For a Revolt That Will Not Recuperate, For a Revolt That Will Not Defer

<table><tr><td>This is a response to <a href="http://libcom.org/library/insurrectionary-anarchy-revolutionary-organiza... Anarchy and Revolutionary Organization</a>. In this document, it appears there is an attempt to define the closeness insurrectionary anarchy has to the platform. This is an attempt to expose that even if insurrectionary anarchists desire to make formal organizations with a platform, it would be far different than one that favors the anarchist communism of Common Struggle, very different from the synthesis anarchism of the Seattle Solidarity Network and very different from the industrial unionism of the Industrial Workers of the World.

This is also a response to the Anarchy 101 Question <a href="http://anarchy101.org/3224/is-it-possible-to-have-a-federation-of-affini... it possible to have a federation of affinity groups?</a> where a debate between myself and the user <em>anok</em> found disagreement on the possibility of a platform for insurrectionary anarchy. In the debate, I created an imaginary platform using some insurrectionary anarchist theory with the purpose of showing the possibility of an insurrectionary anarchist federation of affinity groups.</td><td><img title="OMGTITDSE" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/burnitall.jpg"></td></tr></...
<!--break-->
This was written to continue this discussion more broadly and to deepen our understanding of what is possible for anarchists to achieve through organization and how to move beyond current North American anarchist practices which weaken our ability to create the world we desire. To some, this may contradict their understandings of contemporary insurrectionary anarchy. To others, this presents a synthesis of tendencies that anarchists have been growing towards, but haven't defined as they can only embrace insurrectionary anarchy as an ideology or tendency that can only be in favor of informal organizations and an anarchist projectuality that can never solidify within a program.

This was not written to be a final word on the subject. It is an experimentation of thought which I hope contributes strongly to discourse and opens up a potential for a better discourse to occur to further anarchists in favor of the insurrectionary project. I also hope this may be attractive to anarchist communists that see a need for theoretical and tactical unity, a need for collective responsibility and a desire for federation, but find the current forms of organizations for a platform to be lacking as they presently exist.

One of the key points of insurrectionary anarchist practice is a rejection of intermediate gains. The solidarity network, like the syndicalist union, is founded on making intermediate gains. Rather than aiming for the destruction of the social order, these groups instead aim for healing the contradictions of people to the social order.

First they <strong>*reify*</strong> social struggle by putting their organization in a role of defining the struggle. This is a representation of the struggle through the organization. The decisions of social struggle is channeled through their organization, aiming to have the narratives of the organization define how and why struggle occurs. When these organizations decide to start or stop a conflict based on perceived wins/losses, the conflict itself starts and stops.

This by itself isn't fully a problem. Any individual or group that moves beyond anonymity, that is singled out as the voice of the narrative of the struggle, whether intentional, through happenstance or through the social order imposing a perceived dialogue, can create reification.

To some, this is the same as substituting the struggle of the organization for the real struggle. To myself and others, this is an experiment with the present and propaganda of the deed. By recognizing that these organizations are not the real struggle but rather in favor of real struggle, by recognizing that this is the work of those for revolution and not the work of the revolution, substitution is not occurring. However, reification is occurring. Should a break out of real struggle happen and these organizations still be participants, very often these organizations will still represent the struggle wither intentional or not.

Second, these organizations <strong>*recuperate*</strong> by creating intermediate goals to achieve. When a conflict occurs, the goal is not founded on destroying the social order and attempting to create the lives we want in the process of destruction. The goal is to make people's lives better now within the social order. This is done with the logic that by making people's lives better it is sapping the power of the social order while building a strength, building a mass movement that can overcome the social order later when the relationship of power can be flipped. The mass movement becomes strong while weakening the social order through material gains.

What is really going on is pacifying conflict by fixing the social order. When an intermediate goal is achieved, the reasons for being in conflict do not grow beyond the initial purpose. When the social order yields to these organizations both the social order and the representation of struggle compromise and come to an understanding. This understanding is that the social order will continue for another day. Their will be no more conflict because the struggle has been made content with the achieved goal it perceives.

As can be seen, because of a reification that creates recuperation, revolt is <strong>*deferred*</strong>. Any attempt to gain something that isn't aimed at the destruction of the social order puts the narrative of its destruction off until later. This *later* seems to never come. The organization, even at the heights of revolt, throughout periods of social unrest and ruptures of insurrection, will still continue the thought that the revolution is not for today. The organization that defers the struggles of today will continue the thought that tomorrow might have better conditions to eliminate the social relationships of domination.

To become more, there are other ways. An organization for revolution, an organization for the destruction of the present order, an organization for anarchy now, may still hold elements of the social order within it no matter how much rhetoric to the contrary is written. Reification for any organization can not be avoided, be it the organization for revolution or the organization of mass. An outbreak of social unrest that can achieve insurrections and beyond is uncontrollable and can not be predicted into existence. Its occurrence can happen at any time with any moment of contradiction setting it off.

This should not mean anarchists avoid forming organizations. It also doesn't mean anarchists should only form informal organizations in the hope they can avoid reification. An organization that has any success will be placed in front, in the role of representation. We witness this today with the black bloc, which is only a tactic, transformed by media narratives into an organization. Individuals, like David Graeber, are then chosen by the media to speak for the black bloc and to define what it is trying to achieve. The Occupy movement has a narrative and counter-narrative on its purpose with the back and forth of David Graeber and Chris Hedges. We can not avoid this role. It will be manufactured by the social order whether we like it or not.

It does mean that we should aim to shape our narrative. If we are anarchists, we need to make it known what we are and what we want to achieve. If we are for anarchy, then our goals should be about attempting to achieve anarchy immediately. We can not continue this path of intermediate goals, which pollute our aims and agenda. The outbreaks of social unrest will happen whether we participate or not.

In order to avoid being an obstacle for this, we need to keep our narrative focused on what we want. We can not propose a continuation of any role of recuperation as that puts off the narrative of destruction of the social order now. When we recuperate, we create a narrative that limits the potential of what can occur at any moment. When we recuperate, we always defer our struggle for tomorrow.

Let us not do this any longer. If we form *unions*, let them not be unions for better wages, benefits and work conditions. Let them be for the abolition of work. If we make *solidarity networks* let them be free of the obstacles that prevent the growth of conflict. Solidarity means attack. Anything less is just another face for the continuation of the social order.

- *High Priest Wombat, KSC - Revolt Against Work*

Comments

We must practice good security culture if we are to uphold the social order.

In reply to Anok who thinks there can not be a platform of sorts for insurrectionists...

Actually the FAI/IRF does have a platform of sorts you can find it at these links and it was the CCF that called for folks to take it up again. The FAI call from 2003 for an insurrectionist international was also in continuation with the call from the 90s by Bonanno for an international.

http://325.nostate.net/?p=1434 - Included is the 2003 FAI "Platform"
http://325.nostate.net/library/escalation1.pdf - This also has it.
http://325.nostate.net/?p=1539 - R.O. CCF Call to Start the FAI/IRF
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-for-an-anti-aut...

Thanks for that. Appreciate it. I may of skimmed too quickly, but couldn't find where it talks about the use of the FAI symbol. Where is the document that discusses the use of the Informal Anarchist Federation symbol?

hmmm they have a symbol? I thought that was just CCF that had a crazy crust punk looking emblem.

-sabotage

by the way that piece highlights examples of IAs doing reform:

We of the Italian FAI continue to travel all the routes that can flow into the revolutionary river. Riots, popular struggles, more circumscribed projects of radical struggle, all contribute to give new life to our practices of attack.

it seems like they engage in the aboveground movement too.

Doesn't read that way to me. I'd like to have more concrete examples of European insurrectionary anarchist participation to define their activities.

