Public statement from IFA Congress Saint-Imier 2012, 9-12th August

  • Posted on: 17 August 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href=" Anarchist Federations</a>

<p><strong><em>Public statement from IFA Congress Saint-Imier 2012, 9-12th August to other exploited and oppressed people of the World.</em></strong></p>
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><strong>The St. Imier meeting has enabled a lot of groups and militants that are member and non-members of the International of Anarchist Federations (IAF-IFA) to meet each other. IFA would like to sum up the events of the last few days.</strong></span></p>
<p>One hundred and forty years ago in this town an international movement of 'anti-authoritarians' was founded. It played a major part in the creation of an organised movement of anarchists. They worked then for profound social transformation, and in this manner we have participated, as IFA, in the international meeting in St-Imier. What we have to offer is the best sort of society that humanity is capable of achieving. We want to create a world in which there is complete economic equality, by which we mean that there should be no personal property but that we produce and own everything communally, with no need for money.</p></td><td><img title="Hey, that's me!" src=""></td></tr>...
<p>But as well as economic equality, there would be maximum personal freedom. This means that we live as we want and no one can make us do anything we don't want to do, or prevent us from doing what we want to do unless this limits the freedom of others. So, there would be no hierarchy or oppression of any kind. There would be no need for a state or police because we would not need controlling or coercing. There would be no need for wars or global conflict because we would have no political enemies and no desire or need to seize any resources from anyone else. This is what we call Anarchism.</p>
<p>Anarchists reject the idea that it is human nature that one personal exploits another and that we are unequal. It is the case that rulers and states throughout history have maintained this system. This lie justifies Capitalism as a 'natural' system. We hear that there is a 'crisis' of Capitalism, but Capitalism is crisis. It is a recent system in historical terms and has already brought humanity to its knees many times before producing the current situation. But people all over the World are seeing through this lie and are resisting states and capitalism as never before and seek to coordinate their efforts across national boundaries. This makes an anarchist society more possible than ever.</p>
<p>But Anarchism is not utopianism. Obviously, for such a society to work, many things must first change, and our task now is to help bring about these vast transformations and provide an analysis that is useful to them. The working class, by which we mean all exploited and impoverished people, ourselves amongst them, has to operate as a mass movement. Crucially, it must not entrust the struggle to new leaders with old ideas, but by determining its own path.</p>
<p>Today, social movements are practising new ways of organising which draw heavily on anarchism, for example taking action directly against obstacles to their progress and experimenting with non-hierarchical organisational forms. They include student movements, action against destruction of the natural world and common resources, anti-militarist struggles, those against G8 summits and capitalism in general, and most recently the fight against austerity which unites the international working class. Movements such as Occupy and the Indignados and similar movements of self-organisation against the banking system have shown the importance of using direct action to reclaim public space. The uprisings of oppressed indigenous peoples in recent decades, such as the Zapatistas, have inspired the new social movements and have influenced anarchism itself. Such new movements create large assemblies to make decisions together without leaders. They practice horizontal decision-making. They link-up federally, as organisations of equal status without decision-making bodies at their centre.</p>
<p>But these attempts often fall short of what is possible because meaningful social change requires also that we change as individuals. We seek to be free and equal as individuals, but there must also be voluntary, personal responsibility and self-organisation. The working class itself contains divisions and oppressions and hierarchies which do not disappear just because we want to have no rulers and want to be equal. As members of the working class we therefore struggle internally against our own racism, sexism and patriarchal attitudes and practices. Equally we fight the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm, or that clearly defined categories 'male' and 'female' are 'normal'. We must identify and oppose discrimination and stereotyping on the basis of age or ability. Until internalised inequalities and deference towards hierarchy are identified and abolished we cannot be free, and so we identify and oppose them in social movements and workers organisations as well as in society in general.</p>
<p>Finally, to create this free and equal society, the working class itself must bring down rulers and capital. We call this a 'social revolution'. Anarchists try to build confidence within the working class in our ability to be successful as quickly and with the least violence possible. We do this through joining with other workers to win small victories. We do this best through direct action not through reforms and negotiation with bosses. Direct action means not waiting but taking what should belong to all of us. We need to support each other's struggles through mutual aid. This means practical solidarity in times of hardship. As well as helping us on a day-to-day basis, this demonstrates to people what we are about. So we practice anarchy now as far as we can in how we organise and how we struggle to prove that an anarchist society is possible.</p>
<p>We salute those comrades from the past, their work and the personal sacrifices they made for human emancipation. We continue their work, and critically develop their ideas and apply them to our situation. They would in turn salute the global working class at this point in its history, as it strives for real freedom and equality.</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><strong>IFA has dealt with many themes over the last 5 days and in particular:</strong></span></p>
<p>• The economic crisis and social struggle</p>
<p>• International solidarity</p>
<p>• Anti-militarism</p>
<p>• Anti-nuclear and alternative energies</p>
<p>• Migration</p>
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><strong>On this basis, the IFA has reinvigorated its own activities and invite all exploited people to struggle for transformation of society, for anarchism.</strong></span></p>
<p><em>The International of Anarchist Federations (IAF-IFA), 12th August 2012.</em></p>



wuts wrong wid dis???

