representing significant political differences as differences in privilege or culture places politics beyond critique, debate, and discussion.”

-The Limitations of Contemporary Anti-Oppression Theory and Practice

Below we have created a short list of some of the most common ways we have seen authoritarians gain power from anarchists. We must stress that this was created from perspectives that do not claim or intend to represent anarchists as a whole, but only our personal interpretations of anarchy and the frustrations we have felt within anarchist spaces.
Enjoy!

If It Walks Like an Authoritarian, Swims Like an Authoritarian, and Quacks Like an Authoritarian...

1. If it coerces mutual aid or solidarity by leveraging accusations of bigotry.

Authoritarians often attempt to take advantage of well-meaning individuals by claiming that allies must provide financial or other material assistance to the authoritarians. To refuse (or be unable) to do so is to be labeled racist, fascist, transphobic, etc. The authoritarian preys upon the good will of those who fear a revocation of their ally status.

2. If it speaks for and (claims to) represent the views and interests of an entire identity category.

Authoritarians may seek to use their identities (or sometimes, others’ identities) to prop up their views, explicitly or implicitly claiming that the entirety of a group holds a particular view or belief (that they just so happen to believe). The authoritarian positions itself as the arbiter of a given identity, leveraging a royal "we" against the individual.

3. If it discourages questioning or critical examination by leveraging accusations of apologism.

Authoritarians seek to control narratives and the flow of information in order to control the perception of a situation. This means discouraging any questioning as it may lead one to a different interpretation of events. If an individual requests more information about a situation or cancelation, or worse, questions the validity of the accusations, the authoritarian(s) will make inflammatory accusations of the individual being an (abuse, rape, etc) apologist.

4. If it claims that you are guilty by association for not conforming to the social banning or cancellation of an individual or project

Authoritarians use guilt by association against those who question or defy the banning or canceling of an individual, creating a culture of conformity through fear. This is similar to the way the state is presently using a RICO charge against the atlanta forest defenders. The authoritarian posits that if you associate with an abuser (or any individual or project that it declares problematic), you must be an abuser (or problematic) yourself (or an apologist - see number 3).

Side note: although some authoritarians may also claim to be in support of restorative justice, and against prisons, the social isolation in perpetuity of a canceled individual or project runs counter to this.

5. If it makes claims that any part of your body (including how you style your hair) is oppressive to an entire category of people and therefore needs to be modified.

Authoritarians may seek to control an individual's body. Since anti-oppression is the basis for anarchist thought, some individuals or groups have found that those who identify as anarchists are most sensitive to accusations of being oppressive. This sensitivity is exploited in order to conflate a mere opinion with fact, giving it the power to control. This may range from an opinion that one race has ownership over a particular hairstyle, to an opinion that one sex has ownership over a particular gender or gender expression. Authoritarians may then seek to ban individuals who openly disagree with these opinions from events or spaces, or even enact physical violence on them.

6. If it measures the value of a perspective based on identity rather than merit.

Authoritarians who find power with identity politics are quick to disregard, silence, or altogether erase perspectives that are not socially valuable in upholding their dogmatic and unnuanced view of oppression. Any ideas coming from those belonging to the oppressed category are given precedence, regardless of their relevance to anti-authoritarianism; while any ideas held by those belonging to the oppressor category are automatically treated as suspect or less worthy of consideration.

This leads to the acceptance and proliferation of a subculture where those perceived as oppressors are intentionally given less opportunity than those categorized as oppressed. Rather than creating genuine equality by abolishing identity categories (along with their corresponding forms of oppression), the larger social hierarchy is inverted, and oppressive power is merely transferred rather than destroyed.

7. If it uses personal needs as a tool to police others.

Authoritarians will appeal to organizers (or act as such themselves) to act as police to enforce the actions they desire from others in regards to physical disability or ailments, mental or neurological differences, or past traumatic experiences. They will demand that a space be made safe for them through top-down mandates and sanctions, rather than addressing others one-on-one/horizontally to have their needs met, and/or using their own personal risk assessment to decide if they personally feel comfortable in a situation.

8. If it discounts the perspectives of other marginalized people whose opinions conflict with the authoritarians’.

Differing perspectives offered by anarchists of color -in particular those critical of privilege theory, identity politics, or leftism - pose a threat to the image of racial homogeneity that leftists so desperately try to portray. In alignment with trying to control the narrative, authoritarians must silence or erase any dissenting voices. A notable experience of this happened during the occupy movement in places like Oakland;

“A recent communique critiquing the Occupy movement states,

“The participation of people of color [in Occupy Oakland] does not change the fact that this occupation of public space upholds white supremacy…. Some of our own sisters and brothers have silenced our critiques in order to hold on to their positions of power as token people of color in the movement.”

The communique argues that people of color can suddenly “uphold” white supremacy because they do not share the political analysis of the document’s authors. People of color who do not agree with the politics advanced by this group are labeled white, informants, members of Cointelpro, or tokens. Often many of us are simply erased. This is a powerful and deeply manipulative rhetorical tactic which simply fails to engage substantively with any of the reasons why people of color did participate in Occupy Oakland and equates critical participation with support for rape, racism, sexism, homophobia, and gentrification. Needless to say, the authors of the above-quoted passage do not speak for us.”

-The Erasure of People of Color From Occupy Oakland

Dangerous Spaces

We feel that anyone claiming to host a “safe space” is politically dishonest at best, and dangerously misleading at worst. No individual, group, or event can guarantee the safety of others. We assumed this was a forgone conclusion for anyone who has experienced violence within the co-called safe spaces of communities, families, and even romantic relationships. Danger permeates every aspect of life. Rather than rely on protection rackets or retreat into eternal victimhood we seek ways to arm and empower one another, knowing that self-defeatism only serves to embolden those who wish to kill us.