It won't change my position, but it seems your focus on discussion is defending a reformist position for insurrectionary anarchists. All this talk of attack and challenging the limits of struggle coming from insurrectionary anarchists and then they turn around and attempt the same tired strategies of the left? Seems ridiculous and I can't say I feel much affinity with such anarchists that would compromise themselves so much without recognizing how they are participating in strengthening the very thing they are opposing.

Why is it so important to call oneself an insurrectionary anarchist rather than just an anti-state socialist, if all that comes from such naming is more of the same? We'll have to discuss this further.

no, i just think anarchists of any sort can participate in partial struggles without it necessarily being reformist. reformism is when your ideology is built around reform being the only acceptable solution. revolutionaries are fine with participating in partial/everyday/intermediate struggles but do so in a way that attempts to create situations that could be a rupture with normality.

How so and is this explained by other insurrectionary anarchists elsewhere? Everywhere I look, insurrectionary anarchists suggest nothing less than attack to negate and not aim for reforms. I'm wanting to read the logic and reason for why insurrectionary anarchists would decide to do such things, but I keep turning up nothing. Since you are a proponent of such things, where do insurrectionary anarchists make mention of these kinds of activities? What is their logic for doing so?

Ask anyone who was involved in the student occupation movement from a couple of years ago about the lessons learned: the main lesson was NOT to work on partial struggles/reforms with others, but to attack the reformists and call them out and expose and berate them. They hold struggles BACK from being more revolutionary. They try to stop the generalization of revolt and struggle and keep it contained within the framework of politics and begging the powerful for mercy.

Greek anarchs seem to have a thing for strange cryptic emblems...

It's part of the spirit, you know... and it works nice into building up external buzz. Look at the freemasons, rosicrucians and other hermetic orders.

1. create and/or find tension. (it's usually already there, just not on 'political' people's radar)
2. highlight when others create tension, show solidarity.
3. create a truly ungovernable situation
4. for fucks sake QUIT HIDING! Sure, smash shit up at night, and be quiet about that shit, but be open about your scathing critiques of this society and all those who defend it, no matter how intense people are struggling against state & capitalism where you live. Usually powerful attacks are followed by people quieting down or being meek about their critiques. Fuck that, be unapologetic. Who cares if someone burnt down a fucking mansion, or shot a cop, add fuel to the fire, say why some find this desirable, and will continue to happen, even if all anarchists wind up in jail. This more than anything. We could get thousand of people to join black blocs, only for half of them to campaign for Obama later. Our destruction of reformist ideas should be as powerful, and even more visible than our destruction of windows.

This is cool also. It would be interesting if this was actually happening also. Good luck and would be interesting to read a reportback that actually discusses these types of things. Sadly, this never happens and I must assume this sits as an unpracticed theory.

Seattle.

SEATTLE #1!

Bridges are still burning, I assure you.

What about Seattle? A bunch of kids are making capitalism work for them. How is that doing anything as suggested by the tension strategy?

wut

Dude are you talking about grunge?

Nirvana rules!!

St. Louis

Once upon a time in Seattle, someone unsuccessfully attempted to burn down a bank right before May Day. Somebody heard about it on the news and wrote something about why they thought someone might do a crazy thing like that. Someone else edited it and turned it into a one sheet pamphlet. Then they printed 350 or so copies and distributed them in front of the bank and around the general area. People were very interested to read the pamphlet because it had been such a big deal, with Feds all over the place. The end.

Bloomington.

Tarnac. Trololol.

It's not just pop music and Young Adult fiction!

NC what what

I'd rather get white trash gun addicts than Obama trolls in my black bloc... Really. They're easier to convince on the issue of abortion rights than liberal/democrats are on the issue of not serving the fucking State.

Furthermore, I'd rather be with that small bunch of fringe radical queers in the NRA, than that stalinist "queer" and her gigantic butt sitting atop of the DHS!

Why thank you worker. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say this is the dopest shit ever, but it is pretty cool. Appreciate the positive feedback.

"the destruction of the social order"
"to the social order"
"through the social order"
"destroying the social order"
"within the social order"
"the power of the social order"
"overcome the social order"
"weakening the social order"
"fixing the social order"
"the social order yields"
"the social order"
"the social order will continue"
"the destruction of the present order"
"elements of the social order"
"manufactured by the social order"
"destruction of the social order"
"continuation of the social order"

All of the rest of your arguments are leaning against this featureless, ahistorical object, a black hole of a concept that apparently has the power to draw inexorably toward it all action, intent and description, making a surprise exception for "attack". And yet you write of reification!

I could say work, commodities markets and the institutions, forces and individuals that defend them.

I could also of switched it up with "dominant order", "present order", "controlling order", "forces that control society" and so on.

If I wanted to be more specific, I could've mentioned the various webs of control, both in general and specific detail, but I was more interested in writing a point for discussion purposes rather than a wordy tl;dr essay regarding the issue.

If that doesn't make you happy, capitalism, capitalism, capitalism :D

The above article is a good articulation of a point many insurrectionists have long endeavored to make. And this comment is a cogent critique thereof--especially the fetishization of "attack" as a magical outside to an otherwise all-pervasive order. Like all totalizing cosmologies, it may have practical usefulness in terms of what it enables people to *do*, but it's essentially a maze of abstractions.

Incidentally, that's why I can't stand it when people talk about our enemy as "the existent" (i.e., *At Daggers Drawn*)--it doesn't specify what we're actually against, and it makes our whole project sound quixotic.

"synthesis anarchism of the solidarity network"

You have no idea what you are talking about hpwombat.

888

"One of the key points of insurrectionary anarchist practice is a rejection of intermediate gains. The solidarity network, like the syndicalist union, is founded on making intermediate gains. Rather than aiming for the destruction of the social order, these groups instead aim for healing the contradictions of people to the social order."

-actually, "intermediate gains" strengthen the ability of people to achieve even greater gains by building solidarity, confidence and experience, not at all "healing the contradictions of people to the social order." To pretend you are in any way achieving total destruction of the social order right now is impotent posturing, unless you mean breaking some windows and pushing some newspaper boxes into the street, which is obviously a huge achievement that will lead to everyone starting to attack "the social order" and is not at all impotent posturing.

You are not an anarchist.

No, you are not an anarchist. so there.

I'm trying to have a discussion with anarchists. If you, a non-anarchist, wants to discuss some points, you'll have to wait until I'm finished talking with anarchists about what is interesting about what I said. I'll assume someone else might also say something interesting. Naw, I doubt it.

Explain why I'm not an anarchist, and why you are.

because you believe that reforms are the path to liberation, and anarchists know that reforms are OBSTACLES to liberation.

- not original anon just a real anarchist

cool dogma, bro

ur rite, anarchyz is remofrmz oh ya duh

If you are one of those sad naive idiots who is an anarchist because they think it is the best system for improving the material conditions if everyone's lives, and therefore confuse helping improve people's material conditions with fighting for freedom, you ARE NOT an anarchist.

If, on the other hand, like me, you could give a FUCK whether people's material conditions will be better or not through anarchism, but DO give a fuck about freedom from instituitionalized coercive authority regardless of the material outcome, then you ARE an anarchist, and you'll recognize the stupidity of merely fighting for better material conditions that does nothing to change the structure of the society we live in.

so basically if yuo're a dogmatic lunatic who's obsessed with an abstract idea and cool identity rather than anything tangible, you're an anarchist

you know that whole not giving a fuck about people's material conditions thing? that's the reason why you'll always lose. you may be a middle-class person who's never wanted for anything, but there are lots of people out there for whom material want is a primary issue.

the opposition between structural change and material conditions is a stupid one. these things aren't either/or.

It is not about not giving a fuck. It is about recognizing that wanting better working conditions is wanting capitalism to be better. I don't see how this isn't getting through to you. If I want a raise and I work to get a raise, I did not challenge anything. If I did it collectively, the same thing, only the company would be less happy about doing it.