"Anarchists try to build confidence within the working class in our ability to be successful as quickly and with the least violence possible. We do this through joining with other workers to win small victories. We do this best through direct action not through reforms and negotiation with bosses. Direct action means not waiting but taking what should belong to all of us."

Movementist, workerist, sclerosed rhetoric. Where's da fucking individual in there?

"da individual" doesn't exist.

it doesn't? so I'm more than one person at the same time?

^^A sort of polite 8 ball mutation^^

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like these folks are pretty much just ignoring the decades of loosely "insurrectionary" and "post-leftist" thought that has come into existence. Which is funny to me. I don't think it would be funny if they critiqued that stuff, but it's kind of hilarious that they're just like "Insurrectionary theory? Never heard of it. Next topic."

Am I misunderstanding the situation?

Or they just don't agree with it. Not everyone is down with insurrectionism, despite how it might seem here at @news. Most likely they skip over it because it ends up being divisive and the couldn't agree on what to put in the statement about it so they focused on the shit they did agree on.

Let's not neglect the fact that as far as "useless hippie bullshit goes", "post-leftism" is right up there alongside "drum circles".

I've heard post-leftists called hipsters, but never hippies. That's a new one.

I think it's related to a popular pacifist leaning and also a tactical non-confrontational stance away from the all encompassing statist anti-terrorist legislation and the policy of pre-emptive displays and flexings of destructive power,

Ummm, do you mean insurrection or open revolt, because both result in recuperative reforms and will continue to until a mass collective unity with international nihilists comes about. Sorry, but that's just how it is , despite TCI's forecast, sorry again, but you can still enjoy regional riots which are alot more fun.

Just because someone doesn´t agree with the particular positions of Alfredo Bonnano it doesn´t mean one is a pacifist. Members of IAF federations also riot againts cops and within it is is not hard to find people supporting armed struggle if the level of confrontation goes to that point.

In reality we are all pacifists in a perfect anarchist world, to the point of self-defence of one's own sovereignty in any society, and it will always be initiated in a local regional fashion, and the weapons may be rocks or pick-axe handles, even hand-bags if I know my grandmother, but it is always there, waiting for the catalyst, for the final straw. That is the beauty of it, the tenuous tightrope which exists upon which the capitalists dither and dangle their lies upon, they will fall always, the gravity of common justice always brings the pompous down to ground level eventually.

I'm not.

"Theory is stupid. Conferences are stupid. Leftists are stupid.

Why isn't this leftist theory conference paying attention to me!?!"

i am post-leftist and individualist yet i am not "insurrectionary" in the Bonnano sense.

Tell ME more about YOU

I agree with the post-left tendency on the view that much of the left being concentrated on electoralism and in their respective organization getting bigger and as such there is really no point in collaborating with them on that. I am an individualist since i think individualism is a basic point of anarchism as based on sovereignty over one´s body and one´s mind in respect over social hierarchies and ideologies.

On the other hand insurrectionism is a tendency which tends toward small individual or small group act of sabotage, bomb putting, bank robbing and related actions regardless of the existence of a social context of insurrection. As such the insurrectionist who gets caught will find himself lonely againts the law and in a lot of cases with the indifference and even the hatred of public opinions who in a different kind of action or method might have actually sympathized or even supported a particular cause. In other cases the insurrectionist will end up in an accident such as that of Mauricio Morales who died while trying to bomb a police station (see

As such there is no reason why to think post-left and individualist positions have to forcefully lead one towards insurrectionism and ilegalism. I even know of individualist anarchists who were pacifists (not my case though). So instead of being in jail or having died for an insurrectionist action such as those i mentioned above, i rather be on the street supporting a social center, a campaign, an anarchist collective with a flexible non-hierarchical form (and so it is clear it will not be a platformist group) or even just living freely avoiding hierarchies and oppressions. If the level of social unrest rises i might contribute to something more risky since i might have more support in numbers. But if that is not present i just prefer to stay doing those things i just mentioned and not risk myself too much or worry family and friends.

That's why the idea of a confederacy of individuals avoids platformist political institutions and their compromise in being structured representatives of the totality, a hard yoke to avoid if one desires a non-hierarchical alternative to mainstream politics and economics.

Probably one of your best comments.

When insurrectionary gets thrown around the word attack is fetishized to have a singular meaning. We are not factories of spectacular acts. "The force of insurrection is social, not military." Do you enjoy the ideas of wolfi/feral faun at all? To me wolfi/feral brings out the best in bonanno. "Insurrectionary anarchism is not an ideological solution to all social problems...but an ongoing praxis aimed at putting an end to the domination of the state and the continuance of capitalism, which requires analysis and discussion to advance." These quotes are from Killing King Abacus #2. Couple them with situationist thought and Desert, and you start to be more here and now seeking and acting out an immediate putting anarchy to praxis. Ideas aren't static. We ought to be constantly transforming, and not constantly doing like they did in the 1800's even though the passion, energy, intensity can still be inspiring.

