From <a href=“https://libcom.org/discussion/are-anarchist-organisations-decline”>libcom.org</a>
 

Following on from <a href=“https://libcom.org/discussion/what-do-people-make-democratic-socialists…”>Juan's thread about DSA</a>, he said something which I found very interesting, about the decline of organised anarchism in the US.

The same thing definitely seems to be happening in the UK as well. Despite the fact that the left in general, and the revolutionary left seems to be growing massively.

On top of that, in many ways I would say that probably anarchist media is reaching the biggest audience it has done in English in decades (possibly ever). But this seems to mostly be through the social media accounts of high-profile individuals, who mostly don't seem to be part of any organisation.

In a way I can kind of see why this is. In an era when one person can have a twitter or TikTok account with millions of followers, working together to produce some kind of physical bulletin or blog, which was the kind of thing which was a major focus of anarchist groups probably up until the early 2010s, just doesn't really seem as necessary anymore.

But certainly there seems to be a big decline in the visible activity of the major UK anarchist organisations, like AF, SolFed, even ACF. And in the US groups like WSA and Black Rose. And a few of the big web magazines seem to have died as well.

So would be curious to see people's thoughts about this?

Is this happening, or am I just not seeing stuff which is out there? What do people think the reasons are for this?

There definitely does seem to have been a big growth in popularity of tankies on social media, especially amongst the young people who aren't particularly informed. I wonder if this is related.

Comments

anonymous (not verified) Sat, 08/02/2025 - 08:32

They were a failure in themselves, and above that, asynchronous historical aberrations. Taking theory from Belle Époque anarchists is a thing... but going full-on LARP mode with them. They're a psychotic regression away from '70s-'80s anarchism, and I think that's partly due to the "collegification" of anarchism.

Also "ex-anarchists" fuck off back to truth.social or BlueSky. Anarchists nowhere equate to these LARP networks above.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 08/03/2025 - 09:53

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Sure but being full of creeps wasn't even the seminal issue with these bullshit orgs; it seems more like a consequence or byproduct of being bullshit orgs with badly outdated, ossified narratives with mediocre authors and spokespersons posing as eminent "organizers".

agree (not verified) Fri, 09/19/2025 - 21:27

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Why are there so many creepy abusers in the anarchist scene. Feels like there is a justification for all of the abuse built into anarchist ethics. One thing I notice a lot is how people in my anarchist spaces use distinctions between force and coercion, or rules and boundaries to essentially do hella authoritarian and abusive things. They cite all these anarchist theorists to show how their shitty behavior is not just the opposite of fucked up, but some kind of higher order ethics.

It's very confounding.

lumpy (not verified) Sun, 09/21/2025 - 14:09

In reply to by agree (not verified)

is it tho? in my experience, the only difference between the rest of society and the anarchist "scenes" is a sometimes more open discussion about all the rape culture that's literally everywhere.

the ratio of abusers, creeps and people who don't understand these things and make it a lot worse by misapplying theory... it's about the same imo. but there's more discussion! and daylight helps a little!

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 09/21/2025 - 17:57

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

I dunno, my friends and I agree that anarchist are some of the worst offenders when it comes to coercive sexual behaviors. One friend got told that they should go "work on themselves" and "get rid of their christianity" because they weren't cool with a threesome. It's the combo of guilt tripping, and in the name of radical values that makes this stuff so creepy and ironic. After all, what could be more christian than guilt.

Another thing is that anarchists are supposed to be opposed to this bs, so like rationalizing it by comparing it to normies is kinda weird.

CalvinSmith Mon, 09/22/2025 - 10:00

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

really that in depth or extensive) that radical spaces in general are susceptible to higher degrees of sexual abuse because the people who feed off of that know they are less likely to get caught for it because they can better isolate victims. For example, it's common for cults to have some narrative about how normie society is fucked up and how everything needs to radically change. This creates an atmosphere where the authority leaders in the group can re-shape people's values, and like you pointed out, they can reverse the dynamic where people are ostracized for not being sexual enough as opposed to being ostracized for being too sexually open (like in "normie society").