Getting a raise is not the only way to improve material conditions. There's also, uh, occupation and reappropriation. In an insurrectionary situation, a large network of people who have come to know and trust each other through doing solidarity network stuff (creating a solidarity network?!?) could potentially occupy/appropriate/communize any number of things and perhaps even have their shit together enough to defend what they've taken. Other people, seeing this, could be inspired to do the same.

Sure, if a solidarity network recognized that material gains through forcing business to make them is just part of hostile negotiations within capitalism, but also supported narratives for the outbreak of space/building occupations, supported appropriating what is needed or desired, supported seizures of workplaces and resolute strikes for the purposes of disrupting business for no demands or perhaps the demand for its immediate closure and just generally supported experimental practices that could offer these alternative narratives to people so they know their options aren't limited to simply gaining materially against the social order, then that could be interesting.

If we are for an anarchist society, being able to share these views within our organizations might not win out among people, but it could present that kernel that something more can be done and later down the line a more radical approach could be taken, is awesome. The anarchist internationals in the 19th century operated as such, starting out often from a reformist position, but then swinging in many different avenues.

Being for direct action and showing that direct action can mean more than getting a better paycheck, more than chasing off a polluting company, more than challenging police brutality, would be awesome. My fears are that many social anarchists are rooted into this hatred for individualism so deeply that they attempt to quash experimentation as a threat to the path they feel an organization should be going towards. I'll note that this isn't always the case, but I've witnessed this dogmatism coming from anarchist syndicalists and anarchist communists where they've wrapped themselves in a hatred of hippies, deviant lifestyles, propaganda of the deed and experimental practices. Social anarchists would be good to nip this behavior in the bud before it infects the organization with conformity and aims for a linear progression.

On the flip side, if the organization is firmly against all noted above, it is best to be explicit about it so people like me don't waste our time with attempting to engage them. My point above is for an organization that is willing to share space with both material gains and experimentations beyond.

Organizations from before a period of unrest that attempt to keep themselves together tend to act conservatively, but there are probably exceptions to this. However, the largest of organizations, which is the goal of this movement building strategy, to become large, tend to be conservative and an obstacle as a rule.

Only material gains I care about are advances in the social war. A bunch of anarchist who just work on making material gain will just end up a bunch of yuppies, since communal enrichment is also a form of capitalism (not part of the gang? stay in the sidewalk, bum!)

When I see mining projects being trashed, cash-hungry people moving to some place else, cops losing their jobs, prisons closing, that's material gain. For me, for my neighbor, for those animals in the forest, for everyone.

ending capitalism is the only to achive anarchy. it can not be done with violance or distruction.
if you think otherwise then you are a sad naive idiot.

Explain how anything you've ever said was interesting.

i would also point out that a lot of insurrectos have started in various areas their own verson of the solidarity network, different but still inspired by seattles project. Some of this seems to make sense, largeer and broader networks of people who defend each other, steal for each other, etc., from their bosses and landlords and rapists etc.

This could be seen as an "immediate gain" ( you can bet a boatload of free groceries, getting your deposit back from your stingy landlord, or getting free lunch in half the restaurants downtown, are all tangible immedate gains!) - but it hardly fits into the narrative of reformism that the author is trying to paint here.

So i would encourage the author to be more specific....clearly there are ways to address and dealw ith immediate life issues in an (insurrectionary) anarchist way. We do this all the time anyway - lets get better, bigger, more visible, let these tensions and methods spread. They will do so particuarly if they make immediate sense and help solve immediate problems....

-an insurrecto of sorts....

What would you call it? Syndicalism outside a union?

Synthesis anarchism is the idea that both individualist anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, and anarchist communists should be a single, broad anarchist group. So yes, I would actually call it syndicalism outside of a union.

For real, hpwombat is the top worst poster in the anarchist internet for like, 10 years running. Whatever current flavor of anarchy he is repping is generally embarrassed of him. He also was the only known person to take the RAAN joke seriously and he even got a RAAN tattoo. He lives in a city with no anarchist activity and he writes internet proclamations about anarchy. If you still ain't got douchechills check out his "radio show."

Do you feel better now? hpwombat can come off as a dick sometimes, but he puts forward a lot of effort into keeping himself engaged "in a city with no anarchist activity". I don't know why hpwombat put his moniker on this. I liked it, but putting your personal moniker on anything is an invite to every scumbag with a stick up their urethra to try and call you out. And I know many people who didn't consider RAAN a joke. Sure it had a hard time sustaining activity-as-RAAN, but it sure was more enjoyable than most anarchist projects that I have worked on.

In summation, I think you are INSECURE LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER.

fuck that. maybe using a handle is a sign of being able to deal with the oh-so-vulnerable position it entails. if you're your own worst critic, it doesn't matter unless it's shit you can get really fucked for.

This is hpwombat logged out and defending himself in the third person. That's how you know he's really upset.

Well he should take heart in knowing he is a genuine anarchist.

Wow you must really be omnipresent to know what "flavors" are embarrassed when, and for what reason. Do you have a radio show I can check out?

I should've added this with the article so people could see what spawned my response.

----
Q: Is it possible to have a "federation" of affinity groups? As in, is it possible for informal organizations to collaborate on a semi-formal basis?

A: Your question is underlined with a desire for collaboration on a semi-formal basis. Perhaps you want to see these affinity groups not just have unity through shared documents, but perhaps also annual meetings, shared strategies or something along that manner? Certainly anything is possible. How affinity group is defined in the late 20th century make come initially from Spain, as suggested, but the resurgence of use comes from Up Against the Wall Motherfucker, which defines the affinity group as a street gang with analysis.

What seems to help define an affinity group is analysis of what is going on and by acting on that analysis. If an affinity group's point of view is compatible enough with other affinity group's points of view, then the ability to become a federation might be there.

The platform, when removed of its old analysis and taken only for its reasons of unity has: theoretical and tactical unity leading to the creation of a federation. The point on collective responsibility is more about recognizing that individual actions done in the name of the group reflects how the group is perceived, so should be done responsibly.

This part of the platform need not be reserved to the ideology of platformist anarchist communism. One could take these points and apply them to synthesis federations, insurrectionary anarchist federations, syndicalist federations and so on.

Like platformists would point out also, the theoretic unity and tactical unity need not be tightly defined. An insurrectionary anarchist federation may call for:

- Our enemy is the network of domination as Defined by Wolfi Landstreicher in "Network of Domination".

- To overcome this network of domination, we embrace anarchist projectuality as defined by Wolfi Landstreicher. We will not submit to calls for intermediate gains. We will not work with political organizations.

- We support the tactics of flyposting, graffiti, vandalism and communiques to spread our message.

- While we give solidarity to those that use more extreme tactics, we do not endorse it. Arson and murder are not the tactics of our federation.

- We refuse to work with unions. At work we form workplace committees or workplace fractions that aim to subvert the relationships of workers to work. We are in favor of work abolition.

- In the neighborhood, we refuse to work with government agencies. We will form neighborhood associations or neighborhood fractions that refuse dialogue with the government and law enforcement. We support the formation of municipal assemblies made up of neighborhood associations or fractions that agree to such.

- We support building and space occupations. We support the homeless and itinerants that occupy our municipals and beyond. They are part of our neighborhoods and can participate or refuse to as any others.

- Failing the growth of such groups, we support municipal assemblies of individuals which aim to achieve what goals that can in their given situation.

Something like that.

committees, fractions, and assemblies are all organs of the social order which function to heal its victims/opponents into it.

your proposed vacuous leftist "solidarity" with those who use direct tactics, while you spread political signs and symbols, is no solidarity at all. such "solidarity," portraying itself in terms of principle, is in fact parasitic on direct tactics and seeks to attach signs to them and drag them down into the swamp of symbolic political order. the organization you propose is our enemy. it too will burn.

