Anarchy Bang: Introducing Episode 29 - Intentionality

From Anarchy Bang

This week we will be discussing Intentionality. This is both intent toward a cause or action and your agency to act. You may want animals to have the full rights that any other citizen my have (intention) but no actual power to make that happen. Or perhaps you only have the power of uniting other citizens towards your same goals. Of course we don't have such clear language. We have no citizens or power or unity we can rely on or even pretend we are a part of. How does this relate to intentionality? Does anyone care what we believe or how hard we desire the uncompromising freedom of all of humanity. Do intentions even matter in a world gone mad or a world blowing away from human inhabitance?

Join in the conversation!

Sunday at noon (PST or -7 UTC) at
Email questions ahead if you like
The real time IRC is a chaotic mess (and pleasure). There are better ways to connect to IRC but it involves some reading
The call in number is (646) 787-8464

There are 8 Comments

The TOTW is “Effectiveness”, the Anarchy Bang topic is “Intentionality”, what’s the remainder?
Involuntary (in/re)actions, the surrounding others (life-forms or animated matter), fortune, fate, context, long-term consequences, chain reactions, unexpected interactions?

In light of these topics I think of the distinction between Anarchy and Anarchism.
Anarchism conceived as a project or goal, it can be considered the Intention against which the Effectiveness of different actions can be evaluated.

Is Anarchy always already there in the backdrop of all that happens, or the whole of all that’s happening, or is it a quality of the mindset or way being that has a rawer form of Intentionality (to live free, Primal Anarchy?)? Or is it a context in which all forms of government break down and becomes Ineffective regardless of the Intentionality?

Is Anarchy simply to “be ungovernable”? There are many places and moments under states where people are ungovernable. These people are mostly not ideologically Anarchists. When people rebel against an authority as a survival reflex or vital reaction stemming from an overflowing of exasperation, indignation, or rage, there is an Intentionality and an Effectiveness, but it’s rarely an unambiguously clearly stated project or goal. Are goals short of total Anarchy, by default uninteresting to the discussion of Anarchy even if they would tend towards it?

In other words, it’s often discussed how people with the Intentionality of Anarchy or Anarchism carry out actions with varying or dubious Effectiveness that fall short of their stated goals. But what about the interaction of everything in what can be seen as “chaos”, and how some people can act upon their desires of liberation (from x and y etc) and tend towards a state of Anarchy without carrying that all-encompassing goal from the outset as their Intentionality.

Similarly, there are people in government whose stated or sincerely held intentions and goals are not those of Totalitarianism, racism, patriarchy, and destruction of biodiversity, etc, yet work to maintain the effectiveness of the state which tends against notions of Anarchy. Or even people with the intention to overthrow said government who could lead towards a greater authoritarianism, independent of their intentions, through unforeseen interactions and consequences.

There are endless scenarios, but another conceivable one I did not mention, that is often used as a scaremonger tactic that politicians and demagogues love to hurl at one another, is of that of a specific administration of a government that through their actions have incited anarchy, and should therefore be replaced to restore order.

It’d be comical if we share this rhetoric and praise politicians for their unintentional incitation to rioting and revolt, or their contributions to dismantling their state through their own ineptitude. Yet within purity politics, are Intentionality and Effectiveness the metrics by which we measure how “anarchist” someone is? What’s the weight of each variable, in order to carried out a weighted average, or is it an index in which you can get a net positive or a net negative? Or are these categories nominal and not quantitive, so a baseline categorical Intentionality of Anarchy or Anarchism has you covered, and then you get a bonus factor according to your Effectiveness?

stay tuned for episode 30: Irrationality, followed by episode 31: Intersectionality

"Can we talk about [blank] at all while still being sufficiently but-fuck-everything-tho because plans and goals are for Stalinist Liberals and they're dumb but we're smart and how do we frame a discussion again? Also, effectiveness is Marxist, therefore dumb!!!"

My intention is to spread the idea of intentional communities. Intentional Community can bring agency to the people because it bypasses mediating institutions and money so people may directly express their intentions on a daily basis. People are creating more of these communities intentionally and also interacting with the world by encouraging more people to share land freely in intentional communities. Their intention is to create egalitarian spaces, live sustainably, and live the practice of anarchy. Organizing ourselves in smaller tribal groups allow people to follow their own intentions and have direct influence over the community around them by not letting mass society and spectacle dilute and replace their intentions and power and agency. Mass society was organized in certain ways for certain outcomes, and so must people organize themselves differently if they intend to live differently and not carry out the intentions of the rulers. People are enthusiastically encouraged to help and join this community and others if they would like to help make this already realized intention to be more of a reality for themselves and others.

Add new comment