Topic of the Week: Struggle

  • Posted on: 27 February 2017
  • By: thecollective

The concept of constant struggle holds strong as definitive measure among a range of anarchists. We may be struggling against our preexisting conditions--or the level at which we are at odds with what we oppose as anarchists, or intentionally confronting or attacking our opposition in a direct drive towards a intensified state of struggle. This isn't intended to present a binary either, as of course there can be a range of ways we may attack our enemies that make sense in our situation.

How broad or specific is our so-called situation, or level of struggle that we as anarchists are either forced to or should be compelled to engage with?

How do our goals shape or define our tactics? What consideration is placed on overarching strategy when considering our tactics or praxis? How does the concept of direct action shape our praxis? In a time of Trump (and beyond), how do we assert and employ ourselves as anarchists when so much value is placed on mediated or representative (i.e. indirect) forms of action? How do critiques of activism relate to our notion of struggle or anarchist praxis? How do we gauge the value or efficiency of actions or tactics? When is it important to take action without taking things such as strategy or utility into consideration, and what drives alternative impetus' to action? Have you ever been driven to action simply out of pressure to act (in the name of intensifying struggle or otherwise)?

Is there value in the notion of an overarching, progressing and/or accumulative force of anarchist struggle? How does struggle in this sense relate to the concept of movement-building? How do theories or tendencies such as insurrectionary or social anarchism inform our notion of struggle?

What are forms of anarchist praxis that exist outside of the notion of the struggle that you find valuable? What should be taken or left from the concept or tendency to be involved in the struggle?

category: 

Comments

don't bother with anything constituted.

SirEinzige, would you mind expounding a little further on your comment? What makes / doesn't make a struggle yours? And why is that important for your perspective? Constituted?

Plain and simple. If people simply followed pure personal aspirations in regards to challenges of callings in life much of this elective/proposed crapola, which is the engine of modern world change, would be out of business. It would be like religious movements trying to herd in Zen practitioners.

The sad part about movements, mass participation, is that it is too often composed of people who do not know themselves nor their desires. This is a requirement for herding & devotion to the shepherd. They seek to address their self-alienation in the achievements of an organization, whose goals are often not dictated by them.

To those who seek to solve the outer problems before the inner proplems, I offer the following. Take care of your own backyard, before crusading in purported aid to a cause.

And even when ones own backyard is clean, as is mine, one is confronted with the the 99% of binary ideological participants. Therefore, mind ones own business and adopt a parochial clanish perspective.

The backyard is a bubble-space, with borders drawn by the social relationship.

Instead of people endlessly "working on themselves" to tackle issues inculcated by their social conditions, I'd rather be having hordes of alienated fucked up addicts living and dying in a heroic fight against what's systemically at the source of their oppression.

It's true that men are rotting more on the inside than outside, as opposed to women, when aging. It's also a reason why they should fight to destroy a world they don't want the children to inherit.

...like that guy in Florida who's been shot, on the 26th, by cops after a successful sabotage of a pipeline.

I don't know what the age/rotting gender distinction you mention is about, nor whether your inside/outside refers to psychic depression vs a wrinkled complexion and physical entropy, I don't regard chronological time and age as distinct moments for initiating rebellions and struggle, these actions are spontaneous, continuous and everlasting. But bubbles should be popped.

"I'd rather be having hordes of alienated fucked up addicts living and dying in a heroic fight against what's systemically at the source of their oppression."

Of course you would, you're a delusional sadist obsessed with your own superstitions. You'd punish the whole world before looking into a mirror. You'd raze it again and again in search of the demons which haunt you & you alone.

Mistaking the symptoms of misery for the source.

*ressentiment*

fuck the world

Isn't this notion of "following pure personal aspirations" in itself, an elective position and a proposed solution?

Nope

No, unless one is schizophrenic, and even then one could declare a dictatorship of personality, since its not really a disease, but a multifaceted singularity. It becomes a disease when it becomes elective and democratic.

speaking of schizophrenics, am i the only one noticing the back and forth between anons addressing each other on a personal basis? ps - where am i and how did i find this place

And how the fuck I'm supposed to know?

Do you use constituted in the same way you'd use reified?

In that the constituted is beyond the corporeal and immediate and as struggles they are tied to formal problems and solutions.

