From Constructing Anarchisms

When Constructing Anarchisms was interrupted by “reopening” and a growing pile of unanswered questions, plenty of unfinished business remained. I’ve been chipping away at it ever since. The fundamental questions I needed to answer before I could start my historical survey have largely been answered. The toolkit from “A Schematic Anarchism” has been an unexpected bonus. The process of answering those questions seems to have been useful to others as well.

One of the general goals of the project was simply to contribute to the normalization within anarchist circles of a certain kind of “shop talk,” a certain kind of active interrogation of the fundamentals of anarchist theory. That was always going to be the most difficult part of the project, particularly with interactions being so decentralized. As things played out, there were plenty of opportunities for me to talk about “making anarchism our own” by “making our own anarchisms,” but none of the forums that served as nodes in the discussion showed much sign of becoming the kind of spaces in which others were likely to attempt the experiment.

As the other dropped threads from Constructing Anarchisms have been gradually woven into new projects, the possibility of attempting some reimagining of that third stage has been in the back of my mind. Then the recent surge of interest in the Fediverse introduced me to WriteFreely, which is the simplest sort of blogging platform, but with Activitypub support for publishing to the Fediverse, so that blogs can be followed and individual posts can be searched out from Mastodon, Pixelfed, Pleroma, etc. Hosting with the developers was cheap enough that I have simply gone ahead and set up a “Village”-sized instance with them at constructinganarchisms.org.

My plan for the site is simple: I’m going to pursue one of the lines forward from “A Schematic Anarchism,” building up what I have called a “plain” or “shareable” anarchism from the formula I have proposed, and I’m going to invite anyone who would like to make a somewhat belated attempt at “making anarchism their own” to join me—or at least work in parallel with me on the new site.

The site description is “Simple stories about the beautiful idea”—and my hope is to make it a source of consciously constructive, relatively non-sectarian material related to the rudiments of anarchism in its various forms.

A few technical clarifications: WriteFreely is not a replacement for Mastodon, in the sense that it really is simply a publishing platform. With it, we can offer material for reading, forwarding and discussion on other platforms, both in the Fediverse and the open web. And when I say that it is the simplest sort of blogging platform, I mean that titles, formatting, hashtags and such all need to be provided by the blogger, using elements of html and Markdown. With one of the goals being to supply material to feeds on platforms like Mastodon, that simplicity can arguably be considered a feature. However, discoverability in the Fediverse depends on the careful use of elements like hashtags, so it will be important to make the most of the simple toolkit available.

The invitation to collaborate is intended to be broad, but, of course, a few key points of agreement are almost certainly required. I’m happy to welcome participation in this new phase of Constructing Anarchisms from anarchists who find they can agree to the following:

  • Anarchism is a diverse and living tradition. Its best days and clearest expressions are likely still to come, but they may be a long time coming if we are unable to come to terms with the anarchist past.
  • The heart of the anarchist tradition is the pursuit of the beautiful, uncomfortable notion of anarchy. Anarchy is an extraordinarily radical aim. Its pursuit entails a lot of more specific struggles, some of the utmost urgency, but none of those pursuits is, alone, the pursuit of anarchy itself. Among our various anarchist practices, we arguably need to make space for direct engagements with the “beautiful idea.”
  • Anarchism is more than any of its various tendencies, more even than the sum of those tendencies. As a result, our particular projects and struggles, and our individual reflections on the rudiments of anarchism, probably need to be supplemented by yet another class of practices, involving an ongoing consultation among anarchists, resulting in some degree of mutual correction and local synthesis.

If that sounds agreeable and you want to explore the possibilities of this new platform, feel free to get in touch through the contact form, email or social media.

Again, the goal is to produce a fairly steady stream of “simple stories” about anarchism, accessible in the Fediverse. There are a variety of ways that project might be approached—and I have linked some related material in the sidebar. Among the precedents in the tradition, we find the sorts of similar statements of anarchist belief I have collected as “declarations and professions of faith” in the Anarchist Beginnings archive, the examinations of concepts in the Encyclopédie Anarchiste, the various anarchist surveys and consultations on specific subjects, etc. It might make sense to update any of these approaches, just as there may be lessons to be learned from close readings of anarchist “classics” of various kinds. And then there is the final constructive project left from Constructing Anarchisms.

