Anarchy Bang - Is there a way to change the world that isn’t activism?

  • Posted on: 26 April 2019
  • By: anarchybang

From Anarchy Bang for Sunday April 28

It is a fair point to say that most pessimists were at one time optimists and perhaps failed at that. Activism is nothing if not a kind of optimism. The world, especially the political world, is dark and full of terrors and hopeful activist people are some of the few that charge into that maw with flaming swords and a belief they'll get to the other side. Many of us pessimists have!

This week we'll talk about activist attempts to change the world. Where we have succeeded. Where we have failed. Where we have been found wanting and where are how the world has failed us. We want to change the world. At best the world changes us and we make an accounting.

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


Here we have conventional United Staes of America style passivity, self-absorption and gutlessness in a can -- long live lifestyle anarchy!

There is the internal methodology which ensures an active creative autonomous bravery and empathic exercise of individual power which is abundant in amerika.

week's presenters of Anarchy Bang of the recent civil disobedience actions in London of ER? There is nothing from them regarding going vegan as a response to climate change.

Going vegan is supposedly a quick way to reduce emissions, positive for the environment, positive in massively reducing clean water usage, of course it's great for the lessening of non-human exploitation and it's great for humans too.

Post Left anarchists versus Left anarchists maybe too simple a way to put it as the post left anarchists would use this framing as a way to avoid answering their lackluster form of their demise as anarchists.

Yes, Nettle, there are times when doing nothing is more productive than doing something and traditional anarchists need to heed that message also.

Bookchin is correct when he calls out primitivists (JZ) in that, as Ria Montana also stated, much decimation of the earth and non-humans was already done, and/or was well on the path of decimation by the time of agriculture and sedentism, let alone industrialism. Controlled use of fire by humans put us firmly on the path to where we are today. Agriculture may well have been a response to the devastation caused by humans?

As Aragorn! and Layla AbdelRahim have both stated, we need a global response if we are to change anything of use and it may be the system cannot be fixed and will have to be left to collapse and what can be salvaged, if anything. Life will go on but will humans be part of that?

Will humans, should we survive, have the capacity for change or we programmed/determined to reapeat how we relate to others and the environment? Will have to give up controlled use of fire for instance?

… No-one is going to "give up controlled use of fire" ffs ...

These types are classic examples of the original sin structured thinker. The problem with this is why not also blame lightning and thunder along with earlier primordial points of emergence.

I am quite fine with the arbitrary starting and exit point as I have no issue with physical existence and suffering as such.

Sin is in with me.

zerzan did it. I dont see why its not possible to impliment on a large scale.

burning calories is controlled fire, we must abandon metabolism

from vegan is pro ana if you want to minimize emissions. Do as thou will you don't need permission or anyone's blessing. Is everything real? Are you still mad and want to do stuff. Don't you want to live forever?


Apart from getting themselves repeatedly arrested, I'm still scratching my head as to what exactly Extinction Rebellion has achieved. They believed that they could make London ungovernable by overstretching the police and filling up their cells. ER don't have a fraction of the capacity to take on the government that the union movement deployed in the 1984-58 miners strike. And Brit's, for fuck sakes don't say the Poll Tax riot brought Thatcher down. That's a social fiction of the highest order perpetuated by the Left, Class War and Ramsey Kanaan. She overplayed her hand with her colleagues and they toppled her. Most of the key Tories were leaving Cabinet meetings saying she had completely lost the plot and simply had to go.

london extinction rebellion comment on how things related to topic are featured in comment response referrence to conversation and things in world relevant discussion nourishing stimuli attention direction time-spent recipient text hook and bait

Anon Fri, 04/26/2019 - 06:21 said:

Going vegan is supposedly a quick way to reduce emissions, positive for the environment, positive in massively reducing clean water usage, of course it's great for the lessening of non-human exploitation and it's great for humans too.

Good luck with London's Extinction Rebellion vegan bourgie's trying to to save the world. Their soy/oat milk substitutes are in Tetrapaks which are sent to Sweden for recycing. As for post-Left, where exactly are they now? How much useful writing has been produced on the topic in the last five years? It's dead.

