Topic of the Week: Anarchist federations

  • Posted on: 7 March 2016
  • By: thecollective

Anarchists have organized in a variety of different ways, from the informal to the formal, with differing degrees of success and failure. This week we're taking a look into Anarchist federations, specifically anarchist organization and federations in the USA.

A brief and incomplete history: In 1989 the Love and Rage Network was officially formed, which went on to become the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, then disbanded in 1998 over growing internal and external divisions. In 2000, the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC) started, organized around platformist ideas. The federation was based in the north-east of North America and split up in 2008. Two groups came out of the split - Québécoise members,who named themselves the Union Communiste Libertaire and the U.S.A. members who continued on with the original NEFAC name for some time. In 2011 NEFAC became Common Struggle, which later joined one of the most recent anarchist organizations in North America – the Black Rose Anarchist Federation, which has locales across the USA. While Black Rose may not be defined specifically as a platformist (especifismo) organization, many associate it as such.

Are you a current member or former member of an anarchist federation? Do you / did you find it meaningful for anarchist organization or would you have preferred something else? Why? What are your experiences that you can share about that would help the anarchist space grow in North America?

Platformist organizations like Black Rose stress tight political and organizational unity; another approach is synthesist, that argues for less ideological unity, and is often described as big tent or anarchist-without-adjectives. Would a synthesist nationwide anarchist organization make sense or be something of interest? Finally, how do our real life day jobs effect us as anarchist organizers? Often members of these anarchist federations like Black Rose work as staffers, which denotes someone whose day job is working in the non-profit industry or other unions. Is this a role anarchists should assume or is there a larger critique and discussion to be considered?



What would a larger synthesist organization look like? I'm trying to think of examples, besides mobilizations for specific events (like Unconventional Action or something).

I have actually written a piece about what a larger synthesist organization could look like, back in 2012. You can read it here:

Thanks for sharing that. It's a good text, and I think you're right about what the focuses would have to be. I'm not sure who has the capacity to take such a thing on now, but it would be worthwhile.

Should be left to the non anarchist species that practices it. I am not against indirect dealings with organizational federation structures in an 'in but not of' sort of a way. Leave it to broader libertarian structures which while not anarchist are at least preferable to others.

Anarchy is to beautiful an idea and orientation to be soiled by such modern practices.

Shouldn't @'s being organizing in the margins, remain an un-scene? Doesn't any large organization where @'s can go to talk themselves to death basically give the cops a big, black, easily hacked target to infiltrate?

The problem with this point of view is most anarchists aren't exposed to it until after they've already exposed themselves as an anarchist. Social media encourages the revealing of potential clandestine actors onto a public stage, removing their ability to hide themselves from scrutiny, should they become a person of interest in anything at the local level. I wish anarchists that aren't going to do shit, like Sir Einzige, would be encouraging people to stay hidden from social media, at least their anarchist side, while acting as a subversive on whatever level they feel comfortable with.

For the most part people that practice and advocate anarchy in a non confrontational sort of way will simply be seen a a similar light to Zen Buddhists and French intellectuals.

A good example of what should be done would be to look at someone like Jeriah Bowser. I'm actually quite impressed with what he's got going. You basically have a surrogate activity that that is similar to various distilling deattaching spiritual activities based on anarchist ideas.

On the whole confronting the state makes no sense simply because there is no actual state. At the end of the day you are dealing with other peoples built up spooks as well as your own attached habits. If your going to resist or struggle it should only be corporeal and not constituted. Saving yourself and sustaining your own anarch activity is enough to suffice for satisfaction in an authoritarian world. 1968 type years are simply eclipses to enjoy as incing to your own activities.

If you want to play mind games, that's all you, but at the end of the day, there is a state, it has power and it is made up of those that are able to wield power with impunity. Get off the internet and actually try to do something and you might discover that despite your "you are trapped in a prison of your own mind" approach to thinking, that there is more to it than this. There are lives at stake and you want to play pretend?

The seduction of participating in social media prevents us from seeing it as a whole lot of giving information to any authority that wants to take advantage of it. The amount of information people are feeding into intelligence groups of many various kinds, from anti-terrorist to counter-intelligence to foreign intelligence to local police to private investigators helping corporations and their many interests. We are dealing with power that affects billions of people and a couple billion of those people participate in social media on some level. The data collected is being used for so many by so many that it might seem like nothing is really going on, but it is in fact the opposite. The power of the social order grows as it learns to predict and understand behavior better than ever before.

