As anarchists, we may often find ourselves in challenging situations. This TOTW takes a looks at the anarchist relationship with natural disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, etc) and other major adverse events like insurrection, war, riots, and general trouble.
Anonymous submission to MTL Counter-info
We’d like to respond with our thoughts to a text Mise en Commun (Putting in Common) that has been circulated critiquing insurrectionary projects and perspectives in Montreal. We appreciate that the authors of Mise en Common want to elaborate similarities and clarify differences, and move past bad faith. We’re taking this as an occasion to respond and to clarify ideas that we’ve been reflecting on for a few years now. We’ll try to use points of difference with Mise en Commun as an opportunity to delve further into ideas and how they inform practices, rather than limiting the scope of our text to simply addressing the critiques. We recognize that the length of this text might not facilitate a simple back-and-forth with the original authors, but our goal is to contribute to a larger discussion about these questions. We hope others will feel compelled to participate in this process of clarifying ideas and directions.
From fabiusmaximus.com by Scott Stewart at Stratfor, 23 February 2017
Summary: We have difficulty dealing with present problems because we have forgotten so much of our past. Here Stratfor seeks lessons for our long war with jihadists by examining our long struggle with anarchists during the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is rich with lessons for us. The subject of this analysis is “nihilist and anarchist terrorism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.” Also read my similar analysis in 2009: Are Islamic extremists like the anarchists?
From Lundi Matin
"Little by little, the 'question of violence' appears for what it is: a diversion."
Since the events of April 9th and the wild week that followed, the Nuit Debout (Rise Up At Night) assembly put the question of violence at the center of debate. While citizens persist in their rigorous pacifism, stances in favor of the "diversity of tactics" are multiplying. The National Student Coordination itself has explicitly refused dissociation between rioters and demonstrators.
“Freely Disassociating” appeared in June 2015. Although it was written a year prior, the half dozen Left and radical publications to which it was initially submitted would not print it. Since its publication by Perspectives on Anarchist Theory inquiries and positive responses (such as Scott Campbell’s, on which I have commented upon elsewhere ) have found their way to me either directly or through intermediaries. Of course there was a series of irrational and nonsensical comments online that only served to confirm my claim that there isn’t an “audience that can access arguments and positions outside those with which it already agrees.” And for that matter, the positive responses confirm this as well.
From Unicorn Riot
An in-depth interview with Doug Gilbert, author of “I Saw Fire.” Sole and Doug have a long conversation about anarchist strategies and counter-information. Lots of practical stuff in here about how to get revolutionary projects started in smaller cities and how to meaningfully engage in larger cities. They talk about what it means to “live and fight,” discuss problems with the “left” and have a broader conversation about revolutionary projects.
Let us begin with a couple of basic assumptions that are arguable but will allow us (if we accept them) to address the topic of the week in good faith.
Before we get to this let’s admit that we are trying to read one of our site's frenemies in the best possible light (which isn’t exactly fair to them as they are a stated opponent of anarchism as a political doctrine). The question, stated plainly, is “What exact activity should we be engaging in if we desire society-wide struggles that could lead to an anarchist society?”.
From Institute for Anarchist Studies - by Michelle Renee Matisons and Aalexander Reid Ross
For a book that advertises itself as a “shift in strategy and tactics,” Deep Green Resistance (DGR) has an overwhelmingly dispiriting tone, and is riddled with contradictions. While DGR provocatively addresses many pressing social and ecological issues, its opportunistic, loose-cannon theoretical approach and highly controversial tactics leaves it emulating right-wing militia rhetoric, with the accompanying hierarchical vanguardism, personality cultism, and reactionary moralism.