Activism is simply the elective representative form of affection. The latter simply requires a willed and shared projectuality. As Andrew X said give up activism.

Come get your loving in SirEinzige's Affection Salon.

Well 99.9 % of mammalia spend 24/7 of their time being affentionate to one another, I don't see why suddenly homo sapiens should adopt the hateful ressentiment fueled Leftist doctrine into their daily life. Rather, they should just be their own affectionate selves to one another. More goodness will come from this methodology, surely.

i agree with you! i think the case for salons and affection (made separately) were compelling, so i decided to join them in jest, yet this new combination is not off putting for me, even if the brand name would make me hesitate

How about the brandname Stirner's Salon Zone? Ziggy would pose like Stirner sitting at a bar in thae drawing smoking and reading from The Ego and its Own, and LeFool can wear a fake Nietzsche mustache and an apron serving bubbly cider and marijuana cigarettes with a thousand yard stare.

it must be tried at least once

Is it activism? Is it anarchist? Is it good or bad? Is it effective? This abstract framing seems silly any way you put it, I tried to approach it from different angles (past versions of this comment were very different, but was still unsatisfied with the results).

At the end it's simpler to approach it as being capable of making the distinction between preferences and opinions, vs your capacities and sphere of influence. To keep it real and specific to specific things you can deal with.

Since preferences and opinions (wills, desires, whims, projects, values, etc), and capacities (what you can conceive of, what you can do) and spheres of influence (means at your disposal) are different for everyone (with similarities and overlap, of course, which allows for affinity) it's not helpful to think of it as a one size fits all approach.

There are countless things you can do or not do, it's up to you to decide, in the cases where you can, since there are limits.

You could look at the different effects that different things seem to have (activism, and not activism among them) and do whatever you want with that info. Some people love government and states and corporations and the effects they seem to have on the world, others have mixed feeling, others despise them. That can inform how you interact with them.

If the question is instead "Hey activism doesn't seem to be turning the world on its head, changing the status quo quickly in the drastic ways it would like to, what could we do instead that could achieve that?" Then that's a more conspiratorial or vanguardist approach (both which can be political and/or entrepreneurial character, as well as could be something completely different). You'd have to find a group of people committed to finding an answer together that you can carry out, and then committing together to carry it out. Is it activism? Is it anarchist? Is it good or bad? Is it effective? I don't know! Good luck and have fun!

There are also many projects that can be conceived of that are not geared towards "changing the world", or even changing the backyard. The hedonist escapism, ascetic refusal, lobotomized catatonic vegetation, etc etc.

Why must this be a question writ large?!!!! Do or don't what you will!!! Speak among yourselves!!!!

If this topic is discussed in front of the listeners, will you conspire with them?? Will you do something with me????!!!!!
If I call, are we going to do something together???????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rather begin by sharing with me your preferences and abilities, the resources you have, your aspirations, your whims, your cravings, maybe we share affinity (not using this concept as in "the right way to organize is affinity groups", but because that's how people associate, by self or mutual interest, unless they're coerced).

But truth is we're miles apart!!! Will I travel to meet you?!!! Will you come to visit me?!! Let's ground this discussion!!! What are we trying to get out of it?!!!

I'll calm myself lol. Maybe you'll discuss your previous experiences with activism, how were hopeful and then became disappointed, and then maybe people can learn from your experiences, and call in if they want to share theirs, and this sharing could be helpful to all.


activism est atavism ad attrition, ergo apraxia

ergo ataxia, ataxaphasia

adevenirum alacris ataraxia

As far as A! and the gang appear to be having a firmly set position against any sort of radical social change, I feel answering this question is useless?


Okay so show me where's their commitment to any radical social change, then, beyond publications and lectures.

why does it have to be beyond that, why does it have to conform to your vision? they are free and they are doing what they want. they are consistent in the things they do.
you may not like them, you do you.
i wish i was as clear of what i want and as consistent as they.

Refuse! Refuse to join in the mainstream nightmare: refuse to be subjugated. However, for this to be truly effective, this would need to be done on a global scale: just don't show up for work etc. With the internet, how come, there has never been, for example, (to my knowledge anyway) a world wide refusal day?