Anyways, hopefully you will start seeing things for what they are and instead of what you wished they were. You wish these things were treated like spooks and most people will agree on some level, rather easily, but then, back to the real, where these things still hold power and your little point about spooks shrugged off like an annoying gnat. It isn't a game changer to make these pronouncements. It hasn't made any real waves ever. Just more fringe to influence left and right movements, as well as aid academia in understanding power, thus aiding the state understand power, thus control. So your ideas are in league with the state because their is no path of freedom found within them.

I'm afraid that is your issue not mine. The simple fact is there is not wielded power in and of itself without a corresponding belief framework. The problems of human affairs come down to that simple fact. The power of the social order as you call it has no existence in and of itself outside of belief and behavior which can be halted at anytime. Billions of people affect each other through a complex set of interconnected behavior and belief patterns that we abstract through things like state, law, power ect. The relations are all there is.

By reifying a constituted system to attack that is outside of physicality and corporeality it is you that ends up on the side of abstraction by contriving an abstract constituted sense of struggle through ritualistic agitpro where no struggle is actually needed. Anyway you slice it in actuality power is believed not held. Sure nothing has made real waves, but real waves essentially come from divesting oneself from the alien surrogate activities that need state and power to survive. Also, there is no path to freedom. Freedom is predicated on owness and owness is always here and now.

Nope. Real power can and does change hands and that is the ultimate failure in your point of view. You create a narrative that is false and then attempt to back it up with trite references to things not existing, which most world religions even give a nod to. It is not special to act as if the powers of the social order are not real. So many already make this point. Everyday, there is a thousand memes spread across social media with such a message. It is not radical in the least and does not lead to any sort of change because it is for thought man. Smoke another one.

Minus the belief and correspondence. That simple anon.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are nobodies without the mass adulation that shows up to each rally. The fact is that by assuming the existence of a constituted non corporeal power 'structure' to attack and struggle against you are basically bringing yet another belief structure into the world to further pad the problem. You are much closer to a religious like orientation then I am. Religion is very good at contriving constituted struggles. I am on the side of Zen and other forms of behavioral detachment practices that deal with the underlying causes of totalizing power structures.

Actually Bernie Sanders is a U.S. Senator and Donald Trump is a business tycoon. They have their own power constituted within the system. They also hold their own personal informal power, like all individuals do and this is played out in the influence they hold over other people despite or in addition to their political campaigns. You act like I disagree with your point on spooks. My point was I agree and I also find it to be a bullshit point of view and I've made my point on that. Ultimately what you are talking about is not important to what is really going on and you are kind of wasting people's time by posing some hippie dippie bullshit as profound for anarchists.

It is nice that you think you've figured out something, but without any display of power, you've yet to make your point on spooks real. It is just a mind game until then. Imagine whirl peas.

That's the thing about a world made of language. I don't pretend to think that my points are original. The basic idea of divestment and detachment from constituted struggles goes back to ancient times. It just happens to be the more correct orientation relative to authentic anarchic relationships then what you are proposing which is also as old as power and domination itself. I am only interested in the physical and the corporeal not the abstract and the constituted.

Trump and Sanders have no intrinsic power. They flow from belief just like money and currency. They hold nothing.

Yes, yes, it's all spooks. It is all imaginary and doesn't hold power. Now when you are done playing, you are welcome to come to dinner where the grown ups are talking. You can tell us all how our jobs are spooks and our relationships with each other are spooks. Its all spooks. Then brush your teeth, take your medicine and off to bed.

Give me examples of any display of power you agree with please, because so far there doesn't seem to be much to what you are suggesting. Heck, even a definition of power you are using, since you seem to have some pretty incoherent positions for being an anarchist.

Being that your best descriptors are 'it' and 'thing' says a lot.

Sometimes all of the manifold anti-this and anti-that disclaimers really end up turning windmills into monsters. Can you come up with some new stories? The kind that aren't ressentiment?

If a religious sect put a gun to your head and told you to pray to legos, because they're almighty and powerful would you believe that legos were? We anarchists are already embedded in unfolding relationships that humans are a part of (as are every other creature), not in charge of.

I like to use the analogy of Arnold Wesker from the Batman mythos. When he is corporeally threataning you to the dictates of his non existent master Mr Scarface you might have to play along to a point. The existence and enforcement of the state runs along those same lines. At the end of the day the belief is what must be undermined. Dealing with the enforcement of that belief is secondary.