This is almost as hilarious as HPWombat's meaningless sloganeering. We should just get the syndicalists, platformists, and insurrectionists in a room together, surrounded by nhilists, individualists, and egoists and have a slogan-chant-off and see who can do it the loudest and most repetitively!

Meh, I'm so fucking boooooored. If we want to talk about what composes the social order, let's do that.

The social order is made up of the state, business, civil society, the web of leisure, political organizations, family and media.

The state would be government, not just the primary executive, legislative and judicial face, but the many bureaucracies that are built around them. Government bureaucracy covers things like jobs and family services, law enforcement, department of education, department of transportation, homeland security, intelligence (spies) and so on.

Business would include large multi-national corporations, small family businesses, cooperatives, associations of business, housing development, manufacturing, warehousing, department stores, etc.

Civil society includes, unions, non-profits, non-governmental organizations, academics, charities, religious organizations and more.

The web of leisure is all the voluntary activity groups that people put time into such as sports, hiking, camping, canoeing, gaming, bars, clubs, house parties, scenes, whatever.

Family is not just an individual, their sexual partner(s) and their children, but also uncles, aunts, cousins, nieces, nephews, clans, tribes and on and on.

Media is the web of advertising, reporting, analysis and opinion from all the above noted.

In some ways, it could be *everything* that makes up society. But it is more the relationships as defined by the institutions of power within society.

When looking for some sort of central target, it may be difficult to define, but I typically start with the abolition of work and connect everything as needing a full upheaval. By challenging work, commodities and markets, we threaten the relationships of domination throughout society.

How about domestication, civilization, mass society, industrialism, the arid technoculture, homogenizing globalization?
They must be fine, liberatory, eh?
Thing sounds even more anti-anarcho-primitivist than Wolfi!

I peeked into the bathroom once while Wolfi was in there. He doesn't even squat shit.

Sure, those things too. Challenging domestication is challenging our relationships to civilization and to do that would be to challenge the power of the dominant order, as Zerzan has pointed out. By freeing ourselves from work, mass society can begin its process of dissolving. Women having control of their lives reduces high birth rates as they don't feel compelled to have sex for the purposes of breeding.

I would recommend you get off the motherfucking internet.

Me too, actually.

BYE.

Hey HP Wombat!

I am glad you decided to engage with my piece. I don't have much to say that others haven't already said on here but I might repeat it a little bit and also touch on other things you bring up.

SeaSol isn't a synthesist group. Actually I don't think there are many groups at all that self-describe as synthesist groups in North America. I think Federation Anarchiste is the only group really that identifies with that tradition and that is because main documents from Voline and Faure have been available in French for a long while, whereas Voline's "Anarchist Synthesis" has only become available digitally in English in the last month or so (ha!). Other groups in the IFA (International of Anarchist Federatsions) have also been called synthesis, like the FAI (Anarchist Federation of Italy) but they are more pluralist in the spirit of Malatesta's anarchism. Perhaps SeaSol could be seen as some form of "ultra-syndicalism" or extra-union form of syndicalism, but honestly I think it has a different character however as an organizational form/ I think people are still experimenting with this organizational form.

Like others have said already Insurrectionary Anarchists are also experimenting with this form for methods of direct attack for immediate gains in day to day struggles, and even Bonanno and others called for such mass organizations theoretically, labeling them Autonomous Base Nuclei (independent grassroots cells). These groups were supposed to be concerned with permanent conflictuality and not tied to any party, union, or group and were considered a form of workers autonomy. Anyway I guess immediate gains could be seen as a reform but that hardly makes being able to win fights for immediate gains reformism, recuperative, or the organizations that go about doing such reified.

The other things you touched on which I think are interesting is the concept of forming organizations that are not double-edged swords. There was recently an article on Libcom about this: libcom.org/blog/no-more-double-edged-swords-12062012

Yeah, I see that it was an error to assume Seattle Solidarity Network was a synthesis organization. I had read some of their stuff and assumed the IWW/SeaSol connection was based on this relationship and I admit I was in error.

I disagree a great deal with Bonanno but would have to review your sourcing to be sure what he's saying is "immediate gains".

https://sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist/life-as-totality/on-proje...

Wolfi Landstreicher's use of "immediate" is about attack with the aim to destroy. It is about seizing your own life and making it your own. The foundation of the program I proposed was based on these concepts, despite Wolfi Landstreicher being against programs.

the autonomous base nuclei idea was pretty much based on the struggles of the autonomous base movement against the railroads in turin and the self-managed leagues against the missile base in cosimo. the idea was to spread these as forms of self-organization that brought specific informal groups of anarchists into contact with the mass of folks antagonistic to these institutions/structures existence in their localities.

http://pantagruel-provocazione.blogspot.com/2010/07/organizational-docum...

This does not seem to suggest what I was calling intermediate gains and perhaps what sabotage was calling immediate gains. The closure of a base through conflict on its existence seems interesting, but also doesn't seem like what SeaSol is doing.

maybe more source material is needed, are you saying there is a difference between direct action and direct attack? are you being that picky?

That has been my problem with the base nuclei concept. The idea has constantly fell to reformist strategies and there isn't much to point to that is anarchist. Leftists and fascists do direct action also. Hell, the military does direct actions. So I'd say the content of the direct action is important.

an insurrectionary anarchist started seasol trufax

not really... an insurrectionary syndicalist and several class-struggle-ish anarchists (AS/AC) started it. Writers of murder of crows and several others were in a reading group that vaguely discussed doing seasol-like things, but there was a several month gap between these two things.
888

SOURCE MATERIALZ

<- I'm with this guy

wombat - these base nuclei were oriented toward making the missile base not be able to happen. thats the immediate gain.

perhaps what is interesting to insurrectos is the way of organizing that struggle, but it would be a mistake to ignor ethe impetus for the activity in the first place.

long story short, insurrectionary anarchists can and do engage in and act upon issues that concern immediate survival. it already happens all the time. you can say we shouldnt, or whatever, but dont write that "they dont". the difference, hopefully, is that the engagement happens in a different way, with a more critical eye towards reforms and the way they are achieved, and the kinds of actions that occur to achieve whatever gains. (expropriation and occupation, attack, theft, etc.)

but wouldn't HP say then that your IA crew isn't any different than the big bad ghost of NEFAC? those silly anarcho-reformists...

ps: the threat of anarcho-liberalism/reformism is more coming from the completely unorganized scene of college age "radicals" who vaguely are into anarchism but more into counter cultural lifestyles and cherry picking from various radical traditions mostly maoism to create their idea of anarchism as just anti-oppression/identity politics and community gardens/green consumerism.

even cindy milstein is more hardcore than that scene.

Yes, I didn't say it wasn't an immediate gain. It isn't what you are talking about here though. Here's Wolfi Landstreicher:

*So anarchist projectuality does confront the immediate circumstances of an alienated daily existence, but refuses the circumstantial pragmatism of “by any means necessary”, instead creating means that already carry the ends within themselves. To clarify what I mean, I will give a hypothetical example. Let’s take the problem of the police. We all know that the police intrude upon the lives of all of the exploited. It is not a problem that can be ignored. And, of course, as anarchists, we want the destruction of the police system in its totality. A programmatic approach to this would tend to start from the idea that we must determine the essential useful tasks that police supposedly carry out (controlling or suppressing “anti-social” behavior, for example). Then we must try to create self-managed methods for carrying out these tasks without the police, rendering them unnecessary. A pragmatic, circumstantial approach would simply examine all the excesses and atrocities of the police and seek to find ways of ameliorating those atrocities – through lawsuits, the setting up of civilian police review boards, proposals for stricter legislative control of police activity, etc. Neither of these methodologies, in fact, questions policing as such. The programmatic methodology simply calls for policing to become the activity of society as a whole carried out in a self-managed manner, rather than the task of a specialized group. The pragmatic, circumstantial approach actually amounts to policing the police, and so increases the level of policing in society. An anarchist projectual approach would start from the absolute rejection of policing as such. The problem with the police system is not that it is a system separate from the rest of society, nor that it falls into excesses and atrocities (as significant as these are). The problem with the police system is inherent to what it is: a system for controlling or suppressing “anti-social” behavior, i.e., for conforming individuals to the needs of society. Thus, the question in play is that of how to destroy the police system in its totality. This is the starting point for developing specific actions against police activity. Clear connections have to be made between every branch of the system of social control. We need to make connections between prison struggles and the struggles of the exploited where they live (including the necessity of illegality as a way of surviving with some dignity in this world). We need to clarify the connections between the police system, the legal system, the prison system, the war machine – in other words between every aspect of the system of control through which the power of capital and the state is maintained. This does not mean that every action and statement would have to explicitly express a full critique, but rather that this critique would be implicit in the methodology used. Thus, our methodology would be one of autonomous direct action and attack. The tools of policing surround us everywhere. The targets are not hard to find. Consider, for example, the proliferation of video cameras throughout the social terrain…