An example of this is the "Dangerous Space Policy" we proposed for the Green Scare Anarchist Bookfair:

“Dangerous Space Policy:

The Green Scare Anarchist Bookfair will be eschewing a 'safer spaces'
policy in favor of a Dangerous Space Policy.
This means that we expect all attendees and vendors to be responsible
for their own actions, and the potential repercussions of their actions.
As hosts of this event, we refuse to assume the role of "police" or
"security" to mediate conflicts that happen between people. We
personally will not be used as a security apparatus to kick anyone out
of this event, unless the conflict is with us directly. Everyone who
attends is expected to utilize their own individual agency in directly
dealing with and solving their problems with others. Therefore, this
event is a dangerous space for anyone who disrespects the space and
those occupying it.
We accept that oppression based on identity exists in our present
society, but we are not interested in perpetuating this paradigm. All
voices here are weighed based on the merit of their experience, not the
identity of the person who voiced them.
This should go without sayin' but to make it abundantly clear, this is
an anti-capitalist, anti-fascist event.”

We don’t want to be purists. We understand that anarchists come from a variety of backgrounds and have varying accessibility to information. We also understand that there is a fuck ton of disinformation about anarchism in the world. Authoritarianism may exist within well-intending self-identifying anarchists. And in face-to-face conversations (and sometimes over the internet) it’s easy to tell the difference between someone who is still figuring shit out and someone who has figured out a sneaky ass way to control others.

Unintentional authoritarianism can be easily observed in organizer/attendee conflicts at anarchist events. Merely being an organizer of an anarchist event doesn't imply an obligation (or some sort of statist authority) to ensure the safety and protection of attendees - let alone based on identity alone. But this authoritarian perception of organized spaces is less likely to come from a place of ill-intending attendees and most likely exists as a product of industrial society. Outside of radical spaces it’s more common for organized events to be hosted by individuals who take on the responsibility of their attendees. So naturally people are conditioned to view organizers as responsible for personal safety, similar to the security apparatus of an institution or business. From the perspective of the anti-authoritarian organizer, if the goal is to make the event as inclusive as possible, there is the stress to accommodate as many people as possible - and sometimes this includes mistakenly catering to the demands of authoritarians posing as anarchists.

We ain’t tryin’ to tell other anarchists how to host their events. When we hosted the Green Scare Anarchist Bookfair, everything that happened was a direct result of dynamic relationships between ungoverned individuals. Weeks prior to the event we received criticism for our refusal to manage this event. People declared our event “unsafe”. Some people showed up anyways despite their concerns, and others did not. We wanted to create the anarchy we wished to see in the world – and we did. Dreadlocks (yup, including white ones), anarchists of all colors, crusty train hoppers sharing stories of their adventures around a DIY improvised bonfire, dumpstered food for everyone, orgies all night, and new accomplices made. Yes there were conflicts. But they were handled between the individuals directly involved without our intervention.

As anarchists who attend and table events, we encourage folks to think more critically about social hierarchies. This includes examining relationships that co-depend on organizers. We would love to see the dissolution of top-down relationships that place organizers in positions of authority by well-meaning attendees. When organizers are unable to fulfill the complex needs and demands of every individual attendee, they become the target for endless blame. And this ultimately distracts from the primary problem: a lack of individual self-initiation and determination. We feel a Do-It-Yourself ethic has value in building individual power toward developing and maintaining independent thinking. And as we have seen in a number of cases, independent thinking is sabotage against those who wish to turn empowered individuals into an ideologically manageable hivemind.

This text is by no means intended to be complete. It is a mere contribution to a much larger project of confronting authority within and beyond anarchist spaces.

This text is in no way directed at any particular event, group, or individual, nor is it designed to encourage a search and destroy lynch-mob.

This text merely provides what we personally consider to be a basic understanding of the mindset from which authoritarians typically operate. We write this with the aim of inspiring courageous individuals, armed with a mental and physical preparedness for any and all possible encounters with authoritarians of any background or identity category - especially those who weaponize the language of anti-oppression to secure hierarchical power within anarchist spaces.

We have no shame in making known our desire to create tension between ourselves and authoritarians who prop up identity markers as a shield from criticism and confrontation. We have no interest in transformative justice tactics that play out as re-branded statism, such as accountability processes, banning, or canceling. We prefer to continue creating spaces that (either at events or in our individual lives) pose a danger to those who wish to subjugate us. We actively strive to strengthen the meaning of anarchy as life, ungovernable under pressure in the face of identity politics used to coerce social conformity. And while we understand that not everyone who attends anarchist events will be an anarchist, and while we can accept the reality that conflicts will continue to erupt in violence in a world in constant flux, the sterilization of anarchy - in meaning and practice - can only be reversed when individuals refuse to surrender themselves to fear.

-The Feral Kidz of Warzone Distro

There are 107 Comments

very much appreciate this writing! saves me a lot of work

reminds me of the "laws of the vampire castle" but updated and better and not defending a rapist so that's a massive improvement! seriously tho, this liberal identity bullshit is probably one of THE counter insurgency poisoned pills of the last 3+ decades and the only way to kill these cops in our heads is by having this conversation over and over until this critique is as common as blinking

Your welcome lumpy.

If you really like it why not help out at:

Cashapp: blackandgreenpress
Vanma: blackandgreen
Paypal: blackandgreen

Thanks!

we must chase the horizon of the beautiful idea anon!

or do whatever you want, i'm not your boss but me? i like this here hill, might even die on it a few times

"might even die on it a few times" AHAAA! Eternal recurrence! You read some NEECH!! Hoorah 4U!

At least not until a few sessions of Stirner reading groups become required for all the newbies... Anarchism is now confirmed as whatever neoliberals find suitable for their Causes.