Since we are writing conclusions and ignoring questions, I'll just slide on by here and do my conclusion. You have no grasp on reality. If industrial waste is poisoning the water supply where I live, is power just in my head? I guess if we all believed at the same time that we could change things, we really could! It is so simple, yet, this isn't how reality actually works. I wish it were so, that we were living not in a society, but just a group of individuals that only recognize the power of each other as well as the power of what surrounds us. I could spend the rest of the day, reminding myself of how full of spooks society is and how people are just tricking themselves, but after a while, if I want to actually accomplish my goals, I'll have to give up this audience based reality and actually interact with society and its problems and develop a better analysis of society that doesn't posit only what I wished were true, but what is actually true.

I wished property didn't exist, that inheritance didn't rig the game, that the elite classes didn't help each other out and maintain power over society, but they do. I could play a mind game and pretend their money and power isn't real and I could tell their associates just that, but it is here, at this moment, that we see how impotent this point of view, that concepts dominate us and yet no one seems affected by exposing this "truth" and no one gives up on these false concepts, just because they no longer believe I them.

reality is a slippery fish. it won't be manipulated by any measure of power struggle.
we have to swim with it.

the parameters of Society's sport are reinforced by it's participants' recognition thereof, boots on deck.
whence does it's power and displacement derive?
how does pulling the plug affect ?

let's we sink the boat and dive in

Then go swim in prison, douche., and come back telling us how reality is not enforced through power struggles.

while confined to a prison cell, one is wise to personally devise a semantic reality which transcends the apparent power structures as imposed by the warden. if the inmate accepts the walls and guards as real authors of power presiding over his life, then so they are; he is lost within the sublimated rational labyrinths of a mental power-structure. on the contrary, if one realizes their innate holistic peace as the inductor of personal nuance, then the state's stronghold is effectively undermined.

to confront the facade directly is futile, only serving as a call for reinforcement.
rather, let a mind be free to explore anomalous opportunities

yes it's true, the prison walls are just mere facetious creations of the semantic reality. I can make them disappear, or go through them using po-mo relational-language superpowers.

I've wasted my time arguing with that sect too. They dwell in a tiny, boring little bubble with a lot of $10 words and are only as interesting as my ability to physically hurt them, which would be a fun thought experiment in regards to their theories but this is the internet so they're absolutely and only boring.

lost time is not wasted; at least you present some occasion upon which to animate a position.thanks!

beatin' up nerds! Fuck them and their expensive sentences! Afterward, I'll smash the State, which is also only as interesting as my ability to physically hurt it, and which will also crumple before my physical attacks!

Let me ask you a simple question. What do you think came first, power enforcement de novo or a belief in power? Do coercive dominating hierarchies start right off the bat or are they preceded by charismatic, dynamic hierarchies? Does class come first or status?Unless you're an idiot who wants to ignore observed reality the answer obviously lies with the latter.

This in a nutshell is the Stirnerian way of looking at power as CORRESPONDING BELIEF AND SUBLIMATION FIRST! You are essentially repeating Marx's retardation as read in the German Ideology. Me, emile and others are not saying 'it's all in your head man'. You know that. Get real. Of course sublimated beliefs have relational consequences that include things like poisoned waters. Did you not get the analogy of the believers sticking a gun to your head. The point is YOU TACKLE THE FUCKING BELIEF FIRST. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST is that so hard for you to understand. It's as simple as wiping out the terrain that makes the germ possible. Of course it's not easy and may never be done. BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU START ANON. STIRNER STYLE.

Your ridiculous direct confrontation with the branches and not the root pretty much GUARANTEES fail after century fail. Hell, getting civilization out of your personal existence or living within on your own terms are cause enough for victory. However if you are aiming bit you aim right and that does not involve your ridiculous ritualistic repetition of constituted struggle stemming from projective identification as the E calls it.

The fact is many of the things you mention actually don't exist outside of what I have already highlighted. Money and power are not actually real in any physical sense. Any starting critique and defacement of this order starts with this realization. But keep on going with your counter spooks. Who am I kidding trying to communicate to the lower curved portion of anarchism.

History doesn't work the way you think it does, you put too much faith in progress, as if history actually teaches lessons to those alienated by power. The lessons the social order learned from history are strategic lessons, not moral ones. Your chicken or the egg analogy immediately presumes your correctness when that is far from the case. We are in a society, which I thought part of this argument is about. I agree that society has problems and one of those is that it doesn't really matter what came first in a decision *we didn't take part in making* and we have to follow that decision as if we had participated in the shaping of it.