This tiny minority ruling over a vast majority is baffling, the vast majority ever permit the tiny minority to have 'legitimate' force: to perpetrate 'legitimate' violence: to have bogus court proceedings, the list is endless.

These days, I have confess, I can rarely bring myself to listen to the majority moan and groan about their plight: gig economy, pensions being eroded, the cost of this and that, how the rich get richer, schools closing, rents increasing on and on and on. Then I remember de la Boetie's discourse on voluntary servitude and realise the majority want subjugation: they don't want autonomy, they don't the faintest whiff of freedom and self-responsibility: no, they want someone to blame and point the finger at.

Bellamy Fitzpatrick, I am assuming realised this, and is now doing his best to survive/exist by is own guile. Will he return to the fold of the mainstream should ill health call in on him as did Fredy Perlman? Perlman, like Boetie, wrote of voluntary servitude in his own essay regarding the reproduction of everyday life. It's Going Down waffle on and on about Trump, yet for many, it is the local public services: the local bureaucrats who shit on many people: the local housing office, the local social services, the local education hierarchy etc who blight the lives of most people, not Trump aka Ancient Orange.

Armed struggle? Armed resistance? Armed insurrection? The folk in the USA are allowed to keep guns, right? One reason for this is in case the government overstep the mark. So not only is there a ruling plutocracy, an oligarchy which has captured what little remained of any semblance of democracy; there is a global instant communication platform, the people have arms, they have the knowledge about the current nightmare, and still the majority sit back and moan!!!! What is to be done indeed. There is way more chance of the armed people taking the food grown by Bellamy than challenging the current nightmare... so Bellamy, be prepared to protect your meat and two veg!

on revolutionary discourse. It really does come down to some simple associations and disassociations on the psychological level.

I "survived by my own guile" for about 10 years. Wasn't great. Wouldn't recommend. I was poor as fuck so I ended up needing support from other people in various ways. Tried to reciprocate but without any access to capital, there was a low ceiling on my ability to do so. There was also a lot of desire to pretend I was more independent than I actually was.

Seems there's a pretty substantive difference between guile and guile + money for land projects. I certainly get the misanthropic disdain but I temper it with some classic anarchist shit because otherwise, how am I not just a slight variation on all the other narcissistic yuppie shitheads who only care about themselves? Pray tell? What's the difference?

Why is - I got mine, fuck everyone else because they're stupid and weak, let the world burn - Why is that even an interesting point to make?

Plz stop putting the guy on a pedestal you sound like you're building another cult leader figure, with the whole Passion drama of seeing his carrots taken away by them "anti-intellectual binary brutes with guns". Of course it could happen. It should happen... if they don't develop ways to defend their own, interpersonal dominion over this subdivided piece of colonial land.

Bellamy and his elite gang can have it their way, like any other good American settler of earlier days... yet I don't see why anyone should show any solidarity with them, in whatever's happening to/on their land project, as they're not my-your personal buddies.


It's all just one big D&D game. You're ambushed by pedo-troll. Roll for initiative.

For for they sometimes overlap each other in their lingo... and snarky arrogance... directed at several aspects of the Left and even insurrecto anarchism, while being all fine with proudhonian communalism; I also been guessing for a while they're the same. Which would explain why SE's been allowed a tribune here for so long, along with his very personal sidekick LeWay. So it's interesting I ain't the only one.

Pretty weird for one and the same person to do.

your posts too, SE. perhaps i'm you as well. or you're me. omg...

If "be fine with" and "be snarky towards" are mutually exclusive postures, how do you interact with your friends? Just respectful silence?

they seem really different to me. if they're the same person, they're playing a different character.
i don't know why you'd be so quick to think that A! has some type of conspiracy or fetish with commenting on his own site with different usernames. i doubt he even reads all the comments.

It is not unreasonable to interpret activism as a stepping stone. As with other periods of youthful development, one exits in due time. With attention to the details of experience. Unfortunately, one can get lodged between those ubiquitous rocks and hard places along the way. Those who want an unfettered life, who want to rip away all unnecessary bonds, are soon departed.