If I hadn't read Bonanno I don't think I would have understood the importance of non-anarchist ideas and how they can broaden one's knowledge and be synthesized into one's theories and actions...from Camatte to Os Cangaceiros, etc...

the most recent things by Wolfi Landstreicher/Appio Ludd actually tends towards an individualist/egoist perspective of things which can satisfy both insurrectionists and individualists like me who don´t agree with Bonnano and the Informal Anarchist Federation. The concept of "insurrection" in Stirner also can be conciled with both positions. Stirner put it as follows:

"Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or status, the State or society, and is accordingly a political or social act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed."

Max Stirner
The Ego and His Own

As such i am in insurrection in this sense proposed by Stirner. Some people have found it similar to an existentialist positioning towards the world. On the other hand insurrection in insurrectionary anarchism can also accept this but it also emphasizes it is a "revolutionary" perspective and so it has been accused of vanguardism.

I tend to agree with a current within individualist anarchism that the so called "masses" tend to be conformist and that they tend to rise up when things really get desperate. When they rise up in a mass insurrection history has shown it is common that they accept a new master or a new hierarchical social arrangement which offers them better conditions than the previous one which was brought down. So in this way only cultural changes and practices of a non hierarchical nature already existing or being practiced can make things get a little less authoritarian in a revolution. It seems to me antiauthoritarian anticapitalist political thought has a tendency to think in a way similar to this and so the call for a revolution of everyday life or "communism now" is a feature of situationism, autonomism and communization theories. This has mainly happened after an examination of revolutions of the 19th century.

Hakim Bey puts things in this way "Uprising, or the Latin form insurrection, are words used by historians to label failed revolutions — movements which do not match the expected curve, the consensus-approved trajectory: revolution, reaction, betrayal, the founding of a stronger and even more oppressive State — the turning of the wheel, the return of history again and again to its highest form: jackboot on the face of humanity forever...I’d make two rejoinders nevertheless; first, revolution has never yet resulted in achieving this dream. The vision comes to life in the moment of uprising — but as soon as “the Revolution” triumphs and the State returns, the dream and the ideal are already betrayed. I have not given up hope or even expectation of change — but I distrust the word Revolution. Second, even if we replace the revolutionary approach with a concept of insurrection blossoming spontaneously into anarchist culture, our own particular historical situation is not propitious for such a vast undertaking. Absolutely nothing but a futile martyrdom could possibly result now from a head-on collision with the terminal State, the megacorporate information State, the empire of Spectacle and Simulation. Its guns are all pointed at us, while our meager weaponry finds nothing to aim at but a hysteresis, a rigid vacuity, a Spook capable of smothering every spark in an ectoplasm of information, a society of capitulation ruled by the image of the Cop and the absorbant eye of the TV screen...In short, we’re not touting the TAZ as an exclusive end in itself, replacing all other forms of organization, tactics, and goals. We recommend it because it can provide the quality of enhancement associated with the uprising without necessarily leading to violence and martyrdom. The TAZ is like an uprising which does not engage directly with the State, a guerilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves itself to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen, before the State can crush it. Because the State is concerned primarily with Simulation rather than substance, the TAZ can “occupy” these areas clandestinely and carry on its festal purposes for quite a while in relative peace. Perhaps certain small TAZs have lasted whole lifetimes because they went unnoticed, like hillbilly enclaves — because they never intersected with the Spectacle, never appeared outside that real life which is invisible to the agents of Simulation."

Hakim Bey
T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism

So this is a non-insurrectionist (or Bonnanist) post-left perspective. The TAZ is the most real chance to experience and create anarchy and so it is a positive, and as such a non-nihilist creative (anti) political program.

Not familiar with Appio Ludd (pseudonym or distant relative of Ned?:), but anyway Stirner, Wolfi, Bonnano and Bey all complement each other in a way which gives your comment some real contextual consistency in summarizing and defining the insurrectionist and individualist's relevance to anarchist desires, which I hope was a topic at the congress in St Imier, but know nothing about its debates or forums content, I'm just assuming that in some venues the topic was broached. Over 150 years ago I can guess with confidence that Stirner's name was not even mentioned at St Imier, and that Bakunin or Kropotkin had a platformist mentality without knowing it,,,I could even be bold enough to suggest that their 'traditional' anarchist theory leaned heavily on the legacy of fragments from the imbued Weltanschauung that their race inherited. This is why Stirner and individualists breath fresh air and concepts into otherwise stagnent cultural and social theories. Culturally correct rhetoric is poison to the true anarchist!!
I do have a contention with you regarding your placement of the nihilist consciousness in the negative basket, maybe I have a different interpretation of individual nihilism, my own being more of an existentialist awareness, which is what true nihilism is, taking it back to Nietzschean translations, or even artistic ones from the likes of Camus or Sartre. One could also include Foucault as an exclusive member of the nihilist club, but expect some flak, just the nihilist stance cannot help but become the scapegoat in any social paradigm.

Appio Ludd is the new pseudonym of Wolfi.

I knew I would like stirner. Planning on reading him. Thanks for this. We see things similarly, but coming from different writers.

Yikes.... that's all I have to answer to this.

That's some heavy anarcho-hippie crap... feels like 1997 again.