I would personally question whether or not sexual abuse among "anarchists" is really that much more likely than anywhere else. I don't think "rape culture is everywhere", but sexual coercion is fairly common even if the vast majority of people don't engage in it. Certain kinds of situations and atmospheres give way to it more than others. Sexual predators and serial killers/abusers tend to look for ways to isolate people.

jajaakdnafnefwejfaw (not verified) Mon, 09/22/2025 - 16:11

In reply to by CalvinSmith

....that there is a proliferation of rape culture in anarchist circles. In fact I'm pretty sure that most anarchists would not be aligned with that at all. But there is the proliferation and idealization of anarchist norms around sex and "freedom" that ends up being quite hegemonic. This connection between sex and freedom is deeply embedded in anarchist norms about the body, relationality to sexuality, sex and gender, and in both implicit and explicit ways. Like in the example above about someone being told to "go work on themselves" because they weren't into the idea of a threesome, what is really being implied is that said person needs to "go free themselves". The person is being pathologized as unfree. This is actually a very coercive and harmful logic, because these norms are "norms" because they are tied to conceptions of the good, where good. Too often the logic is not just harmful but way too simplistic (anything anti-normie = good). In the process of replacing one set of moral and ideological norms with another, these ideas just end up reproducing all of the harms and coercive structures that normie norms do. Just ma thots.

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 09/22/2025 - 18:55

In reply to by jajaakdnafnefwejfaw (not verified)

I'm not sure you're clearly understanding the difference between getting rid of social norms and the constraints holding back the intercourse between two or more persons, and the imposition of this kind of polycular everyone-has-to-be-fucking-with-everyone crap, which is its own kind of cultish, anti-individual, toxic moralism.

In the first instance we're talking about individuals seeking to live a sexual and emotional experience together, OUTSIDE of any broader collective oversight and judgement. Polycules seem to be aiming more or less discretely at a dissolution of the individual within the magma of a herd... that's essentially authoritarian.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 09/23/2025 - 14:48

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

I am talking about coercive behaviors, which often stem from natrualized ideas about X relation to sex being good.

the polycule example is good because this thinking can be found there, but the problem is really in the coercive nature of the norm itself. the fact that norms are coercive. and that can happen in polycule or amongst anarchists more broadly. just as it happens in society in general.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 09/23/2025 - 18:22

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

I think you misunderstand coercion... Horizontal influence and normative moralism have got to do with social reaction, where the psychological pressure upon the individual to conform or comply has got more to do with fear, may it be FOMO or just the fear of exclusion, judgement, shaming and/or ending up alone. This isn't coercion but peer pressure that is using social spooks as threatening devices. To some stretch you may describe it as psychological violence and I guess that'd be correct, but it's not to the same level than coercion.

CalvinSmith Wed, 09/24/2025 - 05:41

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

encourage abusive/unpleasant sexual practices, yet i think this notion that anarchists are more likely perpetrators of sexual abuse is probably false. First of all, someone who really takes anarchist ideas seriously and tries to internalize them would understand immediately that emotional manipulation either in the direction of a) shaming someone just for being honest about what they feel or b) shaming someone for not wanting to engage in sexual activities defeats the ideal of not having rulers...so people who do either of these things are doing so as a total hypocrite rather than an anarchist.

Also, lots and lots of ideological spaces engage in those kinds of practices. Standard high schoolers ridicule each other for not being sexually experienced. The puritanical american ideas about sex and innocence have periodically pushed people in the opposite direction.

And lastly...it seems really common for people to mystify "perpetrators" and "abusers" through moral hyperbole. Abuse and cruelty happen constantly. It's not always severe or interesting, low-key abuse apparently isn't "real abuse", but so much human activity is driven by dull hatred and coldness, people want to act like they can find the bad guys, make an example of them, and things will be better, yet i would highly advise such people to read more Nietzsche...he had the mechanisms of cruelty and arbitrary power mapped out pretty clearly in "Beyond Good & Evil" and "The Genealogy of Morality".

lumpy (not verified) Tue, 09/23/2025 - 08:31

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

i'm not "rationalizing" rape culture by saying it's everywhere, any more than saying the rain makes everything wet is a rationalization. the dominant culture is also allegedly opposed to rape.

you want your anecdotal evidence and random assertions to have weight but they just don't, because sweeping generalizations are meaningless trash arguments and now you've implied i'm running cover for rapists too! lol

so here we are and the only interesting question is if you're honestly this bad at reasoning or here to smear anarchists

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 09/29/2025 - 13:47

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

"Another thing is that anarchists are supposed to be opposed to this bs, so like rationalizing it by comparing it to normies is kinda weird."