If the project appeals to you, then I would be happy to try to work through the process of trying to narrow down the nature of your contribution.

My plan is to continue to explore a variety of approaches, with some emphasis on the project already mentioned of “rebuilding” a general account of at least one sort of “synthetic” anarchism from the schematic I have proposed and the general observation that “Anarchy is what happens in the absence of the very things we are led to believe will always be present.”

I’ve sat on this proposal for a long week now, trying to decide if my heat-of-the-moment enthusiasm has (once again) led me a bit astray. I’ve finally decided that if the project doesn’t make sense to others out there, that’s probably all the more reason to continue on my own for now. So, onward…

And if what I’ve proposed here sounds useful to you, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Comments

I am Makhno (not verified) Fri, 12/02/2022 - 08:42

Anarchism is a diverse and living tradition.

Anarchism is more than any of its various tendencies, more even than the sum of those tendencies.

The heart of the anarchist tradition is the pursuit of the beautiful, uncomfortable notion of anarchy.

Well, that certainly helps us define anarchy and anarchism.

anon (not verified) Fri, 12/02/2022 - 09:02

In reply to by I am Makhno (not verified)

Wilbur and Gillis are evil twins, promoting the most ahistorical and twisted ultra-liberal (as in Locke) nonsense and pretending their vision is completely in line with the actual individualist tendency of anarchism (hint: it's not). Add the cybernetic transhumanist bullshit to the mix and the result is self-parody at the level of Luke and Wayne. Fake anarchism like being pro-war is bad enough, but the shit coming from C4SS is fake anarchism on stilts.

anon (not verified) Fri, 12/02/2022 - 13:41

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Not Shawn or any of the commenters above but... How are contracts and markets so contradictory to individualist anarchy?

Markets are just markets. So to say... exchanges where things are being traded or distributed in some way. You can have "really free markets" and they're still markets. Or markets where everything is bartered, or based on voluntary donations... it's all markets. NA native clans have been conducting trade and markets for ages, and these were mostly involving barter when it wasn't gift economies. I neither see anything anti-individualist in there.

Free association between individuals means a level of contracting. If not, then this means a far too greater potential for being ripped off, cheated, exploited, abused... and no that's not what anarcho-individuals are about. There's countries where word of mouth stands for contracting, but when a word is broken there's usually a level of retaliative violence to be expected, so this means contracts.

anon (not verified) Fri, 12/02/2022 - 20:20

In reply to by anon (not verified)

markets aren't "just markets." first, a distinction needs to be acknowledged between a space where exchange takes place (the market[place]) and the abstract collective of relationships based on exchange (a market system). using the same term to describe both is vague and confusing.

exchange and distribution are two separate activities; exchange takes place between and among individuals almost always in person/face to face, while distribution can be that as well as a wider transportation of goods outside a network of face to face relationships. your conflation of the two is lazy as well as vague.

barter is not the same as exchange based on donations (i presume you mean something along the lines of gifts). barter requires the acknowledgment and/or imposition of *value* on goods and services, while donation/gift rejects value as a mediator of exchange. the entire ideological basis for capitalism rests on the creation of value in goods and services, and is the foundation of "the dismal science." the logic of capitalism is predicated on the creation of wealth through value, and it's most often expressed through currency. currency is meaningless without a political system to enforce a monopoly in its territory. and this leaves aside the entire facade of equivalences of value that are supposed to be expressed through the currency via prices and wages (and pretty much everything outside usufruct).

the fact that you jumble together all these distinct activities (as well as their respective scales) and the use of value as well as its rejection and call it all "markets" shows that you have no actual economic analysis. referring to the exchanges of "NA native clans" (are you being coy?) as "markets" is as hilarious as it is untenable. direct trading of goods and services does not a market make, despite the despicable colonialist fantasies of capitalists. there's nothing anarchist about insisting that all exchange equals a market.