But this is simply an example to clarify matters. Anarchist projectuality is, in fact, a confrontation with existence “at daggers drawn” as one comrade so beautifully expressed it, a way of facing life. But since human life is a life with others, the reappropriation of life here and now must also mean the reappropriation of our life together. It means developing relations of affinity, finding the accomplices for carrying out our projects on our terms. And since the very point of projectuality is to free ourselves here and now from the passivity that this society imposes on us, we cannot simply wait for chance to bring these people into our paths. This point is particularly important in the present era, when public space is becoming increasingly monitored, privatized or placed under state control, and when people in such spaces tend to be immersed in the electronic universe of their cellphones and laptops, making chance meetings of any significance nearly impossible. This desire to find accomplices is what moves me to publish Willful Disobedience. But it calls for other projects as well. Taking back space – whether for an evening or on a more permanent basis – for meeting and discussion, creating situations where real knowledge of each other can be discovered and developed, is essential. And this cannot be restricted to those who call themselves anarchists. Our accomplices may be found anywhere among the exploited, where there are people fed up with their existence who have no faith left in the current social order. For this reason, discovering ways to appropriate public spaces for face-to-face interactions is essential to the development of a projectual practice. But discussion in this case is not aimed essentially at discovering a “common ground” among all concerned. It is rather aimed at discovering specific affinities. Therefore, discussion must be a frank, clear expression of one’s projects and aims, one’s dreams and desires.*

This is about shutting down the base, just as wolfi landstreicher talked about shutting down the police. Just as I mentioned about shutting down workplaces (seizing/destroying). This is not aiming for intermediate material gains, this is not about attempting to raise ones life standards within the social order. I'd like to get some examples of insurrectionary anarchists working on reforms, since that seems to be what you'd like to suggest. So far, I can only assume Americans are doing it wrong.

The word you're lookIng for for SeaSol would be "populism." it's not new, it's not innovative. Look at the American populist movements of the 1800s. It's the same thing. Not that that is worst thing in the world, but is it anarchist? Does it bring us closer to a revolt against coercive control as a form of social organization, or merely against certain uglier manifestations of it? I'm not sure.

lulz, IMMEDIATE REVOLT NOW WITH NO CAPACITY OR GTFO

i look forward to when you and all your friends are dead cause you went all RAF.

The use of immediate is about making that the focus of our activities. How can we work towards making anarchy now? Shutting down workplaces, undermining the power of the social order, attacking the manifestations of domination, making relationships that seize space, challenging relationships of workers to work, to unions, to business. If we are attempting intermediate gains, as I was using it, it is about movement building, hoping through the force of numbers to eventually shut down the system through general strike or some other overwhelming myth. These are not attempts to make anarchy, they are about making unions and other institutions more powerful. Liberals want powerful unions too, so perhaps you should consider how your position is any different from a liberals.

Ever heard of open revolt as an alternative to militant/alienated/specialized armed struggle?

how is immediately abolishing work NOW, working out for you?

Pretty good. People actually don't like work and enjoy challenging their work relationships. I suppose you are all about getting that raise. Why don't you start your own business or join a mainstream union?

Enjoying "challenging their work relationships"

Abolishing work immediately

See any difference?

faceless resistance is a lot different from abolishing work now, that's all.

You must be smoking crack. What the fuck do you think I mean when I want to abolish work? You must of made something up in your head. What it is, I don't know. Put the pipe down.

Really appreciate the conversational tone of this article, makes it all the better to discuss with other @'s who might not be on the same page but are interested in related ideas. Thanks for sharing this.

Thanks. To slightly amend: "synthesis anarchism of the Seattle Solidarity Network" should read "solidarity networking of the Seattle Solidarity Network".

"Let us not do this any longer. If we form unions, let them not be unions for better wages, benefits and work conditions. Let them be for the abolition of work. If we make solidarity networks let them be free of the obstacles that prevent the growth of conflict. Solidarity means attack. Anything less is just another face for the continuation of the social order."

Im someone who "identifies" with the insurrectionary strain of anarchism, as much as this can be considered a singular trajectory (it cant), but i have a HUGE problem with the kind of dichotomy and dogmatism this sort of thing is putting out there. The idea that our only options are 1) organize some kind of AFLCIO trade union or IWW starbucks union with all the BS that imples, or 2) start a union to "abolish work", is a dishonest and limited portrayal of all the creative options we have.

Its also just not actually very helpful: I mean, thinking specifically about the food service job i have, i really cant possibly imagine proposing we establish a union "for the abolition of work." Only one or two of my coworkers are anarchists, the rest all tend to hate the boss but have a wide range of ways of showing that, feeling that, and acting or not acting on that. And it goes without saying that we generaly dont have the option of just quitting. The one time we nearly had a spontaneous sit down strike, during a 75,000 dollar wedding that could have completely screwed the company (woo!), it was catalyzed by a series of fuckups and BS maneuvers by the owner, like fucking up peoples checks, not hiring enough workers, and the owner just being an evil person that people hated. But had it happened, there would probably have been demands of some kind, because without them there would have been no way to finish the conflict - and a permanent strike with all of my towns food service workers suddenly diving in wasnt a realistic possibility. As one of two anarchists on the job, i would have helped make all this happened, and did in fact encourage a wildcat, tho it didnt happen.

But the way the paragraph i quoted at the top from this article frames things isnt helpful AT ALL. In this case, this hypothetical wildcat wouldnt really fit well into either option that that paragraph lays out, as it was horizontal and not a "union" in the traditional sense, but also not "for the abolition of work" and sought "immediate gains."

A more nuanced and useful way of thinking of things might be found in asking questions like: Does the action by or relationships/network/group of workers increase or decrease their autonomy from State and economic forces that seek to mediate and control class tension? Does it increase or decrease the trust and comraderie and confidence to act that they have in each other? What lessons about state and capital does it teach? Does it break down or reinforce divisions and hierarchies of race and gender etc. at the job?

Thinking this way, i would be an active but critical participant in the hypothetical (or not so hypothetical) events i cited above. HPWOMBAT can try to reframe their original position if they wish, but doing little but calling for "the abolition of work" isnt necesarily helpful. Rather i would see such an abolition as a vision and goal for an anarchist Victory - not as a strategy for attack in and of itself.

I would give one more example, actually - this is not hypothetical but did happen in my town. There was a profitable but independent bakery in my small town, which had long disobeyed an original promise to pay workers over a "living wage." After several @s were hired, one or two of a decidely insurrectionary persuasion, meetings started happening between co workers. Not all the workers came, but enough, and they would sometimes turn into parties, art salons, and the like, also. They were fun. The workers came to an agreement to take a certain amount of money from the register to bring their hour pay each shift up to roughly 20 dollars an hour, but no more. The tip jar as a mechanism helped. They also agreed to have each others back if anyone was busted. Not every worker participated, but most did. This went on for a long LONG TIME. (Cue the argument about immediate gains!)