Where in the hell the death of Mauricio Morales was a socially-isolated case is beyond me. Perhaps the guy went all-the-way by his own instincts, perhaps society demonized him badly, but the rest of the anarchist movement heard him, and they remember him. This is one step towards reuniting the individual with the collective, without sacrificing any of the two, just creating a new form of solidarity that goes beyond the despotism of the "herd" and the sheer isolated desperation of the lone gunmen, creating something that's more powerful than both by combining both energies.

You cannot really be an individualist anarchist by being a pacifist, because society and social relations are inherently violent and authoritarian. So to assert one's individuality always requires some level of "violence", or just conflictuality. The wildest anarcho-individualist has a bomb belt around his/her chest, or just in a symbolic way.

The history of individualist anarchist thought shows that both illegalism and insurrectionism and pacifist refractarism are part of it. So Emile Armand will dissagree with illegalists even if Armand wrote in the illegalist friendly publication L´Ánarchie (

Illegalism took from Stirner but it grew within the post-Paris commune repressive environment in France in the late 19th century as well as within what Marx called "lumpenproletariat". On the other hand a certain individualist line of thought grew from Henry David Thoreau´s thought on civil disobedience and refractarism as exposed in his work "Walden" as well as Josiah Warren´s libertarian communal experiences. But of course both illegalists and Thoreau´s influenced anarchists could embrace Stirner´s existential insurrection.

In the Spanish anarchist movement there existed both expropriator anarchists and pistol carrying anarchists; and on the other hand individualist anarchists more worried about subjects like freethought activism, alternative education, naturism and free love as well as some influence by Leo Tolstoy. It is clear that both had relationships with anarcho-syndicalists yet of course their heart and activities had different concentration than workerist anarchosyndicalism. This second line of individualist thought (or as they would calle it "evolutionary" or "educationist"), from what i know, had as main theorists Emile Armand and Han Ryner. (for more on this see Diez, Xavier. "El anarquismo individualista en España (1923–1939)" A more specific insurrectionist illegalist individualist line of thought became the specialty of the italians such as Luigi Galleani, Renzo Novatore, Severino Di Giovanni, Giuseppe Gciancabilla, etc but i would have to add that in the case of Renzo Novatore it tended towards more specifcally towards stirnerism, nietzschtianism rather than "propaganda by the deed".

In post war european anarchist politics i know that these tendencies continued. We have for example the case in Italy of Horst Fantazzini ( who spend a lot of his life in prision and the rest in clandestinity for robbing banks and even a movie was based on his life. Of course by the sixties Alfredo Maria Bonnano was already writing and a certain insurrectionist tendency already developed in italy which existed alongside 1970s marxist autonomism of people like Antonio Negri.

On the other hand a post war anarcho-pacifism tendency became strong both christian and anti-christian and it pursued communal experiments as well as "non-violent" resistance while it mostly avoided attempting an anarcho-syndicalist revival. This and related developments such as Gandhism ended up influencing things like the hippie counterculture while there existed a different line of more humanistic individualists such as Andre Arru, Charles Auguste Bontemps, and Miguel Gimenes Igualada who embraced the thought of Stirner but within an activism and focus around subjects like freethought, anti-militarism, alternative education, and naturism.

All of this shows the main tendencies in anarchism in places like France and Italy. IAF synthesist federations like FEderation Anarchiste in France and Federazione Anarchica Italiana will feature inside them strong currents of freethought, anti-militarism, ecologism, and alternative education as well as anarcho-syndicalism and so are much more diverse and eclectic as compared with platformist federations like Alternative Libertarie in France or FdCA in Italy where the only thing that seems to be different in what they do from trotskist groups is the fact that they don´t run for state elections (although the platformist leader George Fontenis did advocate at some point having "libertarian" candidates for parliament).

Let´s even analyse the US situation as far as anarchist webistes. Platformists have "" while anarchistnews dot org tends towards a synthesist anarchist without adjectives approach of coverage of all tendencies incluiding insurrectionists.

i'd say @news is more pluralist, and i like it that way.

-a platformist for revolutionary pluralism!

Nietzsche’s nihilism implies a suspension of belief in materialist sourcing of dynamics; i.e. a suspension of this notion that dynamics must have a material author. His example of ‘lightning flashes’ shows how we can ‘put a word’ in the place of an experience/observation in the unfolding relational continuum, to give synthetic ‘being’ to our experience/observation, ... hence ‘lightning’. Once we have reified our observation/experience, the reification becomes the author of its own action. We do this with all manner of ‘sensa’ as Mach points out. We do it with hurricane, the tornado, the organism, the human organism and the ‘individual’.

The individual does not have independent existence as we like to pretend. If we watch an individual emerge, he emerges within a web of continually transforming relations; i.e. he is a dynamic flow-feature within the web of transforming relations and he can never extricate himself from his inclusion within the web of continually transforming relations.

Western civilization and science asks us to believe the Fiktion that the ‘individual’ exists as an ‘independent being’ within an absolute fixed, empty and infinite euclidian operating theatre. This is the foundation for beliefs such as iconoclasta’s;

“ i think individualism is a basic point of anarchism as based on sovereignty over one´s body and one´s mind in respect over social hierarchies and ideologies.”