Why - after rejecting mindless Manicheaism - do youse obsess with binaries so much? Can't anarchists oppose God & the State anymore? How does it help anarchism to see " anarchist revolutionist" as a false binary of " undercover police-officer"? And why do I sound like Carrie Bradshaw?
Yours in Kampf
Pro2rat

much of these 'struggles' don't have a physical based focal point. God and State do not exist. There is no point to be 'anti'(as opposed to a or non) these things. It's no different then shaking your fist at God for what you project him to have done. Instead of being agents of revolution we should be agents of insurrection and secession which is more akin to a detachment and decommissioning from the process of belief born power.

Unlike Hitler and many others my kampf is mine alone.

Cultural binaries are contradictions which are woven into a social constitution made up of hierarchical reward systems and moral legislative processes which psychologically enslave and brainwash the individual. Just as the simple Pavlovian reflex,,,,,,we have all this technological power,,,,but in the hands of the superstitious ape,,,,,and the birth of the Manichean nightmare.....

There is space for me to blend some indigenous spirituality into my agnostic Amish-esque utilitarian agricultural steampowered Zen community my dear emile.

It seems like the millieu will continue to divide down the following lines in the coming years:

-antifa, social movement & struggle, communistic, vague or masqued authoritarian structures, language & aesthetic dictation/decree/totalization

-anarch, individualism, liberty, freedom, spirituality, escape, self-sufficiency

This has already been going on for years, and perhaps it stretches back to the 1800s or even further. But to see the way groups have evolved in recent years, how this site has evolved, causes me to wonder if divides might deepen, and how the term anarchist will become used or disused. Thus antifa and anarch offer larger adoption both in their own right, detached from historical baggage & free from the perjoratives & scapegoating associated with the terms anarchist & anarchism, which might forever remain a battleground.

The first group offers greater numbers, because its ranks are filled two ways: from disaffection to right wing forms of power, and from support by left wing form of power, since it is their form of militia & paramilitary formation. They'll never have to be as organized, capable, nor armed, as a right-wing militia or paramilitary. Because their ideology values martyrdom and valorizes self harm, suicidality, losing, failure, and quirkiness. They need continual defeat & suffering to inspire their struggle. Doesn't make them any less violent, though. They just go about it in a different way. Compare to how Palestine wages war with Israel: same description. Tragedy & loss, death & injury, this is what they value, valorize & aspire to. As the Muslim sends its rock throwing child before armed & armoured soldiers, such that they might get a small chance at minor victory and a great chance for struggle points & scene cred, so also does a western leftist politicize its kid, preparing ultimately to do the same thing. It is a philosophy of self defeat, self undermining, and self-ghettoization; without ever saying as much.

The second group, anarch, might forever be fewer in numbers, although heaven on earth could be attained in some form, if by grace of god or chaos, more individuals attain levels of transcendence by their own accord. For, that's how it became in the first place. That is how those ranks were filled. It seems like something which cannot be scripted, although maybe that's what inspired the original authors of holy aphorisms. But rareness is what we have now, regardless. Out of the chaos & mire, you meet a truly non-ideological, decent, self contented person out of the thousands, or millions. A sad condition, really. But who knows what the future holds.

The anarch watches as the two faces of civilization war with one another, in formality or in the paramilitary. Sinks back beneath their titan shadows, finding light where they may. I imagine dappled sunlight stretching across the surface of the planet.

Yesterday a cat approached me outside of a grocery store. This had never happened to me before. Calling out in loud, repetitive meows. It approached and distanced itself to me in repetition as it measured my trustworthiness. It was hungry, gaunt. I had, coincidentally, just purchased a can of tuna & some styrofoam bowls, so I made a small feast for the thing in the parking lot. Golden tabby. Still young, but not a kitten. It consumed the tuna voraciously, as you might imagine. It kept meowing at me while it ate, glancing over to me between bites. He seemed very grateful afterward, purring and meowing, rubbing against me and beckoning for scratches. It struck me that he was able to play with me without using his teeth and claws—a feat most house cats seem unable to accomplish. It was night. A moth momentarily distracted him, and he casually trotted to it, and in one swoop extended a paw into the air to grab it, pin it to the ground, and eat it. Crunch, crunch, crunch. Obviously it was able to fend for itself, but a city offers little subsistence. I considered what to do next. He expected to enter the vehicle with me. I had no way to care for a cat given my current condition. It would have been miserable at a pound, and miserable behind this grocery store. It kept staring directly into my eyes. It was one of the most precocious creatures I have ever encountered. I looked around me, to the dumpsters, to the sodium lights, to the blacktop and rushing cars. A terrible place to find one's self marooned, and a very depressing place to die. After some hesitation I decided to take it to a quieter, greener part of town that I was familiar with. Some yuppie or yuppie kid would fall in love with it. A quick check for fleas deemed it to be a not-terrible idea. I reentered the store to buy some forty-cent cans of cat food, and returned to find the caramel-eyed cat again after clicking my tongue a few times. After a short drive I left the purring golden cat with a new bowl of food, to which it ate, and left it to its fate. I saw it slink away quietly, thankfully without looking back. Later in the night I heard it singing a great chorus with another cat. Away from blacktop, sodium lights, and road noises.