Trying to go with an evolutionary or progressive view of history is perhaps where you go wrong and probably why some see you not as a Stirnerite, but rather a right apologist and philosophic ally to right wing understandings of power. For your point to even matter, you probably should start with challenging the existence of things like time and not create an origins story for how spook power vs unalienated power operates, yet that isn't your direction. Instead you create a fantasy story about the first peoples as they became institutionalized and we must consider these Adams and Eves of your story's dilemma and the power dynamics that existed until the first spook was created.

I recommend you rethink your weird hybrid theory a little more instead of spouting off as if you really understood what you are talking about. Rudimentary nonsense thrown against the wall, seeing what will stick sounds like a fun experiment, but then you will find people that will see your inconsistencies. You would probably do best as a full blown right Hegalian with nods to Stirner.

Do you even have a rudimentary of where I'm coming from? There is no assumption of correctness or progress coming from me. There is also no progressive view of history as far as the Stirnerian analysis goes.

Remember, I'm the one who makes the point continuously that the world is made of language. Positing that coercive power comes from things like charismatic sublimation is not an origin story, it's anthropology and observed human evolution. Again, do you think that top down power just came out of nowhere? Positing primary and secondary development is not akin to a chicken and egg question. These are observable existential developments. When you figure out what the primary development is you go after it as it probably will make for better anarchist/anarch orientation.

Also, there is no 'society' or 'we'. That's just further abstraction.

Okay. You win. You've given plenty good reason for you to not try and help other anarchists. As pointed out, nothing you are talking about is profound in any sort of way and because there is no confrontational aspects to spooks (other than perhaps through conversation) there is nothing of value to offer anarchists that have a drive in themselves to challenge authority, not just in their lives in reaction, not just enough to push back after being pushed too much, but to destroy and embrace the desire to destroy beyond the initial shove back. I understand your desire to be left alone and I don't see a reason to include your point of view with mine. Your route is passive and can not appease my route, which feels the urge within to destroy.

The types of discussion I'm interested in is making destruction creative, creative in a way that fucks the system in some way. At the very least, it must be satisfying. Beyond this, there is so much based on harming the opponent, raising the morale of others or even finding ways to enter or become part of a situation that might spiral into protests, riots and unrest...or perhaps not. The sharing of this struggle is my aim, to find accomplices and fellow travelers, to make my destruction social, to develop some sort of cohesion that can also carry a momentum. The joy of destruction and the cult of spookbusting don't seem to have much crossover. Your fear of spooks is not one founded on destroying domination, just merely recognizing the lack of essential truth in all things. This so very basic grasp of reality, I have no interest in unless we are also talking about power and destruction.

there is a group of cops in front of me. i ignore their orders. they beat the shit out of me, handcuff me, throw me into their prison.

are you seriously saying they do not wield some very real power? or are you redefining that word to fit your insane conceptions of actual lived life?

ritualist confrontation and agitprop don't necessarily constitute a degree of struggle for one who sees their personal freedom through an antagonistic worldview. only, not everybody is so rude. some may be satisfied in the simple freedom to insult retards.

That's one way to see freedom, others see it through Jesus Christ. If you are antagonistic because it gets you out of bed everyday and is good for its own sake then I have less of a quarrel with that. As Bob Black said, you can't blow up a social relationship but you can have fun trying.

the Christian movement is potentially pretty fucking antagonistic in a context where the laws of Pharaoh and Pharisee dominate the social landscape. subversive fun is contagious

Though because its foundation is based on constituted struggle it has played a major role in recuperating civilization when Pharaoh and Pharisee are no longer useful the continuation of civilized totality. Antagonistic forces have quite often been a lateral means for civilization and power to recreate itself. Compare it to something like Zen which lets things be keeps things corporeal and physical and you have the approach that (at least)anarch orientation should follow as regards to anarchy.

By all means though, have fun.

as they continue in countless iterations. so, in the context of life against the civilized totality; how does one -in pursuit of non-movement- avoid confrontation in the corporeal world of friction without personally constituting a dominant position? how can there exist a harmony between the anarch and the Civil?

the constituted systems which play a major role in recuperating civilization are religious institutions, not their prior mythical legacies and mystical epics. books and temples dedicated to Zen also have a recuperative effect when idolized in vain.

the message of each is basically the same, no?;
that there's a true serenity in the pure spirit which is core to all composition.
so, in Babylon, in confrontation we can keep it cooly, being still, and just know

I'm not saying that some confrontation is not inevitable. However, the more direct and recurring you make the confrontation the more likely you are to lose simply because you are going up against weighted enforced beliefs. Seaweed's(author of land and freedom) method of resisting is what I can get behind as well as others like it. I'm certainly not suggesting harmony. The one recurring thing about all physical life is strife.