The ‘individual’ is like the weather cell in the atmosphere or the sailboater in the storm; i.e. to suggest that the ‘’individual’ has “sovereignty over one´s body and one´s mind” is a trivial view based on ‘appearances’. As the storm carries off the sailboater or the ‘individual’ is swept up in the tsunami, ... ‘look!’, he has sovereignty over the movements of his arms and legs in flailing them about as he is being swept away in the flow. ‘Individual’ nations and empires, too, are swept away in the flow, with their armies flailing around according to orders from ‘head’-quarters, demonstrating ‘sovereignty over the body and mind of the empire’.

This notional ‘sovereignty over the body and mind’ is not the point. It is the view we FABRICATE using the mental tool of analytical inquiry, where we seize upon a visual form-in-the-flow and try to make sense of it as if it as an ‘individual’ thing-in-itself with its own locally originating, internal process/component driven and directed development and behaviour. But every ‘local individual system’ is a ‘flow-feature’ in the continuously transforming relation ‘suprasystem’ [spatial-plenum].

As Nietzsche says, and as modern physics affirms, ‘the world is one thing’ and the ‘individual’ is a dimple in the flow rather than a ‘thing-in-itself’. The notion that the individual has ‘sovereignty over the body and mind’ is an artefact of analytical inquiry, the study of the ‘local system’, while forgetting for the moment [and then totally forgetting] that the ‘system’ is a flow-feature in the continuously transforming relational spatial-plenum or ‘suprasystem’. This is not only true for the ‘individual hurricane’, it is true generally.

For believers in ‘the sovereign individual’, whether ‘organism’ or ‘state’ or ‘corporation’, the mental model is not that of the sailboater but that of the powerboater, whose animative sourcing [dynamic drive and steerage] derives fully and solely from the individual. Gone from the mental model is the ‘flow’ or ‘suprasystem’ from whence the individual as ‘sailboater’ derives his dynamic drive and steerage.

The notion of the ‘sovereigntism’ of the individual [notionally making him into a ‘powerboater’] is just that, an ‘intellectual notion’ that is a cheap solution to simplify mental modeling of a complex physical reality that is characterized firstly by interdependence as captured by Mach; “The dynamics of the inhabitants [individuals] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [collective] at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”.

Reconciling this with the comments on organization and insurrection by Stirner;

“The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed."

... it becomes evident that Stirner sees the individual as a ‘powerboater’ and since he rejects the current arrangement; i.e. the collection of individuals ‘being arranged’ by some central authority or order-giving philosophy [‘established order’], he must come up with a new animative sourcing of order.

There are two choices here which now split Stirner and Nietzsche apart though they appear to be ‘together’ on the notion of an ‘uebermensch’. The choices for the animative sourcing of order are;

(a) the ‘absolute thing-in-itself’ individual ‘egoist’ where the individual rises above himself as an ‘individual’; i.e. ‘the powerboater’ amongst ‘powerboaters’ whose drive and direction comes ‘out of themselves’.

(b) the ‘relational individual’ as a strand-in-the-web-of-life where the ‘individual’ understands he is a flow-feature in a relational space which is self-organizing [it is the space that is self-organizing]; i.e. the ‘sailboater’ amongst sailboaters in a common flow whose drive and direction derives from the common flow in which they are all uniquely, situationally included, and who are conditioning the dynamics of the flow at the same time as their dynamics are being conditioned by the flow.

clearly, (a) sees a world of ‘individual things-in-themselves’ that operate within a spatial dynamic that is ‘disconnected’ from them, that they must struggle with to overcome, ... while (b) sees the world as a relational space where ‘individuals’ are ‘dimples’ in the continually transforming web of relations, and order/organization is in terms of attuning to and cultivating balance and harmony with the relational dynamics one is not only included in but ‘is’ [in the manner that the storm-cell in the continually transforming relational space of the atmosphere is not only included in this space but ‘is’ this space, in the sense given by Mach’s principle].

‘insurrection’ in both cases (a) and (b) is given by a rejection of central authority and institution-imposed order, and the difference is in terms of ‘where the new animative sourcing of order’ is seen to come from. (a) [Stirner] sticks with the darwinist notion of ‘individual-sourced genetics’ which are purely inside-outward asserting and which ignore outside-inward shaping ‘epigenesis’. (b) [Nietzsche/Mach] assume that the outside-inward flow of nurturance-influence [endosmosis] and the inside-outward asserting growth-influence [exosmosis] are one dynamic; the transformation of relational space [a conjugate epigenetic-genetic relational dynamic].

(b) is the insurrection of the Zapatistas who hold that our relationship with the space we all share inclusion in, is the natural ‘animative sourcing’ of order/organization. (a) is an idealized ‘animative sourcing’ of order/organization that, it is purported, could come from a fleet of egoist powerboaters, detached from the space they are included in, who are capable of organizing without having to acknowledge that they are inextricably included as dynamic forms in a continuously transforming relational space.