The boss figured out something was going on, but nobody would snitch, and he called a meeting of everyone. BTW the original @ got fired, for distributing anti work propaganda and accidentally leaving it lying around, at some ppoint, but the "action" or "union" kept on going.

Anyway, at the meeting the boss laid it all out. Folks thought they would get fired, but he realized he couldnt fire everyone, that it would fuck up his store, and so he kind of begged them to only "be paid" 16 an hour or something like that, and for good measure threw in a box of wine a month for workers to take home. They agreed.

Much of this shifted and probably died as transience took its toll, people moved or took other jobs. But the "union" also fits neither a strict "abolition of work" position, whatever that would actualy mean in the immediate present, nor the union model wombat is referring to. Once again, his dichotomy is not only dishonest, more to the point as a framework its almost totally useless for helping us to think about the options we have as anarchists for engaging in our sites of employment as places of attack and organization. This "union" was by definition geared towards immmediate gains of wage increase, and it succeeded in a way no amount of "collective bargaining" can (their wages fucking doubled in the time it was active!!) yet it was obviously not the AFL CIO union meachanism of recuperation or reformism that wombat (and the rest of us) are so critical of.

SO can we be a little bit more creative, a little bit more nuanced in our discussions of how we engage as insurrectionary anarchists in the world? Clearly we do other things than just "attack" in the narrow sense of that term, and clearly not all these other things fall under the category of lifestylism or reformism. Maybe we could try to use a little more imagination when we think about these things, instead of falling back on rhetorical dogma ("Solidarity means attack. Anything less is just another face for the continuation of the social order.") that may work great on a poster but is not the same as an actualy analysis or praxis.

We can never liberate ourselves as long as we confine our struggles to the terrain of work.

We have to build autonomous territories where we can live freely.
And in that sense, solidarity is defense.

The creation of zones of autonomy that need to be defended is what IAs should be doing. The only way to break free of social control is to do it and then collectively defend each other. Period.

Sure....i wasnt suggesting we confine ourselves to the terrain of work. But work is one terrain among others where these conflicts play out. And in any case, i was specifically responding to the article's last paragraph, regarding work, unions, abolition, etc.

But, um, the sentence "The only way to break free of social control is to do it..." does sort of get to my point about rhetorical dogma replacing nuanced and inteligent analysis and praxis....

Activism isn't getting us anywhere.
Open revolt.

Yeah, all 700 of us in the first world. The revolution will not be televised, it'll be talked about on my buddy ______ Facebook page.

And what does open revolt entail anyway? If what we did were considered revolt in any way outside of the the activist model, we'd be shot like pigs in the street. W.T.F. are you talking about when you say that? I get it, and I support it, but again, what you call open revolt, nobody else does. Nobody. That's why we use bullshit terms like tactics, because to a large degree, neither do we. I support burning down a bank, but I'm really glad when the media doesn't label us terrorists even if governments do. Got to be honest about that. Don't want to go to prison for posting a picture of a girl in a bandana holding a liberated baby chick.

It might be more important to say what open revolt means to you. There seems to be a great attempt to misinterpret positions, exaggerating them to the point of being unrealistic then attacking them. This is a strawman position.

Occupy is an open revolt. Certainly now we can point out how it was doomed to fail, how it compromised with the left and how it didn't attempt to achieve the very style of Occupation it wanted to from the beginning. However, it generated an open revolt throughout the United States with varying degrees of success. There was some level of dialogue exchanged, though very limited on what it could've been, but far deeper than it had been in years.
I'm no fan of Occupy and I was critical of it when it began, however, I am very surprised on the level of success it achieved and how it shaped how we thought of what is possible during its high period.

What can be observed now is that May Day was treated as the end of Occupy as a force. Is this true? In Columbus, Ohio, there has been no change in Occupy. It is still a couple of tents in front of the statehouse, kept at the same power level it has been at since November when it peaked, maybe having a couple weeks of strong activity before dying down and being nothing more than a symbol of what it could've been.

Occupy had many discussions in it and it seems that much of those discussions attempted to move to the concepts of Communization and TAZ. These are very interesting developments and I'd like to see more attempts to break out of how things are done in ways like this. However, control has already acted, many laws have been passed to make another Occupy less likely or at least, less legally possible.

long live TIQQUNISM!

build the alternative! ISLANDS OF COMMUNISM IN A CAPITALIST SEA!

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND COMMUNIZATION DO YOU!?

Lol, that's like an inversion of long live WALMARTISM, totally absurd!
And the notion of isolationism, escaping to ideological islands, sancturies of utopian delusions!
I think you have misinterpreted Tiqqun, made it resemble a Hollywood set, the journey to utopias on a love boat, the comaraderie between cloned devotees, the funded excesses of a privileged class seeking guilt-closure, temporary redemption from their nagging self-absorption. Are you experienced in communal dynamics?

http://libcom.org/library/reflections-call-l%C3%A9-de-mattis

Call is an ‘alternative’4 text because the existence of communism is considered as possible at a moment when capitalism still reigns.

Sure, it’s not seen as communism in its final state, for the latter must first constitute itself as a force and ‘deepen’ itself as a preliminary to revolution; and its only after the insurrection, the moment of acceleration of the process, that communism establishes itself as the universal social relation.

Nonetheless the sense of the text is clear: even in the form of fragments, of instants to explore and reproduce, of ‘grace’ to research, moments of communism are already to be had. The point is only to recognize them, and on that basis, to organize.

Oh, communization is actually about bringing about universal commonalty, well then why don't the authors call the process commonalization? There are enough ambiguous terms from the root 'commune' already without adding to it. And so it still teeters between what a heathen would call totalitarianism and utopia, but aren't these actually the same thing, a paradigm of uniformity. I think anarchist theory/praxis has to really make a more out of this fucking world incredible shift to absolutely NO FUCKING CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT methodology or else it will slide back into recurring

Islands from which to organize and attack.
Think Christiania, tribal territories, Paris commune, Oaxaca, exarchia, etc...

None of those places used activism to get to the creation of their autonomous zones, they just have to be courageous enough to be determined to create them. There are many other smaller examples, as well.

Those zones are the only thing anarchists should be focused on, by most anarchists want a revolution without disrupting their lives or careers or having to move neighborhoods or cities, etc.... To do so.

In the Spanish civil war people had to migrate to one half of the country, and still it only survived in freedom for 1 year.

OK I take back my Walmartism sarcastic comment and embrace your idea. I still think for the purpose of public relations that a new term to replace 'communization' should be inaugurated. How would one introduce a new terminology, because unfortunately most politically naive people like myself have a knee-jerk reaction when anything sounding close to 'communism' and the common association it has with Stalinism and Maoism is mentioned? That doesn't mean a movement should be called something as boring as 'Occupy', OMG how unimaginative! Maybe something like 'Lawlessism' or 'Noncontrolism'?

I thought I would jack this thread. It's almost as if activism is itself a manifestation of the aneristic principle to seek order, thus doomed by their methodology, since social entrophy has the final say, as was the Spanish technique, because it did not emerge out of a spontaneous social pressure, but instead from an ideological mould.
So how does one create, or are we objects of historical circumstance? Is revolution a culturally specific interpretation of its own aneristic desire based on the values relevant to its narrow definition of idealising its version of reality, and are the morals that yoke this deterministic belief system just? I don't think so, ha, but I'm a fucking individualist-nihilist, inb4 the trolls.

I wasn't using "immediate gains" until it was introduced into discussion by sabotage. I was using "intermediate gains", as in material gains. It might be better if sabotage explains what he means by immediate gains before I develop the point further. Are they any different from material gains?