Cool story bro.

*with xtra tears going down my cheeks*

My social life is a miserable hell and that's why I can only succeed at socializing with cats.

Fucking punk-rocker dickheads make me puke so hard, but nothing compared to the cute young females who keep falling prey to them.

"Shoot society with anything you got, my son" my anarcho-sociopath granddaddy was saying.

I think he was right.

I think most people's social lives are hell, anon. How one deals with hell varies from person to person. Some suffer in hell, others thrive, others maintain. So it seems.

But there are the rare heavenly social lives which can and still occur. Rare indeed. A blessing to find them manifesting about us. A superpower if one can make them manifest. A tragedy to lose them—the depth of hell can never truly be measured without having known heaven.

But I wager that heaven needs no prior torture to appreciate. To say otherwise is to valorize suffering & injury. Refrained in: "It's just part of growing up," and other capitulatory maxims which children are told by nodding bobbleheads.

We can dream of better conditions, anon. It does no harm. Someday they may occur. But in the meantime we must find our way through hell.

You have to consider what happened to the 1880s era anarchist milieu to have a clue what is likely to happen but I don't think the anarchist scene as we know it will survive the coming unraveling and new economic order to come. The post WW2 terrain that created it is gone and it will be gone soon.

The second group that you speak of is indeed the more timeless expression of anarchy and unmediated relations. You could say I am part of group 2 and I can definitely see that a radical epoch is coming to a close. Post WW2 1968 born anarchism is now what First International 1886 anarchism was at the turn of the 30s-40s. You can pretty much stick a fork in it. In my view what needs to be done now is for anarchists and anarchs of the future to do what Kenneth Rexroth and Paul Goodman did as young men being bridges to 1968(Think also the Lettrists). Get those coffee shop discussions going on what a greater 21st century anarchic activity will look like. We will need 21st century Goodmans Rexroths and Lettrists though this time more Stirner and less to no Marx at all. Hopefully this time anarchism is at least the default with anarch and anarchy being an even higher quality aim.

I wonder as well if there will be a new corporeal struggle agent beyond prole of the 1880s and the adult student of the 1960s. I've mused that adolescent delinquency with an analysis could be the next major chapter of autonomous anarchic aspirations. I would certainly love to see such a thing. The problem with adult students and workers is that the damage has been done. An adolescent subjectivity that refuses school and calls for the abolition of education and the custodial complex(as well as consent laws) is something that I would LOOOVE to see just for the novel historical effect. That would put a real scare into a given civilization.

Lastly, that is an actual cool story regarding the kitty.

If you are ever on the verge of starvation you can eat cat, just sayin,,,,,,

the division into antifa and anarch might be captured by

(a) antifa, those who contend that the world is being improperly managed and controlled and who want to replace the dysfunctional management and control protocols with egalitarian versions.

(b) anarchs, those who contend that we should not be trying to manage and control the world, but should be acknowledging that we are included in a relational dynamic greater than ourselves [organizing is immanent in nature] so that we must derive our power-drive and steerage from the relational dynamics we are situationally included in. this is the 'transcendent' mode of indigeneous anarchism. this is not possible if one shares inclusion within a common living space with cultures that are bent on managing and controlling everything [we have seen this unfold with the invasion of Turtle Island by colonizers/settlers with the management and control ethic.]

there is an obvious problem here in that anarchists might be inclined to temporarily 'become managers and controllers' to rid the common living space of those who are bent on managing and controlling everything'. but that would be to chase after symptoms rather than address root source.

the root source of people becoming bent on managing and controlling things is 'ego'. 'Ego' is the belief that one is an 'independently-existing material system' that is fully and solely responsible for its own actions and results. This is the anthropocentric source of imputing 'being' to every relational form in the entire transforming relational continuum; i.e. by assign a word-label to it and using subject-verb grammar constructs to semantically animate it as a 'thing-in-itself' [Katrina is growing larger and stronger, ... Katrina is ravaging New Orleans etc.].