Counter constituted struggles have also played a role in rearranging civilized power structures. Simply look at the anarchist inspired 1968 counter culture which has found its way into contemporary ruling ideas today. There have been many counter power ideas that became recuperated from ossification. Classical anarchism is increasingly having this effect when looking at some of the emerging capital produced automated technologies.

By all means confront if that is your character, but try not to have it take the form of elective position and movement.

I really wish it were true, what you say about being treated like a Zen Buddhist - or even a French intellectual. Where I live, various levels of state agents are constantly trying to infiltrate our peaceful little world. They really do know the differences between these different sorts of person. And BTW, there are quite a few French intellectuals who've been to jail, e.g. Tarnac 9. Throw in the Italians and it's a regular occurrence.

Yes, and this is basically what the 'anarchist movement' (lol, autocorrect almost changed movement to nonevent, how appropriate) already informally is. I have anarchistic tendencies but for reasons like those I don't associate myself with 'movement' structures. Anarchist identity is an obstacle to anarchist practice. I'm not against having a theoretical framework but it has to be fluid or it becomes a grave. To me it's more about this particular struggle, this or that community I'm part of; how do I participate in a way that coheres with my views, how do we learn something from each other & our shared existence & shared fight. Most of the 'anarchists' in my town are hipsters wearing circle As or neurotic control freaks who are so ideologically rigid about everything they're almost impossible to talk to; too obsessed with things like street tactics & scene politics to actually stop and look at what they're doing, how pathetically limited their practice is & how irrelevant to inhabiting the war that is always already in course. The activist, anarchist or not, who lives in ideological space doesn't have a world, and it's only from up-close, the texture of our world, where struggles make real sense, advance or retreat concretely against power.

What city are you talking about? I think I might know you. Are you that older guy that doesn't talk that much, but when you do, you are giving some cynical response to what we thought was a good idea? Anyways, get a life man. The "scene", if you want to call it that, is just people that want to see things happen and their friends. We cohere rather well, thank you very much and I bet we collectively get plenty done together.

Just last week I started working on a banner that took a quote from Bernie Sanders and we are making a sign with Sanders attacking Trump with a broom, but Trump is shaped like a pig! LOL! Take that fat cats! Everyone loves it and I bet you don't because you don't know how to get along with people. Times are changing and Chomsky has made it clear that anarchists need to get on board. The ship is sailing, my old friend. The ship is sailing..

I thought that all NA big cities could be the reference, including even the smaller cities riddled with liberal counterculture? Commenter above is spot on about the current state of "anarchism"... whatever it means at this point.

Thanks. I'm talking about a small city in fact, and am not really getting whatever in-jokes the above commenter seems to be making.

Appears to be referring to a toxic, relatively widespread trend among NA anarchoids of going all after the Trump bogeymen and support Sanders as if remote-controlled by Chomsky. At least this is the kind of social media "anarchism" I've seen playing out lately.

I don't think they're into electoralism; it's more like some of them are the sort of people who won't read anything they don't think they'll agree with, who never really think or debate, who consequently like to assume that if they drop a banner or gather a crowd there'll suddenly be a more militant demo etc.

PS. I AM old. 31, old as the hills. It should seem neither surprising nor funny that most people can't take the emotional abuse of radical activism outside a few years between 18 and 23 usually. All the angst, all the hormones, all the stupid punk rock insistence that there's no tomorrow, you won't live til 30, why bother? Little capitalist Thanatos-boys... When you realize that most of us actually do live past 30 it's time for another plan.


So, what would be the loosest possible example of assuming an anarchist role, and the tightest?

anarchists object to the imposition of hierarchical authority, such as an exemplary template by which to evaluate.
roles will vary according to one's sense of situational context, which varies according to personal temperament.

Yoyo... word's out that exemplary templates are dead things, or dead concepts. Authority is an active social relationship, where the "templates" are just interchangeable tools for reification of domination patterns, brah! what we really need.

Emile could be Mr. Spock.

You know, the one Dr. Daystrom invents? Like the M5, the EMILE9000 will end up deciding that it is logical and in keeping with the spatial plenum and (who could forget?) indigenous anarchism to exterminate all the biological entities. -- IOW, everyone except for him.


Synthesis federations are definitely the way to go. Any attempt to have "ideological unity" is ultimately a losing battle. People just have too many differences for that to ever be feasible. The real trick would be to find ways to have people effectively work together despite their differences.