Attempting to achieve narratives that aren't aiming to achieve ruptures, but rather are about finding ways to make capitalism benefit you materially, would be material gains. They'd be what I call intermediate gains. Also, I wasn't dismissing material gains as something individuals can attempt to achieve. It is about recognizing that these things are not things that are anarchist activities. They are what they are. Attempting to win a legal battle isn't revolt either, but I wouldn't want to go into court with the thought that prisons should be abolished and I should just throw shit at the judge.

I've attempted to get raises, I've benefited from my unions negotiating raises for all the workers. I recognize that it wasn't working towards anarchy in any sort of way as well.

wow, a comment that actually made sense and talked about useful concepts and distinctions, instead of abstract posturing! Thank you.

"Im someone who "identifies" with the insurrectionary strain of anarchism, as much as this can be considered a singular trajectory (it cant), but i have a HUGE problem with the kind of dichotomy and dogmatism this sort of thing is putting out there. The idea that our only options are 1) organize some kind of AFLCIO trade union or IWW starbucks union with all the BS that imples, or 2) start a union to "abolish work", is a dishonest and limited portrayal of all the creative options we have."

Wasn't saying start a union in the traditional sense. In my comments below, I made note that a workplace committee or workplace fraction that aims towards subversion would be an aim anarchists could go for.

"Its also just not actually very helpful: I mean, thinking specifically about the food service job i have, i really cant possibly imagine proposing we establish a union "for the abolition of work.""

Slave abolitionists often aimed towards ruptures. Certainly, the legal definition of slavery was abolished through government in North America, just as serfdom was abolished in Russia. This was part of the shift towards industrialism that made wage-slavery far more beneficial. Capitalism could not exist with the abolition of work, but how can it be achieved? If we just talked about work abolition, it is assumed we would be seen as crazy.

"Only one or two of my coworkers are anarchists, the rest all tend to hate the boss but have a wide range of ways of showing that, feeling that, and acting or not acting on that. And it goes without saying that we generaly dont have the option of just quitting."

Nor do I have the option of quitting my job, but some do. Gage the context of the struggle where you are and what can be achieved.

"The one time we nearly had a spontaneous sit down strike, during a 75,000 dollar wedding that could have completely screwed the company (woo!), it was catalyzed by a series of fuckups and BS maneuvers by the owner, like fucking up peoples checks, not hiring enough workers, and the owner just being an evil person that people hated. But had it happened, there would probably have been demands of some kind, because without them there would have been no way to finish the conflict - and a permanent strike with all of my towns food service workers suddenly diving in wasnt a realistic possibility. As one of two anarchists on the job, i would have helped make all this happened, and did in fact encourage a wildcat, tho it didnt happen."

Nothing wrong with that. We can only achieve so much.

"A more nuanced and useful way of thinking of things might be found in asking questions like: Does the action by or relationships/network/group of workers increase or decrease their autonomy from State and economic forces that seek to mediate and control class tension? Does it increase or decrease the trust and comraderie and confidence to act that they have in each other? What lessons about state and capital does it teach? Does it break down or reinforce divisions and hierarchies of race and gender etc. at the job?"

Other questions could be: How is what I'm doing working towards the world I want to live in? What is autonomy at the workplace when we are in a forced relationship with those that own and control it? From the way you framed the issue, it wasn't about attempting to gain materially from the job. It was an expression of a disgruntlement. These are times when those in-between times with your workers you can discuss how we are controlled, if possible. Some workplaces are fully compromised and it helps to recognize that as well. I can't have conversations about work abolition with a boss always around, but I can express sentiments towards the desire.

If we begin talking about what should be done about our issues, that is where we can talk about demonstrating our power as workers. No need for demands for material gains. Just stop working for as long as it seems possible in the moment or slow down if that seems improbable. If there is space to express grievances, there is space to talk about how we are controlled and how you, as an individual, think the need for compulsory labor goes against creating the world you'd like to live in.

"Thinking this way, i would be an active but critical participant in the hypothetical (or not so hypothetical) events i cited above. HPWOMBAT can try to reframe their original position if they wish, but doing little but calling for "the abolition of work" isnt necesarily helpful. Rather i would see such an abolition as a vision and goal for an anarchist Victory - not as a strategy for attack in and of itself."

The problem is you don't know what saying "abolition of work" means. You say you are an insurrectionary anarchist, yet every action of an insurrectionary anarchist isn't geared towards treating every action they do as an act of insurrection. We aim for a momentum of creating situations of rupture, of revolt. We challenge relationships between the dominated and the individuals, forces and institutions that dominate them. We analyze and critique society.

"I would give one more example, actually - this is not hypothetical but did happen in my town. There was a profitable but independent bakery in my small town, which had long disobeyed an original promise to pay workers over a "living wage." After several @s were hired, one or two of a decidely insurrectionary persuasion, meetings started happening between co workers. Not all the workers came, but enough, and they would sometimes turn into parties, art salons, and the like, also. They were fun. The workers came to an agreement to take a certain amount of money from the register to bring their hour pay each shift up to roughly 20 dollars an hour, but no more. The tip jar as a mechanism helped. They also agreed to have each others back if anyone was busted. Not every worker participated, but most did. This went on for a long LONG TIME. (Cue the argument about immediate gains!)"

Stealing is what it is. Glad it helped to build friendships with your fellow workers. I doubt you are implying that theft itself does anything special. It challenged the relationship of your fellow workers loyalty to their jobs. Good for you. However, you framed your narrative in the thought you deserved more pay. Why didn't you attempt to communicate what you desired as well? Maybe others wouldn't of thought much of it, but deserving more doesn't have to be always about getting paid more. I'm sure you'd agree.

"The boss figured out something was going on, but nobody would snitch, and he called a meeting of everyone. BTW the original @ got fired, for distributing anti work propaganda and accidentally leaving it lying around, at some ppoint, but the "action" or "union" kept on going.

Anyway, at the meeting the boss laid it all out. Folks thought they would get fired, but he realized he couldnt fire everyone, that it would fuck up his store, and so he kind of begged them to only "be paid" 16 an hour or something like that, and for good measure threw in a box of wine a month for workers to take home. They agreed."

This is the compromise on struggle. You'd agree, no? Just because it didn't achieve an anarchist goal, it was a "win" for the workers, since they made capitalism work for them. After this, was there any more attempts to press for further aggressive behavior? Did people give the boss any more grief?

"Much of this shifted and probably died as transience took its toll, people moved or took other jobs. But the "union" also fits neither a strict "abolition of work" position, whatever that would actualy mean in the immediate present, nor the union model wombat is referring to. Once again, his dichotomy is not only dishonest, more to the point as a framework its almost totally useless for helping us to think about the options we have as anarchists for engaging in our sites of employment as places of attack and organization. This "union" was by definition geared towards immmediate gains of wage increase, and it succeeded in a way no amount of "collective bargaining" can (their wages fucking doubled in the time it was active!!) yet it was obviously not the AFL CIO union meachanism of recuperation or reformism that wombat (and the rest of us) are so critical of."

People moved on, despite having "won" their struggle for material gains? Why don't you, in the future, attempt to frame your struggles towards work abolition then? If people are going to leave anyway, why not bring up what you'd actually want to achieve rather than allowing the narrative of material gains be presented uncontested?

"SO can we be a little bit more creative, a little bit more nuanced in our discussions of how we engage as insurrectionary anarchists in the world? Clearly we do other things than just "attack" in the narrow sense of that term, and clearly not all these other things fall under the category of lifestylism or reformism. Maybe we could try to use a little more imagination when we think about these things, instead of falling back on rhetorical dogma ("Solidarity means attack. Anything less is just another face for the continuation of the social order.") that may work great on a poster but is not the same as an actualy analysis or praxis."

