Add new comment

Yeah - ideally lots of such projects with circulation among them.

TBH I have mostly seen this done in cities, but these projects seem to have foundered on the new generation of control/policing technologies.

The big strategic problems are high vs low profile and avoidance vs confrontation. High-profile efforts will suffer repression (via media hysteria), low-profile efforts will not attract enough people and will tend not to have an impact. Similarly, outright insurgent communities will suffer much more repression than low-visibility, avoidance-based approaches, but will be more socially effective. One effective model would be a cluster of small communities plus individuals/households in surrounding areas, in an area with natural features conducive to disappearance and defense (e.g. forest, mountains). Efforts could be made to "harden" the area against repression while also avoiding local confrontations. People could then go do their spiky stuff somewhere else, then disappear back into the zone, hopefully becoming unsurveillable in the process. If the state figured out this was happening and tried to attack the zone, by this point it would be hardened enough to impose huge costs (this is one reason I think multiple zones would work better than a single big zone). We should also look into the kinds of community provision done by social movements in the South, particularly things like village clinics. And we need to experiment a bit regarding what an anarchist psychology support system would look like. There needs to be an active learning approach in terms of finding anarchist solutions to particular problems, as opposed to "it's not utopia so it failed". I mean, I'm still attracted to the idea of building utopia but right now there's a survival need for anarchists to create spaces where we aren't subjected to intensive control (where for example a lockdown would be impossible to enforce).