Nietzsche expresses the Machean view of relational space as follows;

“And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income …” –Nietzsche, ‘The Will to Power’, 1067

to summarize, ... ‘insurrection’, the rejection of organization by central authority or common theory, demands an alternative animative sourcing of order/organization. there are two choices here which have implications in regard to our conception of ‘space’ [habitat] and ‘matter’ [inhabitant] and how the two relate. in Machean/Nietzschean philosophy, ‘the two are one’; i.e. there can be no ‘creation’ in a relational space without ‘destruction’; i.e. there is only ‘transformation’ of the relations in the relational space [field-flow] which we perceive as either ‘creation’ or ‘destruction’. if a fairly constant population of ants disperses over the surface of a sphere and forms clusters here and there where the surface offers nurturance, what we ‘see’ is ‘the growth of a cluster/city’ but that is not ‘physical reality’. the physical reality is the relational re-arranging of the ants in the space on the surface of the sphere. the same for the dissipation of a cluster in its entirety; i.e. it is not ‘physically real’; the physically real dynamic is the ‘relational rearranging’ that is going on.

our western civilization conditioned way of thinking is to regard ‘creation’, and ‘destruction’ and ‘growth’ and ‘decline’ as real physical dynamics, in contrast to the Machean [modern physics] and Nietzschean, Poincaréan, Schroedingerian view wherein ‘transformation’ of relational space is the physical dynamic, in which case, ‘construction’ [gain] and ‘destruction’ [loss] are nothing other than ‘appearances’ [Fiktion, Maya].

capitalism is the manifestation of a mindset that believes that the world dynamic can be deconstructed into ‘gain’ and ‘loss’, in which case the only sensible thing to do is to ‘maximize gain’ and ‘minimize loss’ [the ‘profit motive’]. of course, since this view of the world in terms of ‘gain’ and ‘loss’ is purely intellectual and cannot be confused for ‘physical reality’, it is leading us into deeper and deeper dysfunction.

to summarize; --- ‘insurrection’ involves two things; ... the rejection of the current practice where our activities are ‘arranged by’ a central authority and its institutions and ‘established order’, and the ‘embrace’ of a new animative sourcing of order/organization as in either (a) and (b) discussed above. the ‘egoist’ animative sourcing as in (a) retains the Western civilization concept of dualism which has us think in terms of a mutually excluding split between ‘habitat’ and ‘inhabitant’, having us see ourselves as ‘powerboater’ individuals whose development and behaviour is purely inside-outward driven [all ‘genesis’ and no ‘epigenesis’]. the ‘relationist’ animative sourcing as in (b) casts out the Western civilization concept of dualism and has us understand ‘habitat’ and ‘inhabitant’ as conjugate aspects of one dynamic, the transformation of relational space, in the manner that the storm-cell [inhabitant] and atmospheric space [habitat] are conjugate aspects of the One dynamic. the individual, in this case, sees himself as a ‘sailboater’ that derives his drive and steerage from the habitat dynamic he is uniquely, situationally included in. he acknowledges Mach’s principle that his inhabitant-dynamics [and those of his brothers] are conditioning the habitat-dynamics he shares inclusion in, at the same time as the habitat-dynamics are conditioning the dynamics of himself and his brothers. In this view, ‘order/organization’ derives from attuning to and cultivating balance and harmony with the dynamics of the relational space one shares inclusion in.

in terms of the ‘actions on the street’ or in the community, the motivation in (a) will continue to be ‘gain’ versus ‘loss’ based [will our actions do the shift to anarchism more good than harm], while the motivation in (b) will be whether the actions will induce transformation in the relational space in the direction of the rejection of central authority and institutions as the primary order-giving sources and the embrace of a purely relational animative sourcing of order/organization in society.

A piece of interpretation of Nietzsche with excess of social constructionism is of good use for the nietzschetian nazis and fascists who also want to deny the existence of individuals since they want automatons and obedient masses.

On the other hand, Nietzsche denounced nihilism. He associated nihilism with the conformism of the masses in the rising mass industrial society. Nietzsche advocating creating the values and overcoming the current state of humanity, the "ubermensch". What´s nihilist about that? that might actually be the opposite of nihilism.

I leave with a nice humanist anarchist intrepretation by Emma Goldman of Nietzsche and Stirner:

"The most disheartening tendency common among readers is to tear out one sentence from a work, as a criterion of the writer’s ideas or personality. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, is decried as a hater of the weak because he believed in the Uebermensch. It does not occur to the shallow interpreters of that giant mind that this vision of the Uebermensch also called for a state of society which will not give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves...It is the same narrow attitude which sees in Max Stirner naught but the apostle of the theory “each for himself, the devil take the hind one.” That Stirner’s individualism contains the greatest social possibilities is utterly ignored. Yet, it is nevertheless true that if society is ever to become free, it will be so through liberated individuals, whose free efforts make society."

Emma Goldman
"Anarchism and Other Essays"

to talk about ‘nihilism’ without talking about conceptions of space and the problem of ‘things-in-themselves’ [‘being’] is empty talk.