Yeah neoliberal hive mentality has creeped in and denied free thought and self-expression.

This smells like bullshit to me but…it would be easier to tell if the authors gave more specific examples from recent times. It would be easier to clear up doubts & suspicions if readers could be like "I remember that, yeah it was authoritarian as fuxk/ no I actually think that was fine."

As it stands the opening example is a thing that happened literally 15 years ago, which because of the subculture in-n-out nature means most people aren't gonna know shit about it.

Here's the communique from the people who did the eviction which explains their motives/goals
https://web.archive.org/web/20090803012127/http://illvox.org/2009/07/sma...

Responses from crimethinc and people they decided to platform
https://crimethinc.com/2009/08/03/crimethinc-convergence-controversy
https://crimethinc.com/2009/08/08/more-convergence-accounts

So whatever you think of it at least you have a clue of what went down/why.

Part of why the article smells like bs to me is the constant claims that identity politics or whatever is irrelevant. Followed by "As a zine distro that started in the hood, distributed free literature in the hood, and was founded by an anarchist of color who grew up in that hood". Why is any of that relevant if the distro believes it's wrong to use the force of identity to justify your stand??

(Also normally reposts from another site have a link to the original but it just says "from Warzone" and the noblogs doesn't have this as a recent post. So another thing that smells weird to me but if someone can clarify go ahead)

The first half of this really just reads like that Adrienne maree blog post that said cancel culture was like lynching but with radlib terminology replaced with anarchy words. But the whole argument that people like this are basically doing reverse oppression or whatever. It's not new. Once again if more specific examples were given it would be easier for a reader to be like "yeah you're just complaining because the old guard is losing clout/oh no yeah that fucking was basically flipped lower structures it was really fucked up". But in practice there's a lot of vague language which it's easy for someone to project an incident in their head onto depending on how they feel about it.

"so-called anarchist events that collectively enforce rules, state-like solutions to conflict, and even body-policing." So are we literally saying that having any rules (or norms or whatever) or enforcing them is authoritarianism? Because if so let's own that. Seems like "anarchy means doing what I want, telling me not to do things is authoritarian" from where I'm sitting but for the million time of there has been more specific examples there would have been opportunities to confirm whether or not my instincts are right or not. Now I'm wondering how the authors feel about "the politics of denunciation" another essay that made broad statements about people being authoritarian under the pretense of the opposite but which left out the actual specific controversy that the author Kristian Williams was involved in like who was mad at him and why.

"Part of why the article smells like bs to me is the constant claims that identity politics or whatever is irrelevant. Followed by "As a zine distro that started in the hood, distributed free literature in the hood, and was founded by an anarchist of color who grew up in that hood". Why is any of that relevant if the distro believes it's wrong to use the force of identity to justify your stand??"

Relevant to the fact that some out there dismiss this distro as a group of white, trust-fund edgy anarchists. Good luck with the rest of your investigation.

Smells like bullshit because it's probably about you. Trust me there's enough people who are sick of the shit. It's over. Its insane for someone to think this is irrelevant.

Anyhow, the only relevant thing left out about the Crimethinc gathering is that the guy of course is nowhere to found. In fact nowhere to be found very soon after. It's how all these authoritarians are, get their fulfillment and leave.

It's embarassing that the guy didn't leave with a foot tag. The only thing I disagree with is the article mentioning optics. I think the optics of that would have been great.

"Part of why the article smells like bs to me is the constant claims that identity politics or whatever is irrelevant. "

If you took care to think about this article, you would see they are actually catering to identity with their references to "marginalized voices"...if it were up to me, i would be more specific, but thanks for the links as it makes it a little easier to understand that example they gave in the article. People who throw around Malcom X quotes as a way to justify something authoritarian they did do strike me as authoritarian...the guy was an anti-semitic muslim, so i don't really see what relevance he has to anarchism.

Here were clearly similar to white supremacist thought and practice ("go back to europe"), and this whole thing wad motivated by the skin color of crimethinc being "white people", i do wonder why warzone is writing about something that happened 14 years ago instead of using more recent examples of racist identity politics. Not that they don't exist...this is america...but it seems like a better idea to be focused on current problems.

tragedy plus time = analogy that people might think clearly about? or maybe not!

the "smells like bullshit" anon is apparently still sitting on the fence about the smack-a-whiteboy fiasco? good people on both sides?

which is fukin wild, if true. after 15 years, anybody still confused about whether it's ok to try to do a race realism purge to a bunch of broke anarchists and try to "evict them" from a space you've arbitrarily declared to be not-for-[insert identity]? like, you're not an anarchist if you think this way, you're a fukin cult leader or you're in a god damned cult. israel wants their rationalization back, you seem to have borrowed it. pull your head out of your ass. do better.

this absolutely abysmal failure of theory is exactly why warzone needed to write this piece.

"studying theory" when anarchists think they must keep instituting useless policies in their spaces and can't be bothered to stop paying their internet bills, dont you think? You aren't part of some elite club, you are just chatting/trolling online like everyone else.

Im not interested in hanging out with vegan edgelords who think they are waging war on civilization through a vegan diet. Whether you respect peoples accusations is totally up to you: it has always been up to you. Do you think a dangerous space policy would keep out apoc? They had the "approval" to do what they did! They even admitted to it!

No one was mad at KW until he wrote the essay about what we would now call cancel culture.

"politics of denunciation" blew up things that were already ongoing

https://patriarchyhaters.wordpress.com/

"For example, the survivor in the Pete Little fracas was intensely and actively campaigned against by Kristian. He personally contacted people all over the US, calling this person a political libability, essentially making them out to be a scandalous individual who wasn’t to be trusted."