"“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

Evidently, the common 'perceptions' of the world, embellished (and distorted) by language and grammar are fucking up the social dynamic by having vast numbers of people believe that we must manage and control everything.

We could find our way to the inner kernal of this dysfunctional belief in the following slogan employed by Quebec student protesters;

"L'équité intergénérationnelle : diviser pour que règne l'inéquité sociale"
("The intergenerational equation : to divide, so that social inequality rules.")

taken in conjunction with the following excerpt from this Guardian article on 'neoliberalism'

"Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations."

what the Quebec students are complaining about is that the Quebec government, in collusion with corporate industry, is 'pulling the natural web of social relations apart' by infusing competition into education in such a way that it divides 'the more performant' from 'the less performant' and creates an elitist class, who will become the serfs of the 'private sector' which is ultimately the money/banking system.

competition is based on the abstract concept of an 'event' that is confused for something 'real' by Western science's convenient [economy-of-thought-delivering] assumption that 'the present depends only on the immediate past'. In fact, when students compete, influence from the remote past (we live within a transforming relational continuum) bears directly on the competitive 'event' so that it is not the participant as a local-in-space-and-time' thing-in-itself that is the source of the 'winning' or 'losing' competitive performance.

neoliberalism was sponsored by Reagan and Thatcher ["there is no alternative"] who also reduced the political view of the world to simple good and evil narratives [see BBC documentary producer Adam Curtis' 'Bitter Lake', 'The Trap', 'Hypernormalisation']. Neoliberalism opens the way for the private sector [ultimately the banking/monetary system] to pull apart the public sector (local relational infrastructure) within which local community relational infrastructure inclusively nests. In the overall process which includes the development of upcoming generations of workers, this leads back and down and in to the complaint of the Quebec students about 'competition' that pulls apart natural relational 'mutual support' social networks.

The following quotes are from a youth spokesman from ROCAJQ ('Coalition of independent community organisations of Quebec' at the time of the big Summit of the Americas protest in Quebec City;

"Les priorités d'action du gouvernement sont les mêmes que celles de son Plan d'action jeunesse 1998-2001 : la compétitivité des entreprises et la compétition entre les jeunes qui mettent hors-jeu les moins performants. " ... "... les jeunes qui vivent des difficulté ou qui ne s'identifient pas aux valeurs de compétition ne peuvent pas se reconnaître dans ce que l'on pourrait qualifier de mascarade autour du Sommet du Québec et de la jeunesse."
.
("The government's priorities are the same as in its 1998 - 2001 Action Plan for youth: competition in business and competition among youth which puts the less performant out of play." . . . "Young people who experience difficulty or who do not identify with the values of competition do not relate to this, what might be termed 'mascarade' which surrounds the Summit Meeting of Quebec and Youth')

"L'équité intergénérationnelle : diviser pour que règne l'inéquité sociale"
("The intergenerational equation : to divide, so that social inequality rules.")

Win/lose competition is at the bottom of all of this 'pulling apart' of natural social relational networking, and 'competition' is based on the abstract concept of an 'event' which takes on a pseudo-reality by our assumption that 'the present depends only on the immediate past'. so, we can blame the child-soldier for his slaughter of 'innocent' members of the community that, meanwhile, authored the conditions for the spawning of the child-soldier {"it takes a whole community to raise a terrorist"]. The non-reality of an 'event' is explained in 'How language is shaping social dynamics'

Is the ability of a 'Trump' to 'win' a competitive 'event' due fully and solely to Trump's action within the event, as given by the assumption that 'the present depends only on the immediate past', ... or it is more realistic to assume, as with the child-soldier, that the present is directly effected by the remote past; i.e. by "the progressive development of a phenomenon,"

As George Monbiot says in his Guardian article on 'neoliberalism'

"Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
.
.. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

Summary:

We started off by talking about the 'antifa' and the 'anarch' as groupings within 'the anarchist milieu' which are differentiated on the basis of 'where they are coming from' [their respectively differing beliefs and understandings]. This is an orthodox 'Euclidian' view which fails to acknowledge the primacy of relational space as the common plenum including both 'antifa', 'anarch' and the offensive authoritarians, all of whom are simultaneously influencing all. indeed, it is possible for these differing tendencies to coexist within individuals [we are naturally polyphrenous] and for one or the other to manifest in different situations.