“Nietzsche wrote a great deal about nihilism, ... but that was because he was concerned about the effects of nihilism on society and culture, not because he advocated nihilism. The question of whether Nietzsche really advocated nihilism or not is largely dependent upon the context: ... Nietzsche could be categorized as a nihilist in the descriptive sense that he believed that there was no longer any real substance to traditional social, political, moral, and religious values.”

now why was that? like mach, nietzsche believed that space was ‘relational’ rather than ‘absolute’ as is evident throughout his writing and in the above quote in my previous comment from ‘will to power’ (1067). ‘things’ are ‘not it’ in a relational space or ‘energy-flow’; they are ripples in the spatial-plenum, they are purely ‘relational’ as with a convection cell in the flow.

as schroedinger has also discussed, understanding the world in this way removes all foundational ‘existence’ and ‘identity’ from that which we have been defining as ‘material objects and organisms’. if one no longer believes in the ‘what things-in-themselves do’ world view, then it follows that; ”there is no longer any real substance to traditional social, political, moral and religious values.”

nietzsche viewed as an unavoidable fact that these traditional values would AND SHOULD continue to collapse [God is dead] and he wrote about how the western mind would have difficulty with that, but nietzsche didn’t have difficulty with it. ‘nothingness’ is where everything comes from in Buddhism and eastern traditions; e.g;

Nishida and Nishitani, in keeping with the tradition of the East, are far more optimistic about the possibilities opened up by the total deconstruction of Western metaphysics and the subsequent positing of Absolute Nothingness as the centre of our lived experience. For, as van Bragt perceptively puts it:

In brief, the Western mind cannot help but think that all reality has been done away with when all "being" (form, substance) has been negated; but the East has found that the removal of the immediate and overpowering face of reality is but a necessary condition for what is really real to appear' (van Bragt)

For the Western mind deconstructive analyses lead us into the abyss of nihilism and despair. For Eastern thought, on the other hand, it leads us into a field of infinite potentialities, the field of Absolute Nothingness in which we discover the `original countenance of reality' (Nishitani).”

nietzsche is a ‘heraclitean’ [everything is in flux]. for him, there is no ‘being’. ‘being’ is ‘total Fiktion’, ... hence, ... ‘nihilism’. but he was forecasting that (a) the belief in ‘being’ and the associated value system had to collapse and that that was going to trouble a lot of western-acculturated people [nihilism to them was despair], but he was not troubled by nihilism. he believed, like his japanese and buddhist etc. counterparts, that ‘nothingness’ is the source of all things. [pure relational energy or ‘will to power’ as he called it, which was a force of nature that not only inhabited ‘things’ but which brought them about.].

meanwhile, you seem to use the word ‘nihilism’ in the ‘western’ way which was not nietzsche's way. you say;

“... Nietzsche denounced nihilism. He associated nihilism with the conformism of the masses in the rising mass industrial society. Nietzsche advocating creating the values and overcoming the current state of humanity, the "ubermensch". What´s nihilist about that? that might actually be the opposite of nihilism.”

if you don’t want to even mention ‘space’ and the ‘inhabitant-habitat’ relation where nietzsche and mach are coming from, how are you going to get a glimpse into what nietzsche [and/or nishida and buddhists etc.] intend by ‘the overman’?

for example, mach’s principle suggests that all things are like the storm-cell in the atmosphere; i.e. the dynamic form is a dimple in the flow, not a thing-in-itself. the dimple is unique, so we can think of ourselves with this same uniqueness, but it is not ‘individual’ in the usual sense of the word as ‘independently existing’. our sense that we are ‘individuals’ can also be understood in the sense that our life experience is unique.

“Nishida reveals that 'over time I came to realise that it is not that experience exists because there is an individual, but that an individual exists because there is experience' (Nishida). This is because the self as self does not first exist and then experiences. Rather the self is also experienced in the act of experiencing. Experience is therefore more fundamental than the individual and it is this purified experience which Nishida terms `Absolute Nothingness'.”

the ‘uebermensch’ is a person who is in touch with his ‘pure experience’ which is where his ‘individuality’ resides. one might say that if we are a strand in the web of life, our experiencing of the web of relations we are uniquely, situationally included in, ... is who we uniquely are. emma goldman may well be ‘seeing’ this same sort of deeper interpretation of what nietzsche intends by ‘uebermensch’.

however, where you say;

“... the "ubermensch". What´s nihilist about that? that might actually be the opposite of nihilism.”

no, not so fast. ‘nihilism’ opens the way for letting go of our sense of ‘the self’ as being a local, material ‘individual’ with its own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviour, and picking up on our deeper sense of self that resides in ‘pure relational experience’; i.e. what is at the node of the relational web that causes our material self to emerge there. the relational web is the song that sings the singer.

summary: nietzsche and mach’s world view derives from reconceptualizing space as ‘relational’ which means that ‘things’ are no longer foundational, which means that all the old values, which oriented to seeing ourselves as ‘things-in-themselves’ and our actions as ‘what things-in-themselves do’ collapse. what remains may be ‘nothingness’ in a material sense, but not in a relational sense. our pure relational space experience is the song that sings the singer.