This is spot on, puts so many of my thoughts onto paper that I have not been able to articulate with my frustration with radlib reiteration fascist ass behavior.

Don't really have that much to say. Though I find dangerous spaces to not be a concept that sound every interesting to me at all. And I view the critique of number 7 not really or be of specific "authoritarian policing" but the very nature of how relating with others in modern society is filled with power from hierarcical structures. Because it's not possible to be rid of hierarchy 100%.

I am familiar with many similar methods to dangerous spaces and my experience is always it just defaults to crude direct democracy where the expectations are on what's popular with those around. I am very skeptical that it will get away from this "policing" that the authors criticize.

Personally stuff I run I'll continue with "authoritarian policing". Because dangerous spaces sounds like a very unappealing solution in theory and in similar practices I have viewed.

i agree that figuring otu the difference between appropriate and inappropriate boundaries is really left open in this piece (and in a lot of anarchist conversation and thinking), but i wish you wouldnt' just concede the "authoritarian policing" fight.

seems like anarchists should really, by definition, be able to get behind "authoritarian policing" being A Bad Thing. i mean, what is language for...

yeah, 2nd this. plus it's "left open" because conflicts are extremely contextual.

you can make broad critiques of the tricks people tend to use to gain power because there are patterns but it's very difficult or impossible to make prescriptive statements about an unknown conflict that might arise in the future.

put another way, it's a lot easier (and better and anarchist) to talk about the do-not-do's with conflict. this piece does that well.

"dangerous spaces" on the other hand, is a pretty vague critique and a hot take and basically not a list of guidelines that people can use to mediate a conflict. more like a declaration of intent to let people work out all the petty conflicts themselves

democracy", because democracy isn't direct (it's actually an impediment to direct action). I do agree with the writers, however, in the sense that a personal assessment of your own feelings is important, and in my opinion it's literally the most important type of analysis there is...sometimes logic will not tell you if there's danger or if it's a situation that will leave feeling drained and disappointed. I'd think 2 or 3 times before showing up at ANY event these days that calls itself "anarchist".

a key bit for me is the author(s)(?) saying

"We have no interest in transformative justice tactics that play out as re-branded statism, such as accountability processes, banning, or canceling. "

not having interest in accountability is telling. it's as if they want to be able to do whatever to whomever without consequences or taking responsibility. you know, it really is okay and within anarchist principles to abide by the guidelines of a particular space or group when you are in that space. i am a slob who wears my shoes indoors but if my host asked me to take off my shoes in their home i would not hesitate. that is not oppression, that is being a kind guest.

I don't think the author is saying they have no interest in accountability as in people being accountable in their actions to each other, I believe what's intended here is closer to a capital A capital P Accountability Processes that leftists carry out as public tribunals in the kangaroo courts of Twitter and Facebook and materialize as public temper tantrums at so many events. The text doesn't come off as "wear your shoes inside because anarchy means fuck your couch" so much as it does "authoritarians among the anarchists will document every time you wear your shoes inside, print out their dossier, wheat paste it to a baseball bat, beat you with it every time you go anywhere, and anyone who tells them to stop will also be branded an indoors-shoe-wearer"

Further thoughts:

The leftist idea of accountability is often a public demand from groups of strangers aiming for an individual and that's honestly a nonstarter for me. Chalk it up as another term leftists have bastardized beyond recognition. RIP in Power to gaslighting, intersectionality, mutual aid, and queer. Gawn2Sün

emma gets it, other folks appear to be too literal or something?

Turn off your internet, brah. It's warping your perspective. Anarchy is offline.

I'm from Chicago, what I'm describing above is just as prevalent in person here as it is online. It's very upset tingly unavoidable.

What did you do today?

please.

i am not talking about online anything. maybe they do mean capital P accountability Process, but they do not make that clear. in my experience the people who loudly complain about accountability are usually the ones who are trying to fuck over their friends and accomplices. and accountability isn't about keeping tabs on the day to day, it's for serious boundary crossings. i'm sure you understand that you just think you are being clever.

that kinda sucks that you've experienced that in all honestly. I don't have a whole lot of experience with "the scene", and people don't really talk about accountability in terms of personal affairs. It varies who the fuckers are and who aren't, one key sign of somebody being a fucker is pathological lying and aggrandized statements made about themselves. I don't really see much of a need to discuss "accountability" with anybody, literally ever. People in general seem to do fine just talking about the boundaries themselves...

but the issue with humor on here is i don't know who you are, i can't see your face or body language, and who can tell the jokes from the gotchas.

also, what you said about just taking about the boundaries is what i think of as accountability, or another bugaboo, taking responsibility.

Are generally okay when people realize that they are the root cause of what they do, even though practically everyone is a vic in some way or another...

Well said. The list in this article covers a lot of ground in things I have witnessed myself, and often reminds me of when actions get co-opted by “peacekeepers” and self appointed leaders. I think of incidents of this with the George Floyd rebellions as well as more recent blockades of weapons ships headed toward Palestine. Even small marches and like the article suggests, book fairs, I’ve seen this happen. It turns it from a space where anarchy can flourish to just another soon to falter or be co-opted leftist performance.

I think it’s crucial to critique our own shit. If someone can’t at least entertain the thoughts that are being expressed here, without taking it personally and reacting defensively, what good is one’s analysis of anything oppressive, really? Idpol authoritarianism definitely causes more harm than good to the efforts of combating oppressive structures and attitudes, at least by leaving a bad taste in the mouth of outsiders interested in anarchy, and at worse, stifling critical thought, smothering worthwhile action, and dissolving any sort of unity that might otherwise flourish.