There is always a WE when activists speak. Even when saying “I am an activist” I hear an indistinguishable mumbling of the WE Collective surrounding them. I soon realize it is only in their proximity that I note words at all. Then I remember I am an animal. I am not rooted, I am mobile.

The activists stated objective is often broad, lofty, and unattainable – at least by their programs and pogroms. “Change the world”. “End fascism.”

This Change is not so much as by example but by force. Perhaps only the indomitable force of habit.

Change, what everyone ELSE needs doing.

Whatever goal is portended, even as ‘success’ is meekly and weakly defined, failures are admitted. Defectors bail. Good activists are not dissuaded. A mutual back-patting ritual ensues, “next time, comrade, next time. At least we tried”.

The most hilarious sign of success is “doing time”, though few need to be worried about getting locked up any tighter than they are already. Agitation is the main strategy for change. Agitating tactics include repetitive chanting, various naggings and pleadings, wheedling and guilting. Occasionally, a temper tantrum. One longs for a real honey pot.

Activism is VERY public, even when its activities are surreptitious. Manifestos, claims of responsibility, and (in keeping up with the times - Progress good) viral Internet memes announce the latest action. Who doesn’t feel inspired or vindicated now and then (we just knew it, we KNEW we aren’t the only one fed up)? This is so common a theme Netflix now has a category for “radical” films labeled “fighting the system”.

The terribly usual result of the most vehement activism is a heads up to their so-called adversary or enemy. Is this a differentiation of degree or strategy? Give them time to implement the plans already in place to make a necessary, inevitable adjustment. Play badass with the new counter measures while acknowledging amongst themselves, “OK, we’ve milked this one, lets move on”.

So, activists are rarely more than a slightly louder warning system. Magnifying the rumblings of disaffection that are as ancient as priests and as prevalent as slaves. Discord that persists or that waxes and wanes (not parenthetically because of a “successful” quelling activist campaign).

No individual agony, no Other group oppression, no assault on the habitus is safe from the (self) righteously indignant activist. Like any successful capitalist or savvy politician, persuasive preacher or charismatic gangster, they are tuned in to the siren call of opportunity.

Not on their own of course, first they must be taken to their leaders. Many aspire, few will be chosen. Those who have so arisen have an abundance of the psychological and personality characteristics of the aforementioned.

To act on ones own, to be clear of and embracing of ones self - thus selfish goals and preferred methods - is to be other than an activist.

Activists may care deeply about a thing. War, poverty, pollution. They may be earnest and honest in their desire to end these things. These are not radical goals. They are universal amongst the “less fortunate”. The differences is one of interpretation and proximity. Of abstractness and experience. Too often of acquiescence.

How many activists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one if they have a shit ton of money to for an ad campaign.

“You CAN make a difference”. Nowhere is the confusion between the individual and the mass as murky. Not you the singleton, the self-directed, self-aware, self-loving. Not as a perfected destination, but as a way of life. YOU means ONE OF US. This is the supreme failure of all so-called liberation movements.

Even as one enemy is defeated - a rarity, but . . -- as the business of business gets going in the new realm, the nonconforming individual is faced with a new set of bonds. The familiar mandate of going along to get along.

Once again she volunteered for this unification bullshit.

To ask herself, why? again?, is to remove herself for a moment from the essence of the activist. Questioning ones motivation and criteria is an invitation to the best adventure there is. The life-long journey where sampling and savoring each precious moments of wide-open and expansive freedom is everything. Each time ancient bonds, burnished, snatches him back, is an opportunity to question the usefulness and preference for the bond.

I do not think I am describing the career activist.

Career activists are especially and perpetually dull. Of mind, of imagination, of desire. To their own needs and inherent drive to fulfill them. Sometimes alone, sometimes with other individuals. But not as a blob. Never a blob. Once you are a blob it is easy to wipe you out.

Activists are reformers. Usually (oh how badly I want to say always) focused on the dominant power structure. They are state reformers by goal, social reformers by action. Adjusting mores and morals. Rearranging headspace. Settlers and colonizers.