^ here's your quote, you lil' weasel ;)

here's me, paraphrasing your last comment

"I know most people won't bother to read back through the thread so that's why i pull this shit cuz i'm just such a lil' weasel! Tee hee!"

anyway, obviously go fuck yourself, k?

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 09/29/2025 - 17:28

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

oh my lumpy, you give away too much. ;)

i'd tell you to stfu, but you seem to be fucking yourself over just fine. please continue. "y'all" are exactly as deranged and manipulative as I imagined. wonder when you'll get caught this time.

God King Mon, 09/29/2025 - 17:58

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

You and your friends have fallen victim to a few cognitive biases to believe anarchists in your circles are some of the worst and most coercive sexual abusers or more likely to be sexual abusers compared to people outside of your circles. It doesn't make sense on how you could conclude that if you guys haven't fallen victim to various cognitive biases.

Ex-anarchist (not verified) Mon, 09/29/2025 - 20:49

In reply to by God King

In anarchist milieus is one valid answer. Observing norms and patterns of behavior and thought is possible for any conscious person. Unless you mean to suggest that all the claims anarchists make about normies, liberals, etc are just cognitive bias. Anarchists millieus produce culture, social norms, too. It’s pretty basic shit.

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 08/04/2025 - 06:41

mediocrity is the theme, but that doesn't stop them thinking they'll somehow take on capital once they grow their membership into a critical mass of WORKERS UNITED WILL NEVER BE DIVIDED

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 08/04/2025 - 09:35

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

If you can't change your mind, your mind will be forced to a change, at some point. But it is worth forcing the minds of these idiots to change? Like I was once "forced out" out of a platformist org, by the shitty behavior of the total deadbeats running the local chapter, after just a few months. One of them was this awful narcissist hipster and I think he's still in some "revolutionary" punkish crowd somewhere. Well that was a success on their behalf. Yet some people just don't grow out of their stupidity, or they just throw away "anarchism" as a whole, just due to these few ass clowns...

Ideas are not their people, you fucktards. Anarchy was always to me part of a *personal awareness of the social relationship*, that started with shoplifting in between working in an awful call center job (lol). Anarchists are not a fucking united whole, not even a milieu... while you could say it's a blurry tendency of sorts, and a kind of social critique. The anti-anarchists here are so desperately off it's laughable.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 08/05/2025 - 04:10

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

the other themes are mental illness and coercion.

> this awful narcissist hipster and I think he's still in some "revolutionary" punkish crowd somewhere

he's probably running the show by now.

what's laughable is that someone who was whipped would keep going back to the whipping post, like a dog with nowhere else to go.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 08/05/2025 - 08:15

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

why is that laughable? just as there are people who reel against being controlled there are people who secretly feel good when they're getting some daddy treatment... and cult dynamics can insidiously get almost anyone

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 08/05/2025 - 08:42

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Some dudes got one or two specific reasons to *remain at their post*. If it's not a crowd of impressionable dupes desperate for getting dominated and abused, then it's that other one cause. Or both. Like with, you know... *cough* Mark Kennedy *cough*... right?

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 09/23/2025 - 17:33

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

i had this anarchist dude tell me that his ultimate superpower fantasy was to have the power to make anyone cum just by looking at them. when i asked about consent, they said nothing. when i asked why that wouldn't just be a rape fantasy, they couldn't see that either.

was a pretty well respected figure in the anarchist community. three months later, he was kicked out of the community because a woman accused him of raping her when they were on drugs.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 08/05/2025 - 22:58

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

basically this. orgs are a dead end and that has been the individualist anarchist critique for years. the poster above who said tankies had taken in a lot of youth is visibly correct and speaks to the parallels between the authoritarian left and fascism, but for the 21st century. why? because they both dumb everything down until its legible as a meme. anarchy is more complex and harder to meme-ify into clout points or rage bate cookies, or whatever twisted metric we're valuing in the online world. That said, anarchist ideas seem to be at *a high point*, in the culture despite aformentioned tanky-ism and rampant DSA annoyances. How can that be? It seems like we're in a contradictory moment but we'll see how it breaks.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 08/05/2025 - 23:28

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

ACAB can be cloutified
Work sux can be cloutified
"the decisions enacted by a democratically elected federated congress are likely to neglect concerns of existing real people" has not yet been cloutified nor memeified.

just wait until post-left is as coopted as a film critique class full of nazis. lol, sorry: just wait until post-left is as coopted as Zohran Mamdani. then we'll really have to get creative!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
H
s
H
f
F
Y
@
L
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.