p.s. the reason we generally cannot accept [or find it extremely difficult to accept] the Machean/Nietzschean/Nishitanean relational space worldview and the reason that it continues to get passed over is that our ‘standard’ western mode of inquiry (scientific-analytical) is based upon absolute space and absolute time reference framing. we are tired of the same old establishment practices (authoritarianism) and we want ‘change’. the difficulty is that we see ‘change’ in terms of ‘time’ and 'what things-in-themselves do over time' (e.g. we think in terms that we have to act so as to ‘bring about a better future’).

there is no ‘time-based change’ and no ‘past, present, future’ in the relational space view, there is only transformation of spatial relations in the continuing present. as mach’s principle says, the dynamic figures (inhabitants) ARE the dynamic ground (habitat), which means that change is relative to space [change is 'spatial-relational'] rather than to time. that’s equivalent to saying that change is ‘transformation’ of spatial relations.

if one considers a population of ants or men roaming the space on the surface of a sphere such as the earth, and gathering where the space is nurturant (forming clusters or ‘cities’ or ‘states’) and regathering as the flow of nurturance subsides relatively (is better elsewhere), the primary dynamic is the continual ‘relational rearranging’ of the population within the common space, but it manifests VISUALLY as the growth and shrinkage of clusters (or ‘cities’ or ‘states’). words and language couple with this visual impression and we say that; “in the past, this city was shrinking and now it is growing. it is going to be much larger in the future if it keeps growing at this rate. this ‘talk’ is all based on appearances. there is no such thing as ‘growth’ [gain] or ‘shrinkage’ [loss] in the dynamics of a relational space, there is only transformation of spatial relations.

therefore there is no such thing as ‘progress’ in a time-based sense, and no such thing as darwinian evolution (evolution is instead nietzschean/lamarckean and involves a conjugate inhabitant-habitat relation, or a conjugate epigenetic-genetic relation, as is currently being ‘discovered’ in cell research etc.).

capitalism is a way of life based on treating ‘gain’ and ‘loss’ ‘over time’ [growing richer] as ‘real’. there is no such thing as ‘growth’ in a material sense in the physical reality of relational space, there is only ‘rearranging’ in a relational sense. [the transforming medium ‘is the message’]. the pursuit of profit is delusion. one cannot have more gain than loss in a transforming relational space since ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’ are not separate things but conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of relational transformation. for example, clusters/citites/states are continually being created and destroyed as the ants/people gather and regather in the space on the surface of a sphere, but only in a visual sense where the observer’s observing is focused on a fixed region of space and taking time-based observations. in that space determined by his observational focus, first there is nothing and then there is something [e.g. he sees ‘creation’ of a cluster] and the ‘something’ ‘gets larger’ [he sees ‘growth/gain’], and then the cluster gets smaller [he sees decline/loss] and then the cluster vanishes [he sees death/destruction]. of course if he had been observing all of the dynamic all over the world, instead of focusing on what is right there in front of him, he would have seen that the REAL, PHYSICAL DYNAMIC was ‘relational’, the 'individual' clusters were secondary artefacts of the continual relational rearranging (transformation) in the unbounded relational space. it is only because we observe what is in a region of space in front of us and apply our standard measuring rods and clock times [tools which we invent and define] to it, that we come up with the notions of ‘growth’ and ‘decline’, ‘gain’ and ‘loss’, ‘birth’ and ‘death’, ‘creation’ and ‘destruction’, .... instead of relational ‘transformation’.

our ‘behaviour’ will certainly not be ‘capitalist’ if we acknowledge the physical reality of relational space. it makes no sense to assume that an ‘individual’ or ‘individual corporation’ can generate ‘more gain than loss’, and that if he/it is ‘careful’, there will be a net ‘gain’ when he destroys some of the forest in constructing a city. he may brainwash himself to believe that what he calls ‘improvements to the land’ are ‘really improvements’, but in the context of physical reality, these changes can only be ‘transformation’.

it is no accident that aboriginal peoples (we all have our aboriginal ‘self’ inside us) scoff at the notions that ‘nations are independent entities’ with ‘their own behaviours’ and that they ‘have an economy of their own’. this is just a language game, it is not physical reality. meanwhile, it is characteristic of western civilization to reject physical reality and install language based illusion as 'the way the world works'. 'capitalism' is one of the artefacts of the notional but physically unreal separation of 'creation/gain' and 'destruction/loss' and thus to propose the [non-sensical] notion that it is possible to 'construct' in a net sense, without 'destruction', ... to actually elude one's own shadow. this is all a 'language game'

meanwhile, the current western culture-dominated world employs these language games 'as if they were speaking of physical reality', to capture and retain its ‘followers’, one of the most prominent 'games' being the pursuit of ‘gain’ without incurring commensurate ‘loss’, a game otherwise known as 'capitalism'.

boo hoo! they ignored our particular strain of obscure ideological nitpickery! they also ignored illegalist primitivism, anarcho-dadaist futurism and libertarian municipalism! maybe you fuckers should quit whining about what some hard working folks did half a world away and go start your own sectarian cult-frence!

i'm joing IFA just because they seem to be able to make posts in MULTIPLE COLORS!!!!

from now on all my posts will be in magenta if i can figure out how to do it.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.