If I as an AFAB let the statistically likely threat of sexual violence, for example, prevent me from dressing a certain way in public because I can’t expect the cis guys around me to keep me safe, that’s a me problem, rooted in MY fear. The threat of violence is a societal problem but how I personally respond to it is ESSENTIAL for me to understand and act on. Otherwise I’m just a soon to be victim, right? Nah fuck that. I embody anarchy by living and thriving in SPITE of the structural bullshit of this world.

That’s in fact what revolutionary people throughout history and across cultures have done. No way to avoid risk when striving for liberation. To control others is indeed authoritarian. Start by controlling oneself and being brave, how about. Nazis are shit heads, but are people really going to control or assault bodies of white people literally fist fighting said nazis because some folks despise white people having a particular haircut? that larger white supremacist capitalist society deems “bad” no matter what your skin color? Is it really any wonder that folks outside anarchy wouldn’t give it another thought even if they’d normally sympathize with the idea, when their hippie ass gets put off by some (surprisingly usually white) “leader” on a loudspeaker telling everyone with dreads who isn’t black to cut their hair, every half hour at the fucking anarchist book fair? are we really going to kick people out of the forest because of their hair when we need bodies to defend the shit?

What exactly is your definition of anarchy if it involves controlling others? Attack the systems not anarchy itself.
I know that it’s easy for us to do the same shit we are trying to stand against. That’s why there’s so many shitty misogynist men who claim feminism, so many actually racist white allies, so many cissexist/sexist trans people (I’m looking at all the AFAB trans/enbies who hate/distrust/shit talk AMAB trans/enbies and vice versa) .

Consider the fact we’re all hypocrites because we’re the type of people who are mad about some shit in this world. If you act like merely saying you’re against some shit, and that absolves you from perpetuating it somehow, you’re at risk of missing your own contribution to it.

Personal example as case in point: I was once told by the owner of the shop I work at that “for an anarchist you sure are good at bossing people around” and while that was hard to hear, it was needed for me to hear. Ask yourself if you’re acting out of anarchy next time you get mad at someone. Ask yourself if this really make us all equal individuals. Sometimes you have to let a grudge go even if the one responsible never apologizes or makes an attempt to do better, because it’s unhealthy for yourself in the long run. We run the risk of being the very people we try to avoid being. Seriously y’all.

Sad fact is USA anarchy has pretty much always been embarrassing post 1960. It's why there needs to be a total split with leftism and by consequence liberalism in all its iterations. If we make mistakes it should be on the opposite end of the mistakes we are making now. But this takes action. Not just words like these ones.

Maybe unlike the article says we do need a public spectacle. Instead of just beating someone up who shows to shit on a playground (which is great they were violently confronted) maybe it should be videotaped. Everytime they say something like "I'm an oppressed identity" kick them one more time.

"waaah i'm a true victim, oh no people can actually see what I do! I'm even more of a victim now! SOMEONE COME TO MY RESCUE"

I'm torn between 2 extreme sets of values. I'm a nihilist-humanist, like being a sensitive foraging Neanderthal put into an inner-urban demolition team. My only entertainment is slapstick comedy or anarchist forums. Help me!

However, identifying authoritarians is a very straightforward process, and can more easily be done if you don't hang out with a "scene". For example, there are people who police online content without even explaining why...

was just another authoritarian policy, i would think real anarchists wouldn't need policies, the word "police" is basically in the word "policy", and i don't take people seriously when they refuse to adapt to situations spontaneously....who need some written-in-stone ethic to guide them...

youre over-thinking it. dangerous space policy in name was created as a play on "safe space policy".

That's a common problem when an ideology's values become collectivised and therefore loss of individuality, the avoidance of spontaneous encounter dynamics and the development of our innate human creature ettiquette which thwarts aggression and hostilities.

A policy doesn't mean automatically that anarchists involved will transform into a police force. A policy is just a set of principles or values to orient an endeavor or project. Having no policy at all, especially online, means giving a field day to whatever hate speech bigots, trolls and spooks you can imagine. Tell me how else you can prevent this from happening, and how that's not a "policy".

and please note that yes you are defending it

has nothing to do with stupidity or paranoia...but the fact that what you have just said is literally how authority, hierarchy, law & order defends everything it does: "oh yeah?! show us how you would defend this bad thing that we imagined can be defended in any other way!" Every time "we" (yeah well idk about you...) point out that cops don't protect & serve and are criminals themselves, the response is always "but but, the pedophiles, the murderers...". Lesser of two evils logic goes waaay beyond presidential elections.

So I guess what I'm wondering is to what extent you want "anarchy", or to what extent you want to have real dangerous spaces, which implies having no policy whatsoever. ...To me, dangerous space policy is fear of safety and "the identity politicians". It's prefigured politics to even prevent certain topics from being brought up. Everyone in the room is just left to silently plot and wonder I guess.

Like the authors said above: "If It Walks Like an Authoritarian, Swims Like an Authoritarian, and Quacks Like an Authoritarian... "...if it's just hypocritical and oxymoronic, then it probably doesn't make sense in terms of having an event and reflects some more structural issues with what activists are trying to accomplish.

So here's another thing, a "proof" if you will: the event being referred to resulted in aragorn! getting his car sabotaged, and oh my how he was upset with the event and how dangerous space policies don't protect attassa-dealing and blah blah blah!

it wasn't his car, asshole, and his complaint was about how the DSP was mostly a way for the organizers to wash their hands, and certainly not a face-to-face confrontation like WZ is advocating for, than it was anything more creative or challenging.

people here have been aggressively trying to get me to tolerate DSP? Come on, i'm "on your side" about this one, but i was not there and I think it's kinda odd to get touchy about me making fun of an event that was obviously going to be a shit show from the start in part because of the DSP.