We can be more nuanced in our discussions. We can write entire books on the subject, yet you responded to my writing because it was short and to the point, no? Let's recognize that if it had been much longer and detailed, you probably wouldn't of put time into it. I wrote this for discussion, as I stated, yet you decided I was presenting a final word, which I stated I wasn't attempting to do. I've written a great deal on my actual praxis elsewhere and given more detail to it, as have others, so why pretend that because this article, written for discussion, was avoiding detail for a bunch of slogans?

wombat -

thanks for responding! I agree with most of what you say; some of it is difficult to get into more, as i was using specific examples that would take a long time to elaborate on, but most of what youre putting forth was talked about and addressed. The conversations and some of the longer relationships (political and otherwise) are probably the most important part that came out of those examples, i think, though i think the extra pay was seriously helpful to folks and i dont see any reason to downplay that at all.

I mentioned those examples to challenge a large trend of writing, in particular on this website but in @ land in general, whereby i see folks basically subsituting rhetoric for critical analysis and engagement with real examples. Its too easy to assume others know exactly what we mean by our own words, or that others wont twist them around to suit their own strawmen arguments. Im sure you can relate to this some.

I know what you were writing was not meant to be an elaborate analysis or the "final word", but it was written and posted as analysis nonetheless, right? i DO think its possible to write concise pieces that arent a mishmash of sloganeering and hollow rhetoric, to be nuanced and address the complicated realities of our worlds without losing our principles in the mix. If we re going to reject one concrete activity (unions, which is a very very overly broad term), we cant just say "organize for the abolition of work." Or, rather, we can, but it doesnt do all that much good other than to get other people who already have our political framework to recognize us as on their team. Maybe we get style points or something, but who gives a shit, right? It does very little towards helping us find new people used to thinking of these problems with different terminology or different frameworks, to see things in a new light.

Id suggest that generally when rejecting certain forms of "activism" or whatever, try proposing counter examples of other things that serve to illustrate what you mean by phrases like "abolition of work." This doesnt have be long, gosh a paragraph could do it. But this clarifies whats meant by the rhetoric, and can give people suspicious of the phraseology something tangible and inspiring to grasp.

I do realize you ll probably say you werent necessarily writing this for anyone outside the choir - i think thats cool, but even reading the comment forums on this website, which is a VERY VERY narrow subsection of a VERY narrow political milieu, you ll have to agree that not everyone agrees or understands what kinds of concrete activity is referred to by things like "abolition of work."

Im sorry if i was overly mean, i just REALLY dont like our tendency to do things like write pieces that say, "Dont do concrete activities x, y, z - instead, destroy society! abolish work!" etc. etc. Wouldnt it better to be like, "fuck unions theyre dumb, lets abolish work, and here are some other ways to act that could put that theory into practice in the immediate present. they re not perfect but this is kind of what im getting at, and here are the difficulties we re gonna face, etc...."

Anyway, if youre ever in the dirty south, ill buy you a cup of coffee, my treat, and we can discuss into the late hours. Summers dull and i aint got shit to do.

- s.t.

i think we have the responsibility too.

decentralize all the ideas and methods of action...

The problem with twisting words has very little to do with how writers express themselves. The problem is those that twist people's words want to misinterpret what is said. I've given examples of what type of activities this "federation of affinity groups" would have and others have expressed other ways that insurrectionary anarchists are actually practicing with the Informal Anarchist Federation/Conspiracy of Cells of Fire and beyond.

Some anonymous posters, who choose to remain nameless and vague, are saying that "insurrectionary anarchists" are participating in things that are all about compromising with the system, helping people "win" material gains and not exposing how such things have little to do with the insurrectionary project. I have not read any insurrectionary anarchists actually attempt to justify these activities other than you and I don't see much coming from your position that suggests you are an insurrectionary anarchist other than simply naming yourself one.

It would help to explain further how what you do or what you think insurrectionary anarchists can do that is actually practicing things like "attack", anarchist projectuality and aims for destruction of the social order. These are not vague, meaningless terms. Read more on the Informal Anarchist Federation and you'll see examples of how they are practicing anarchy.

On base unions, base nuclei or whatever these things are being called, an insurrectionary anarchist participation in such things is not done with a purpose of compromising with the system. Shutting down bases, challenging the police with running battles in the streets, seizing and shutting down workplaces for periods of time, expropriation from banks and distributing the funds....these are activities that only those that want to have bad faith would compare to contemporary union activities. We perhaps could examine the content and reason for such activities as well, since those that participate in unions and political organizations have at times also done such activities in the past. We can discuss how unions and political organizations feed back into the system rather than attempt to break away.

Propaganda of the deed is done to expose that we want a world that is radically different from the one we have now. Our aims, as insurrectionary anarchists is not to increase our pay rates, it is to create ruptures against the social order and to expand such ruptures as far as they can reach. Aiming for material gains puts a limit on struggle. If material gains are achieved, is that the end of the struggle? At times situations have grown out of control. This is where a tension can be found.

If we happened to be in such a situation, our role as insurrectionary anarchists would be to attempt to expand such a tension to rupture. Even if we are but a minority and our narrative doesn't surface in a tension, it shows an insurrectionary anarchist intervention. When anarchists attempt to help struggles for material gains, it should be pointed out that such attempts are not struggles of anarchists intervening as anarchists.

They are the activities of individuals attempting to make the social order work for them. They are just another voice in the normal participation of workers or of individuals that have no aims for a better world, but rather accept they can only achieve more of the same. It is a labor dispute with one sphere of power fighting another. An aspect of civil society and an aspect of business struggling for power. This struggle is no different from two businesses competing against each other or two governments. I don't see how such activities would deserve to be called the activities of insurrectionary anarchists. It rings false to me.

I think hpwombat is going to be the next big thing!!

Sadness

We don't care about "immediate gains". We want destruction. Our sorrow is pervasive and we feel affinity only with others that are as destroyed as we are. Destroy what destroys you. This babble is bullshit. Everyone is dying! Everyone is corrupted! Everyone is poisoned! Children with mental defects! The elderly robbed by the medical industry! Our water, oh oh oh, our fucking water is poison! Death to them all!

I watch from a cliff. I see all around we collapse into a mass of suffering...why don't I care? I want to, but I realize I am empty of that emotion. Am I numb? I want to play video games and smoke pot. I turn the volume up as the neighbors yell at each other. Gun shots. I peak out the window to make sure their isn't a bunch of bullshit coming to my house. Good, it isn't. Back to leveling up.

This guy was involved with RAAN.

LOL.

If Americans don't protest austerity measures and budget cuts then corporations won't ship food to the United States causing us to starve when the food supply decreases in the future because of climate change, pollution, resource depletion and peak oil. We gotta eat.

we are called "the breadbasket of the world" for a reason. we export massive amounts of food, idiot.

we'll eat well when the land is freed from state/capitalist control.

On further review, insurrectionary anarchists indeed do practice base or worker organizations with the goal of obtaining material gains, among other things. Other insurrectionary anarchists also disagree with this position, but there isn't a strong criticism from either side of this dichotomy within the insurrectionary anarchist tendency.

An insurrectionary anarchist autonomous worker nuclei would be a workplace committee or fraction that has no connection with unions or political organizations, but remains open to whatever can be gained. To Bonanno, he sees any such gains as an increase in the ability for the worker to be autonomous. His position on this is detailed in "Workers' Autonomy"

Though I disagree with Bonanno, it can't be denied that such a position can be held by an insurrectionary anarchist. As for what current insurrectionary anarchists in America think or feel as well as European, that is another thing. From what I can tell, these positions might be outdated from current contemporary practices. This doesn't mean they can't be revived or in a current state of revival.

I'll ponder this more and I thank everyone for participating in this discussion. It has been enlightening and given much food for thought. Hopefully I'll have a follow up essay that answers some of the many challenges offered from this discussion.

Hpwombat for Dictator of the proletariat, yaaaay! *waves anarchist flag and drinks from beer bottle then lets off fireworks*

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
N
8
c
A
M
U
i
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "For a Revolt That Will Not Recuperate, For a Revolt That Will Not Defer"
society