contracts exist in the realm of law and jurisprudence. financial punishment is the primary mechanism for the enforcement of contracts, but there are other means to hold someone to their promises, and all class-based cultures remove punishment from the hands of those who've been wronged. that means the state. contracts make no sense outside a framework of enforcement and punishment. there's nothing anarchist about that.

anon (not verified) Fri, 12/02/2022 - 22:59

In reply to by anon (not verified)

You're literally being an asshole? Good for you, it'll make you feel better.

But no, sunshine, I wasn't confusing all these notions as you here wanna draw it, like a pissy little boy waving a sword in the air like a Star Wars Kid.

Markets only carry very little economic meaning. They can be of any nature, and are only (yeeees) defined, ,limited shared spaces for people to exchange things, through any mode and under any premises. The fact a space was collectively accepted and identified as a "market" doesn't make it anti-anarchistic, even less anti-individualistic, especially as long as these spaces are fluid and changing.

Group dynamics, tho, are one drive behind the formation of markets which is often anti-individualist, but that's not the fucking problem of the "market" in itself, but rather the fucking group dynamics, and their capital-building schemes.

humanispherian Fri, 12/02/2022 - 13:57

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I'm not sure why anyone would be talking to me about transhumanism, since I tend to think that shit is silly. I've hardly even paid attention to it since, I don't know..., maybe that couple of weeks I spent reading FM-2030 in about 1992. My wacky fantasy future would owe a lot more to Charles Fourier than it would to any of the futurists.

The truth is that I am pretty explicitly not "pretending [my] vision is completely in line" with any of the historical anarchist individualist tendencies. My recent work on anarchist individualism starts with the declaration that "I am not, when all is said and done, an individualist." I'm a critic of "market anarchism" and of every sort of rights-talk. I think most anarchist enthusiasm for "contracts" comes from failing to recognize that "The General Idea of the Revolution" was explicitly addressed to the bourgeoisie. The things you are excluding from the historical individualist currents are pretty common there and are one of the reasons I don't claim any closer affinity.

Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/03/2022 - 12:24

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Shawn Wilbur and I have a number of important differences, coming from different tendencies within anarchism. However to be compared to one of the leading scholars of anarchism and students of Proudhon is a great honor.

anon (not verified) Sat, 12/03/2022 - 13:07

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Wayne, you did notice that the comparison was for purposes of dismissal, right? You're a real hoot, not even noticing when you're being insulted... you must be part of that PR school of thought that posits there's no such thing as bad publicity. JFC

Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 12/04/2022 - 13:10

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yes, JFC, I did notice that your comparison was meant to insult me. *My* response was sarcastic. My response was to say that, as far as *I* (not you) am concerned, it is an honor to be compared to Shawn Wilbur. This is not because I agree with everything he writes but for his scholarship of anarchist studies and especially of Proudhon.

humanispherian Fri, 12/02/2022 - 12:40

In reply to by I am Makhno (not verified)

Those are potential points of agreement about how folks might approach the question of defining anarchy and anarchism. Not everyone who claims the title of "anarchist" will agree with all of them. How about you? Do we disagree at this fundamental level?

I am Makhno (not verified) Fri, 12/02/2022 - 13:33

How could anyone possibly disagree with Shawn Wilbur, when he never tries to define anything?

anon (not verified) Fri, 12/02/2022 - 14:38

In reply to by I am Makhno (not verified)

how could anyone disagree with makhno, when he doesn't try to defend his provocations and just shitposts at the level of someone a quarter of his age?

humanispherian Fri, 12/02/2022 - 15:31

In reply to by I am Makhno (not verified)

It would be so much more fun—probably for almost everyone concerned—if I was challenged for the potentially outrageous things I so often do say, rather than stalked by commenters pretty obviously in a full-time struggle with demons of their own.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

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
p
M
C
C
P
M
5
h
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.