I don't think publishers of Attassa should get attacked, but to rehash an old point: When you publish some literature loosely advocating indiscriminate violence towards humans because they are weak/pitiful, the outcome may not be very pleasing. You may hair-split over what the book advocates and what eco-extremists advocate, yet a book doesn't really speak and any attempt to draw lines in the sand about that isn't really going to pan out that way. I saw it as a learning opportunity and I learned from it. Some are going to see it as a personal insult and a call to attack them. I can't say which perspective is more based on sound logic and realism...

The information of the time on this site wasn't even very clear as to what exactly happend to A!'s car. It seems people confronted him as well and stole his books.

yeah, when you weren't there and are obviously getting your information from unreliable sources, then maybe you don't need to make that example. make some other example from something you DO know.

again, it wasn't a car. and no, no one at any point came up to talk to him face to face about anything they had problems with. instead there was cowardly sneaking around.

no one's attacking you, unless calling you a name is an attack. but some of us are sick of years of people talking like they know shit when they demonstrably don't. and i don't give a shit whether you're for DS or not. as it stands, DSP is just a way to say "no" what exists, not (as stated before) a way to say yes to something more creative.

yeah ... it's baffling to see these comments that just completely fail to understand what the point of DSP even is?

it's just an empty void where the leftist moralism usually creates clumsy attempts at conflict mediation. that's all it is

i do conflict mediation all the time for work and i've had to full body cringe countless times while i watch anarchists just ... miserably fail at the most basic level of dealing with conflict in their spaces. it's not even just a skill gap, it's the inability to even stay calm when other people start yelling?

anyway, dangerous spaces policy is like when your parent said "whatever, i'm sick of all your shit, i'm gonna watch TV and get wasted, fight amongst yourselves."

THAT'S ALL IT IS

yup. DSP isn't "creative" because it was never intended to be prescriptive or impliment a "new" model for conflict resolution. like Holy shit, what part of "handle your own problems without organizers being security guards" don't people get? "but but without the police people would just kill each other!"

DSP was a response to overreach and/or bad practice and theory by people who are at least nominally trying to protect people who do need protection (people who don't, for example, roll deep every time they go to an event, to make sure that they don't get jumped by people who don't like trans or queer folk, or who insist that everyone wear masks, to use some more up-to-date examples).
the argument here is that DS did in fact act like a policy, because it was something that was to be applied to everyone regardless of circumstance or capacity, without in fact any specificity as to what it meant. (except that it meant that the organizers weren't going to intervene or help in any way. hence the DSP = organizers not doing anything)

you can say "such and such isn't a policy," but if it acts like a duck, etc etc...

But did you actually read the DSP? I ask that without trying to be a dick.

"Therefore, this event is a dangerous space for anyone who disrespects the space and those occupying it."

What else do you think this line means? Do you really believe nobody at all would stand up to any unfriendly people trying to beat up queer or trans folks? Or that queer and trans folks aren't already armed?

Perhaps the organizers put too much faith in people being able to navigate conflict without needing "protection" from organizers. And perhaps the point of the DSP was to encourage the developing of those kinds of skills. But I can't really say because I wasn't there.

so you're saying that aragorn was disrespecting the space?

and the organizers at no point said anything about "developing skills", nor did they say anything about the under-handed, non-transparent, conflict-afflicted behavior of the anti-lbc people being inappropriate.

the point about trying to stay uninvolved absolutely stands.

He brought in and consumed cheeseburgers before a room of feral vegan oogles. So.. YES he "disrespected the space" and all the people in it.

so it was announced that it was vegan-only space? someone said that non-vegans were on notice? that all the vegans coming to the event were dogmatic sneaky assholes who wouldn't be upfront about their anger?

i dont' remember that in the announcements

not even a vegan, but wow what a piece of shit. tell me he at least got beat up please?

yeah anon, definitely take the unsubstantiated rumor as an excuse to want someone to be beat up. great call. really working on those skepticism chops, hunh?

oh no...the great violence of me "wanting someone to be beat up"...no shit if it didn't happen they didn't beat him up. i'm not gonna walk up to a-bang and do the job myself, it ain't my turf anyway.

It's not an unsubstantiated rumour, idiot. He bragged about it on Anarchy Bang.

Oooh, I'd totally fucking eat several HOT DOGS from the gas station's dumpsters (with added kimchi) right in the face of a pack of dog-worshipping oogle idiots just to disgust these closet lil aristocrats from wealthy suburban families. So even if true, who cares?

for a bunch of supposedly "amoral" nihilists, or whatever, they sure do a lot of moralizing about what people fucking eat!

Tell us you've never read a single thing WZ has written about veganism without explicitly saying it. LoOoooser!

I judge people by their actions and the way they carry themselves... not based on their poorly written and incoherent ramblings so STFU

Just like a Maoist! Everyone who thinks differently from me is petty bourgeois, suburb dwelling, etc.

Lol. I believe its called "individuals having differing opinions sometimes get into it with each other". Aragorn wasn't jumped. He had his shit fucked with by people who didn't like him. So you think DSP should police personal drama? Because not everyone gets along. Did you think DSP meant everyone holds hands and sing too? Lmao. Anarchists who desperately need structure...

again, people didn't "get into it with each other." some people snuck around behind someone's back and fucked with his shit. for no explicit or communicated reason.

and sure, everyone learned a lot about a different way for anarchists to be with each other from this brave new world of DS. definitely worth promoting it as some kind of excellent new non-policy. jk

Who said they fucked with his car, you idiot. Your whole "dont trust this website" approach is well founded, but then you go and take anarchist politics seriously, lmfao

And it's hilarious to also watch people who dont agree with WZD get branded as leftists in the comments below, LOL!