Activism is just a mouthier, ever so slightly nastier form of voting.

Activism is the attempt to materialize abstract ideology - stolen from concrete anger, frustration, and fear clashing with tangible needs, desires, and ponderings - through the alchemy of “doing something.” The act itself is the thing, alpha-omega.

Act too, as to perform. To accept a role, pre-scripted most likely. From there to to activist identity – and all the fucked up garbage that has become – a hop, skip, and jump. See also The Spectacle.

The dearth of strategists and tacticians with imagination is not coincidental. Those few have long departed the scene.

The interim tiny goals and dull, predictable strategies and tactics reveal a crucial fundamental flaw in their approach: a grand lack of comprehension for the seriousness, the dangerousness, the fortitude, the overwhelming power of their stated adversaries. Optimistic or naive, they have given up before getting started. Or are merely in cahoots.

Target Prime: those who profess or publicly promote any oppositional perspectives are shut down if possible. Locked down and silenced. Well, that is the wishful thinking. This tendency reveals another motivation, a primal weakness, the susceptibility to the ideas and coercion of others. If the activist on one side can be charismatically coerced . . .

Activist ARE dangerous. Mostly to themselves and to each other.

Those with one foot planted in the system can imagine being a good president, a green CEO, some other gang leader. Others are contented to be their trusted hand, a minor soldier, a boot-licking follower. From there all imagination is relegated to performing the comfortable mundanities of those thoroughly comprehensible positions. Recruitment, holding on to whatever limited power and influence they can. Be comfy, be cared for, be appreciated … domesticated neurosis knows no bounds.

Those with one toe dangling in the wild waters of the unknown might be inspired to wade farther, dive deeper towards the abyss. There, some will panic at the expansiveness, the unfamiliar rhythms, the lack of an external safety net. They will thrash nostalgically towards the waiting arms of their nana. Nana Rules, Nana Steadfast, Nana IONLY Beatyoubecauseiloveyou.

But, on the bright side:

Some will keep going, alone alone if necessary. If not preferred. Playing in the madness of the unfathomable abyss. Slumming it in the dank, velvet darkness of their own cave. Exploring this new world of their own making, rediscovering their tooth and claw. Finding succor and sanctuary (so much more than the activistic safe spaces) in unusual places.

Activism is not a genetically inherited condition. Necessarily. It does seem inherited when generation after generation of unchallenged imposition – violent or coerced - goes unchecked. Naturalized, “the meek will inherit, blahblah blah.”

If passivity (weak resistance to the situation we face is maybe worse than passivity) is genetically inherited, the inclination for perpetual resistance must be as well.

Sometimes to a fault. Of all the potentially-freed humanimals, these are most susceptible to the activists come hither look. They can be useful tools when one step over the line is beneath or beyond the perpetual activist. Or the porc.

love your whole comment

you say:

"The activists stated objective is often broad, lofty, and unattainable – at least by their programs and pogroms. “Change the world”. “End fascism.”

This Change is not so much as by example but by force. Perhaps only the indomitable force of habit.

Change, what everyone ELSE needs doing."

which makes me think, along with other parts of the comment, that it's either one person has a vision others submit to, or everyone agrees to submit to one vision, in other to amplify their power of imposing it to the world. so big world change with a vision at its base of cause and effect would seem to require submission or governance. as opposed to not concerning your self with world domination. it's easier to self-style than to terraform.

even if it does mean the same, in some cases. Here's my two cents for the show, if Aragorn will be a nice enough big, big man to cite some of that on the show... ;)

I think the problem in activism is the same than with anarchism. More specifically for how it has become this kind of ascetic, spectacular profession over the years, of the "activist", which is to me a bunch of bullshit. Just like, say, how Varg Vikernes has been deemed an "activist" on his Wiki page. Which in itself says a lot on the crappy ontology behind this word. But then an "activist" can't, say, get high on porn in the closet (no matter how self-harming that may be) while also supporting refugees rights or defending trees. This whole identity doesn't make sense. It's such a bad social role, and even worse personal identity if institutionalized as such.