Because of this relational space based interdependence, and because of the inner kernal of the global socio-economic dynamic being binary win/lose 'competition', it behooves us to critically scrutinize the legitimacy of 'competition' as a core organizing principle. such critical inquiry exposes 'competition' as intellectual abstraction that has no basis in the physical reality of our actual experience. We cannot attribute a 'win' or 'loss' to the authoring powers or lack thereof, of the participant in the competitive event because 'events' are abstract concepts rather than real physical phenomena. They are 'semantic pseud-realities', 'maps that are not the territory'.

If those who believe [or 'go along with the belief] in 'competition' as meriting the role of basic social-relational organizing principle were to come to their senses, authoritarianism would be subsumed by anarchism and antifascism would no longer have its raison d'être.

'Darwinism' and its notion of 'competing for scarce resources' plays a keystone 'con' role in this 'competition-based deception'. In Lamarckism, epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression so that our observations in terms of 'what things do' is the secondary 'appearances' aspect of physical phenomena, relational transformation being primary.

Given that nature is a transforming relational plenum/continuum, the concept of 'competition' as in a 'competitive event' makes no sense since there are no 'independent beings' to portray as 'competitors' and there are no such things as 'events' wherein 'the present depends only on the immediate past'.

The wake-up call is that wars and other 'win/lose competitions' are not 'historical events' that transpired in the past and established who the 'winners' and 'losers' were, the relational tensions between colonizers and colonized continue on [individuals can be both at the same time], giving rise to periodic eruptions of violence. There is no past and no future, only the continuing present [the transforming relational continuum].

"those who contend that we should not be trying to manage and control the world..."

if emile had only left it at that. but no, they have to go into their pen-mouth diarrhea about indigenous appropriation and relational dynamics. blah blah fucking blah.

majority of anarchists in the west europe, especially in germany, just copy what their community is doing, they don't have any ideas. is ti squat, fight or something else, they don't use their brain, they just copy other people.

consequently, many anarchists are like urlike meinhof, when she was with pacifists, she was also pacifist, when she started to befriend guerrilla, she became guerrilla. some individuals lose themselves in the group. they just repeat phrases and actions of other people. at least RAF had political analysis of their actions, but individuals were the copy of the group.

what I want to say is that many anarchists are NOT making any analysis, they just live in their micro world and copy their friends, they don't have any idea what is going on and if they should change their tactics/actions/etc. they DON'T define their tactics, they just adapt themselves in their community.

denmark doesn't let individuals to jump out from the crowd, all people must be adapted in society, so, if you see a junkie, you can be sure that person was a friend with junkies and had to do what other people do. they don't have individuality to refuse and be different.

try to be different in german anarchist community, they will hate you. you can criticize the whole world, but not them. they are holy/saints.

and of course, because of this "adapting", we have animosity between social and insurrection anarchists, they oppose each others, although this social anarchists are to blame, they always attack verbally those who are militant due to the fear from repression.

I hope at least in south Europe, anarchists make strategy, tactics and they should analyse their behavior and fight, and change it when necessary i.e. they should use their brain.

I was happy to see that the revolutionary struggle from greece published a statement that from destruction of property, anarchists should go to the next level: attacking billionaires, politicians, nazis, etc., not just property. I hope it will become the reality.

Listen youngun, I don't know which Weltanschauung you inhabit, but I guess that it is in a violent military dictatorship in an underdeveloped country which still has a large following of archaic 1960s class conscious Marxist urban dissidents among its students and a repressive military presence, but try to heed the warnings of other posters and be careful and seek a peaceful solution for the sake of the children.

please, be careful, rebel; that your respective asociality doesn't devolve into a reactionary misanthropy. thanks

My struggle involves having to constantly select "New Tor Circuit for this Site" because anarchistnews.org has blocked too many Tor exits resulting in 403 errors. Somebody should remedy this. Unblock all.

Try selecting a new identity instead. I don't think the MAC address and other unique info changes with selecting new tor circuit for this site.

Yeah I have to refresh tor circuits enough that I know the keyboard shortcut now. Usually works after 2-5 times. Pretty annoying! Anews, if you're trying to block individuals, it's 1. not working 2. annoying other people.

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?
M
5
L
u
2
R
d
Enter the code without spaces.