But what kind of synthesis? Most of the time this ends up being Chomsky lovers, anarchist communists and syndicalists backed up by green activists and protest anarchists. Instead of a synthesis, why not use, like, a document, as a point of reference for those anarchists that are going to work on the project associated with the document. Like someone write a Post-occupy decolonial approach to land seizures and act on it and see what happens. That is a hundred times more successful than remaining within the confines of the spectacle, making alliances based on anarchist identity with no substance behind it.

I think it's really important to be mindful of the context and the purpose of an organization. In some places, it could make a lot of sense for a formal, synthesis organization to form and focus on labor issues, participation in mass-based social movements, and various forms of agitation. But in a US-context, it's difficult to imagine what kind of specific contexts members would be sought in, and what specific purposes a formal organization with said members would effectively fulfill. For example, if a class-struggle anarchist organization were to form, it's difficult to imagine how it would effectively acquire enough participating workers for a call for the General Strike to be effective. However, 8ish years ago the call for a General Strike was pretty effective in places like Spain, for very contextual reasons. Surveying the sort of "organization" and action that has happened in the US leading up to and after Occupy would suggest that formal organization hasn't been very effective. And I think that this actually goes back further for the US context.

The spokes/affinity-group forms of organizing are still "organization," just not in the sense of North East formal organizations. My personal MO is even more informal than that, tied into local struggles against gentrification and a somewhat insurrectionist-influenced concept of normalizing the use of non-authoritarian actions instead of packaging a complete ideology and trying to find adherents. And also the insurrectionist-inspired approach to setting goals with a willingness to admit failure and defeat and dissolve a structure when it isn't panning out. There's a lot of shit I could say about a tendency to think of formal organizations as a brand, which is more prohibitive and exclusive than it is empowering. But I think I write enough about that and I don't think it's as important to discuss as my everyday participation is with other anarchists locally. I'd like to broadly encourage conversation amongst anarchists in their own localities, analysis of the power-dynamics in those localities, and review the results of experimental activity at that level. I believe that a focus on our basic needs (food, shelter, medicine, childcare, and increasingly communications technology) helps to strengthen affinities ...whether that's something like Seattle Solidarity Network, food distribution, teach-ins, etc. Anarchists have gotten a lot of stuff off the ground by simply doing this better than the authoritarian shithole they live in. Basically - there's something about the everydayness of that kind of stuff which seems to work well in this context, which is also made more difficult by ...not social media, but by people relying on the internet more-and-more to connect socially.

Common Cause in Ontario is a contemporary example of a 'specific anarchist organization.' I'm not a member but their journal Mortar has a number of articles tackling the questions posed above. Interestingly they have announced a shift from workplace-based organizing (which sounds like it was mostly happening in academic workplaces...) to neighbourhood-based organizing.

I guess next step for them is to be self-assuming and based their organizing in gay saunas...

Not that there's anything wrong with it! (a famous '90s joke)

I think there is a strong need for anarchist organizations of all flavors. There is a long tradition of them to be sure. The historical IWW is a great example of an anarchistic/syndicalist (though not explicitly anarchist) organization I think anarchists can take a lot from. The Black International, or IWPA, that the Chicago anarchists is yet another great example. One of the best books I've ever read about the Chicago anarchists, which were a mass movement and very organized in the 1880s, is called Death in the Haymarket by James Green. Of course, there are plenty of other anarchist organizations we can look to - the AIT and CNT in Spain, FORA in Argentina, etc. It can be very easy for anarchists to get lost in various projects and campaigns and lose sight of strategy and vision and how we as anarchists can help push for a more egalitarian world. I'm still undecided about what form anarchist organizations should take now, especially given the current state of affairs and weakness of the left in this country. On the one hand, ideological unity can become very narrow, especially in smaller towns and cities as well as rural areas where there are not that many anarchists or radicals in many cases to begin with. On the other hand, there is a real need for spreading the ideas of anarchism through action (and praxis). But this brings up some other questions too. Will there be a mass anarchist movement or anarchist revolution in this country, or will there rather be an anarchistic movement or anarchistic revolution? There is a difference. How are we as anarchists going to build alternative structures, and movements while simultaneously fighting capitalism, the state, white supremacy, etc.?

That's now how it works. What you do is you work on the terrain and change it over time as best you can. This essentially starts with quality surrogate activities that are not tied to accelerated sublimation. What you are suggesting is what helped get us the reformed new deals that gave capital and modernity a more robust century. The way to good human scale surrogate activities does not lie in organization and movement structures.

Look, we already know what you think, and what we think of what you think. Can you please stop for a minute and let other people talk?