So fuck activists, like totally. But equally, being against "taking action" or "making a difference", is just to be supporting that exact same apathy and resignation that the authorities also promote as "peace and order". What does that make anyone taking such position? Ridiculously, just some other reactionary sleaze bag.

The activist business can also contribute to this type of reactionary mindset, for how it makes "taking action/taking a stand/making a difference".

I'd say it's interesting to draw a comparison between "anarchy, anarchism and anarchists", and "active vs activism and activists", as it amounts to basically the same relation between these terms that don't equate to each other.

The very reason why authoritarian relations establish, consolidate themselves is due to a lack of people taking self-assertive action on their own, up against them, that can be equated to anarchy, in the most simplest term. Tho just taking action can mean a lot of different things, including despotic behavior coming from myself.

There's a problem with some people here who,re amalgamating everything, doing this quick mental shortcut from "action" to "dem activists!"... then using such crappy conflation to legitimate their own apathy or cowardice. Like if you're a coward, this ain't the worst crime on the planet, but just stop throwing shit at others for it. That's your issue.

Or maybe not *yours* actually... it's more a social issue, amirite?

Be active! Squat everyday! ;0)

Activity as expression of vitality!

Ah, forgot to sign above comment...

i also love your comment and have nothing further to say

I find the right hole to put the torpedo in and blow up the death star I'll just have to settle for all the small things and be part of the contagion. Slow memetic change through viral vectors, critical masses blocking flows and a general hysteria keeps the force acting in the world. It seems like some people don't have enough meaningful things to do that keep them satisfied. I have a hølistic concept of change that includes earth changes and economic and political transformations that are not instigated by activists. I will continue to attend popular mobilizations because that's what I do as well as DI¥ and direct actions, weather permitting. I must act on my convictions and do the good work (not wage labor) or I will die on the vine because if you don't work you don't eat and I don't like to dream about getting paid. At the moment I have more work than I can get to. I still think knowledge is empowering and leads to material changes in the world so it's worthwhile to study and lærn everything you can.

y u not make y u here? #cavetwitter got old?

wait, you said...”Slow memetic change through viral vectors” i thought you were gotta go fast! or are you just a technophilic cryptoliberal cybertopian hyperflaxing the neurotranxing galgatronic tillerstranbaum?

0zzy must be a pretty smart guy because these lyrics are prescient. Keep on rockin in the free wørld!

Its just the acid dood!

For various reasons I'd rather not say, I found myself with a subscription to Time Magazine. There was an issue of 100 Most Influential People. Many of them statists. No anarchists.No J20 participants.Etc. Listed were activists trying to change things while within the system. Like the person that pushed for Florida felons to vote. The West Virginia Teachers strike etc. Sure some things just keep the state going. But maybe others provide opportunities for anarchists to take advantage?

tell me of one time when you took advantage of something, so i may learn. i’ve not yet been so clever as to manage to do that.

is benefitting the same as taking advantage? i think not, since i think taking advantage implies some proaction (which has a component of observation, vision, anticipation, and daring) while you could passivly benefit from something. taking advantage seems to imply exploiting a vulnerability.

They're not going to make a time top 100 list. Anarchy will not be a facilitated historical register.

Time magazine is the chronicled cerebral diagnosis of a 400 year old cultural disease.,.

i hate the saying "change the world". even "world" bothers me.

from Aragorn!. Indeed, a very well written editorial from A! This is the A! who is worth my time and energy. Daymo and Mallory (sorry if not spelled correctly) were fine contributors too.

Regarding the debate/discussion between a Marxist and an anarchist (which was mentioned as an idea on the show), there is already such a discussion on the pan-leftist non-sectarian RevLeftRadio podcast:

I do have one question for Aragorn! "With all your years of reading and contemplation regarding anarchy; what are your thoughts regarding the level of thinking of today's anarchist? This question may well fit into the memes episode? I find the level of discourse to be sickening very low indeed. This maybe due to the fact that the air is full of imminent collapse and human extinction, so what's the point?

or maybe it's because you're a shill for the revleft podcast and so don't find things to appreciate in most anarchist conversation and can only hear a! when he's speaking leftist?
seems likely.

Add new comment