Let me say it again so you can understand me: dangerous space = no protections at all. DSP is there to protect organizers from liability, this is america 101...come on. Im interested in not having policies, but i am not interested in enforcing restrictions of expression as its clearly meant to do.

car or motorcycle whatever. point remains that DS isn't a new or interesting thing. that WZ promoting it as something desirable for events doesn't make sense, as it is just as fucked up as what its responding to (except for the organizers apparently, at least ones who don't care what happens to attendees). and that people don't need to use as examples events that they weren't there for.

tried to trim all the chaff out for you. hope that helps.

The main issue i have is that the safety/danger of a situation is fairly dynamic, and i feel our best defense against people playing accusatory identity politics right off the bat is to look at things in a case-by-case basis, and understanding that no one person or group of organizers is responsible for what goes on in an event. If an event is shit, i will probably try to blame some cultural factor, standard, design, or specific individual for things going wrong rather than complaining to a counsel in hopes that they make it better next time. However, if have an issue with a particular person or organization, i will complain as directly about it as i can. I don't have much in the way of ethics for when I'm stressed out and need to do something, i just try to be fully expressive and respectful as i can be in any moment. Sometimes it doesn't work and i'm singing "woe is me" to myself in my loneliness...

"Tell me how else you can prevent this from happening?" Standard typical reply by authoritarians!

This is how.
1) Everyone who has converged to complete a task is informed that all profits, food, shelter or gains obtained by the anarchist venture will be shared and divided equally.
2)Everyone is informed that there will be no hiearchy or rank in the endeavour, only advice and instruction given politely.
3)No whining or immediate expulsion.
There, all fixed with good natured anarchist stoicism.

This is why all the commentary above about DSP is pretty worthless. It's up to the people at the even. Who are supposed to be anarchists and have figured out this stuff a long time ago. If they aren't anarchists...

Well written article. Thank you for having the courage to create this much needed conversation. I would only add some reading resources since, judging by the comments, many people are either new or just unfamiliar with these problems.

Against Identity Politics

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lupus-dragonowl-against-identity...

Ain't No PC Gonna Fix it Baby: A Critique of Ally Politics

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-anonymous-ain-t-no-pc...

The limits of contemporary anti-oppression theory and practice

https://libcom.org/article/limits-contemporary-anti-oppression-theory-an...

Toward Terra Incognita: A Critical Look at Cultural Essentialism, Nationalism, and Body Policing

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/flower-bomb-toward-terra-incognita

Safety is an Illusion: Reflections on Accountability

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dangerous-spaces-violent-resista...

Dangerous Spaces: Violent Resistance, Self-Defense, & Insurrectional Struggle Against Gender

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dangerous-spaces-violent-resista...

Accomplices Not Allies: Abolishing the Ally Industrial Complex

https://theavarnagroup.com/resources/accomplices-not-allies-an-indigenou...

The Broken Teapot

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-the-broken-teapot

appreciate you!

this is a comprehensive list, for anyone who wants to understand better instead of centering their feelings (like a dumbass) about a complex theory problem

wow! Seems like you are projecting your scholastic civilization biases onto everyone. It really doesn't require reading a whole lot to understand the issue with anarchists practicing bureaucracy...and privilege politics. IMO, it's the people who think try to make others read large amounts of text through shaming and bullying that are the dumbasses.

Sometimes the most basic arguments that privilege politicians attack are the best ones:

1) we ultimately do not choose how we are brought up, or our skin color.

2) privilege isn't completely static: you can sometimes use it to predict someone's future income range, or to understand why someone doesn't have access to certain resources, but not every black person lives in the chicago or baltimore ghetto, and not every transgender or queer person constantly gets harassed by people who want to change them.

nobody is trying to make you do anything, i'm simply noticing that these problems have been discussed a lot of times before by some smart ppl. the reading list is quite good but i wouldn't say it represents "scholastic civ cucks" lol

it would be strange to have a bunch of interest and opinions on a topic but refuse to take a look at others also discussing it

A weird empty criticism, and its even weirder that me clarifying what i meant got deleted.

It's the fake intellectuals and theoreticians who pride themselves on the amount of content they've read. It's university-think to have an issue with feelings because they are not "rational".

people who wrote this...i missed before it was published by warzone distro. Even though i still do agree mostly with this essay, warzone distro has a habit of speaking against identity politics and "moralism" but simultaneously promoting them in really obvious ways. No thanks to any events associated with these folks! Ya'll have your fun but i am happy in these snowy mountains...

"warzone distro has a habit of speaking against identity politics and "moralism" but simultaneously promoting them in really obvious ways" - like how?

Try reading their essays. Notice they consisty make crude and somewhat meaningless generalizations about "the meat eaters" etc.

...that's it? So... you have never actually read anything they've published. Just a troll wanting a few seconds of internet attention in the comments. Got it!

"Easy Ways to Spot Authoritarians Within the Anarchist Milieu"

1. They have all the power and control what can and can't be said and call it anarchy.
2. If you disagree with them they erase your words and all trace of you.
3. They pretend they're anarchists to control new anarcho curious padwans.
4. They have wealth and live like the bourgeoisie.

Everyone is tired of hearing about how your comments got deleted. And then you repeatedly whine even more about your whining about moderation getting moderated. I am glad you get deleted. You add nothing with that shit. It’s not some grand injustice or conspiracy. Go somewhere else if it’s so terrible here. Are you this much of a creep irl?

Thanks for speaking for everyone, SR Sock.

It's tOotally anarchy to have to think for ourselves.

spongebob speak
“brah”
“anarch”
“seething ressentiment”
“seething ressentimentismo”
john zerzan is the best
stop picking on crimethinc

Their only the most popular anarchist hub/publisher in the US! Poor crimethinc.!

#accept_anarchism_now_zuckerburg!

Maybe crimethinc can fix the leftists... just cause something hasn't happened after decades doesn't mean it never will!