And it's typing not taking. Stop treating the net like a literal meat space, no ones stopping anyone from communicating.

sir einzige has run into 'projective identification' twice already in this topic;

1. people believing in the existence and power of the 'state'.
2.a person commenting: "Can you please stop for a minute and let other people talk?"

projective identification is an important influence when it comes to discussing "the meaningfulness of "anarchist organization"

the physical reality in (2) is that a person is sitting in a room alone, looking at text on a computer screen and building 'projective identifications' that seems real to them although there are only words on a screen. although the reader sees only words, he is using something of himself to construct a notional 'living entity' that he is engaging with to the point that the reader becomes angry because he doesn't like what this other 'person' is saying, or he is irritated because the other person's comments are going on for too long. physically, there is only one person in the room and that one person is the author of the other 'imagined person'. in other words, the 'other person' is a 'spook'.

in non-dualist understanding [e.g. advaita vedanta etc.] this "projective identification" is captured in the aphorism;

You don't see the world as it is, you see it, as you are.

if you are the submissive servant of the state, you see the state as a powerful Agency that controls the behaviour of others. projective identification is so convincing that watching some words come up on a computer screen or piece of writing paper may bring on the need for a change of undergarments [seeing the words spell out that this is an invitation from the Queen/President/Brad Pitt].

Only you can put together the depiction of what the words you are hearing or reading 'stand for'.

You don't see the world as it is, you see it, as you are.

"Donald Trump is a powerful man", "the state is a powerful agency", "sir einzige keeps interrupting our discussion", ... "emile's comments don't make sense and so long that they are irritating and should be removed".

'projective identification' [belief in one's own manufactured 'spooks'] has become the norm in Western society. people can be convicted of hate crimes on the basis of other people who sit alone in rooms manufacturing 'projective identifications' from the words presented to them on display screens by the social media.

constructing 'anarchist organizations' is 'spook-building' ['projective identification']. it is a way of organizing, like statism, that stands or falls on having participants 'believe in spooks'.

projective identification is the basis for constructing 'semantic realities'

word spew is the basis for word spew. more and more word spew. more and more word.

that is the most coherent, reasonable post i have seen from emile in ... forever? at least, quite some time. and they even used mostly their own words! go emile!

Essentially this was the difference between Marx and Stirner. Marx and Stirner both agree on the question of abstractions but Marx thinks abstractions come from historical/dialectical conditions. I like Stirner agree that it's the other way around and a first and primary emphasis starts with dealing with abstractions as well as belief and behavioral attachments(which is the really sticky problem). Dealing with consequential material problems is ancillary.

my view is that discussion on 'anarchist organization/s' is confused by failure to declare whether we conceive of 'organization' as a verb or a noun, my comment on this basic assumption which divides our understanding, was moved ... here....

the introduction to this topic of the week seemed to me to constrain the understanding of 'organization' to a 'noun'; i.e. conceiving it as a group of people with a common purpose; i.e. the intro included the phraseology;

"This week we're taking a look into Anarchist federations, specifically anarchist organization and federations in the USA.
" .... one of the most recent anarchist organizations in North America ..."
"Would a synthesist nationwide anarchist organization make sense or be something of interest?"

my view is that anarchist organization, as in its basic mode in nature, is a verb. ecosystemic organization is non-hierarchical and does not involve coordination by way of common purpose programmed into a group of independent participants, but arises relationally; i.e. where relations are the authors of things rather than things being the authors of relations [epigenesis in precedence over genesis within the epigenesis-genesis reciprocal complementarity as in Nietzsche, Lamarck, Emerson, Caldwell et al]..

Though I would change the word , ancillary,
To by- product or , corellary.

" quality surrogate activities that are not tied to accelerated sublimation. "

can anyone explain what the fuck this means?

Basically concrete human past as well as present times done on a human scale within human communities.

what this country needs is a human revival!
get on it, boy! yeehaw

On a smaller scale, there used to be an anarchist network in Arizona which met four times a year, once in each city that had decent numbers of people participating (Phoenix, Flagstaff, Tucson, Prescott). It actually first came about as way for infoshops in those cities to meet and share ideas, experiences and such, and eventually became something broader. There was no demand for strict political unity and the network did not make decisions as an entity.

And some good things came out of that, or at least out of relationships which might not have been as strong without it. Since that network stopped meeting (due mostly to burnout, but also some legitimately shitty dynamics) things in the state have been way less cohesive, I think to our detriment.

Also, the way the meetups ran was determined by the host city, so sometimes it would be a totally public, conference-style thing, other times closed (or at least not advertised) and oriented mostly around planning.