> cause

ur spelling sagedom doesn't change my u-sage, cunt

although i do aprecate ta irony you lend to convos yeee

You should get checked out, brah I think your dumpster poutines may have turned.

Wrong words are wrong words no matter how you try to spin it, brah.

Don't be a hipster, brah!

great, i'll start using voice to text so my fat thumbs stop fucking with you and you can start checking siri's word choice instead. i only eat dumpster hot food directly on site, way too messy to transpo. in the warm comfort of my rented kitchen i eat dumpster white cheddar, week old dumpster rotisserie chickens, and whatever old-fashioned donuts did survive transpo. i think i know when canadian food is too far gone for my sensitive tummy

you're right, if i was proofreading instead of frantically spewing words i would have correctly implemented "cuz"

crimethinc. has all the answers (espescially in geopolitical matters)...let's just follow their learned lead and bow respectfully to their superior knowledge...And remember: Don't JUST Vote: GET ACTIVE!!

it's impossible to tell if you're fully sarcastic or fully serious. NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET

cuck for luck

when Maoists attacked anarchists in Los Angeles some years ago, they used essentially the same arguments against identity politics, although their issue was not with "authoritarianism" but with what they perceived as the encroachment of petit-bourgeois politics. similarly, they also sneakily used identity politics in their defense of themselves against identity politics (they were also people of color from the hood, but so were the anarchists they attacked). you can't have it both ways. and to equivocate a white dude getting his dreads cut off with the absolute murderous power of the racial regime of Capital is beyond the pale. it's downright disgusting. and ignoring identity does not make identity go away because identity is not something that just exists in the mind ("spooks" as egoists like to call them), but rather they are marked on the very bodies of the racialized and the gendered. the problem with identity is not that it exists, but that the racial regime of Capital uses it to imprison, maim, murder, dispossess & more. the enemy is again the State, Capital and its racial regime. you can complain that people have finally gotten better at attacking the interpersonal aspects of race, gender, etc or you can join us. what's worse is there is this absolutely American notion of "rugged individualism" that runs through all this that is laughable because all it produced from these writers is this whiny lament. are you hardcore individualists or are you not?

things don't need to be equally bad to still be bad. no one here is saying that cutting off someone's dreads is the same thing as centuries of anything.

and yes, there is some confusion about people who are identifying themselves while also refuting the significance of that identity (though i would argue that contradictions abound and are human and not necessarily invalidating to one's point, because we're talking on multiple levels).

are you denying that subtle things are indicative of bigger problems? or are you saying that white people wearing dreads is not just a marker of something bad, but recreates something bad? if dreads are significant enough to be cut off, than people policing hair styles and manhandling someone is certainly at least AS big a marker. speaking of contradictions.

Nio fiockoing weay!, ! I giot muy fiocjkiong drewads rioding muy miotorbioke wothiut a helmert!; I idenmtufy asd a fyuckinbg huillbuilly fuivking nihiolisdt, NOIT a fyuxkimg Rasdtferion!, I AM NIOT A FYUCKOING RELOIGIOS FUICKUNG RASRT? ,imnma hillbikl.y nihiolidst, a a Stionerion fyucjkinf nuianced daseinb niot a Wersterng fuoclking IDfPoiloticds!.,!

"the problem with identity is not that it exists, but that the racial regime of Capital uses it to imprison, maim, murder, dispossess & more.

You're aware that identity, the root of stratified social divisions, was created by white supremacy, right? Yes, it's existence is a problem. It sole purpose is to do exactly what you said it does. But I bet people like you think you can *repurpose* it huh?

"the enemy is again the State, Capital and its racial regime. you can complain that people have finally gotten better at attacking the interpersonal aspects of race, gender, etc or you can join us. "

..."join *us*"? How does any of this NOT sound like something maoists say all the time? Especially that stereotypically leftist, over-simplified version of what the enemy is. Laughable...

Also nobody thinks rejecting identity means rejecting racial and gendered oppression. Clearly you've never gone near anything critical of identity politics. But at the end of the day identity is a "spook" that either you worship (and whine whenever someone critiques it) or dismantle.

Capital isn't a "racial regime" except in the ideological projections of fringe leftists who borrow their theoretical tools from Maoism. For the overwhelming majority of people in this society, capital is all about wage labor. A subculture that has nothing to say about wage labor, other than Harry Potter fan fantasies about opting out of it on an atomized individualistic basis, isn't an anti-wage labor subversive phenomenon. It isn't a credible response and it isn't a threat to anything.

Not to cut him any slack, but Mao and Maoism aren't necessarily the same thing.

as a form of morality in general, yet it's not a "regime of capital", it's a bureaucratic apparatus that's used to manage capitalism's problems. This maoist crap about how class is "stamped" on to each individual just isn't true, some things are just imaginary bullshit labels made up by people, and the continued oversimplification of that honestly makes me kinda depressed.

The fact that there still seems to be some controversy in these comments is kind of strange... it's like -- authoritarianism is authoritarianism like 1 = 1, and authoritarianism is completely opposed to anarchism just like 1 =/= 2. We either deconstruct and take steps back from our authoritarian tendencies, or we aren't anarchists. Easy.

yeah, it seems clear based on the comments that this article made leftists and or authoritarians feel uncomfortable. which is what WarZone generally does. people are either taking things out of context, misinterpreting things, and pretty much doing anything to discredit either the authors or the article. there isn't any real discussion, just reactionary responses that people like myself don't care to waste time with.

so glad warzone decided to begin the new year this way. About fucking time people are pushing back on authoritarian bullshit in the anarchist space. my guess is that it might be too little too late, which is why i keep my circles small and tight, but hopefully the push back and clarity can gain momentum. maybe anews could do their part by prioritizing actual anarchy and not leaving the door open for leftist authoritarians. maybe. probably not.

Add new comment