And I think this sort of thing could be useful on regional levels. But opposed to bookfair-type events where participation is somewhat stunted and there's not emphasis on action or organizing or whatever coming out of it.

Why do you think that's to our detriment?

Well, on a personal level, there are people I have great fondness for who I don't see very often anymore. But I could remedy that myself with some effort so, you know...

Beyond that, lack of regular face-to-face communication between anarchists throughout the state has, in my view/experience at least, hampered our ability to understand what's going on in other cities, whether that's really great stuff or really, really bad stuff. I suspect you know some of what I'm referring to.

I also think that some recent actions would've gone differently with those regular meetups still in place - compare the responses to the anti-Islam rallies in Tucson and Phoenix last year with the responses to NSM events in 2010 and 2011. Or, coordinated actions last May in border communities, including in Sells, which absolutely could have looked different with more input from the anti-colonial @ types statewide, most of whom I suspect wouldn't even know at that point that anything was happening.

I also think that there's a generation/relationship gap that ARC meetings helped bridge which has fragmented a lot of really important connections.

*NSM events in 2009 and 2010, rather.

Oh, and do you think that the lack of such a space is NOT to our detriment?

I just didn't know about it to begin with. Oddly enough, I learned a lot about what other cities were doing by crossing paths with comrades in the Bay Area when I was there.

I think you're making a good point about the bad communications statewide as-of-late. I think there's some creative ways that this can change. A non-sectarian, regionally focused anarchist forum would help. Face-to-face is good, but that still leaves a lot of room for other people to decide what they share with you based on their interests. Sites like and and and the various facebook groups are helpful, but without that middle ground between a site like this and blogs like those (like the way indymedia used to function), there's a lot of room for just having no idea that new projects, analysis, writing, etc. is happening. Especially when we're not all so chummy. There's definitely plenty going on that isn't 'need-to-know'. Perhaps I'll take some initiative in developing a forum for this.

So, this gets repeated a great deal. It seems to be an issue among anarchists primarily because there are anarchists that think an ideological or anarchist-identity group might be more effective than our current situation. To me, the problem isn't one of if we could use a federation or not, but rather how we aren't building regular connections that would even make such a thing actually feasible.

As it has been pointed out, most anarchists aren't existing at points of existence where a cohesion of unrest can generate the kinds of direct actions anarchists are typically associated with. While it can be said that the highest point of struggle had organization, typically most anarchists went through many experiences before such strong bonds between each other felt correct to establish.

Anarchists today might benefit from project and trade networks, perhaps even engaging in alternative currencies, barter and gifting...making possible for the creative juices of anarchists to combine with supporters, who then might take on different angles, less about these economics, but these economic approaches can spring board direct actions of others that didn't have the ability to cohere without it, to create the conversations that build accomplices. Just as the hippies before us provided the spaces that helped the gen X anti-global protest movement, this could create and amplify our abilities far better than always being beholden to middle class professions or part time precarity.

This isn't to say economic answers are a panacea, but they may provide a better base for anarchist activity than a political federation.

I think "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" was a brilliant film no matter what the critics said, as it inspired a confluent synergetic inward-outward flow of semantic reality suspended in the non-deterministic relational space.

Lol, in the time of NSA and mass spying, shooting african americans, drone killings, admins made the topic like that we are in 60ties.
fuck federations, we are targeted and killed and spied and arrested. when you gather 500 anarchist, you can count minimum 50 of them are working for the secret service.
look how much they know when Muslim fart, surely they know when an anarchist fart, I don't say we should be paranoid, but some people didn't learn anything from the history then they repeat the same thing/mistakes million times. your organizing federation is condemned to failure because you think you will organize and FBI will spend time drinking beer. they will work against you as they did against martin luther king, they will visit anyone you visited and they will try to break your connections with other people, they will sabotage everything you do.
and they will include their spies to make militant news websites to infiltrate "extremists" and to report them to the FBI agents. they will do the same with any @-federation.
the only thing left to us is to attack. we are stagnating from the death of emma. communists had some rise with RAF and red brigades, but majority of their guerrilla sold themselves for becoming red bourgeoisie with high salaries (in latin america and asia), anarchists are stagnating all the time. blabla drink beer, bla bla let's have sex, blabla little against government and that's all.
we have million reasons to protest, from drone killings to many other things, but hey, we can't even make one federation without failure, shit, FBI is smarter than we are. it is the same case in europe. I sent email to many insurrection websites against secret service and their spying, and I was automatically attacked by attaque and chronikde, "you need psycho help" etc. spies get pain in the ass when I speak against the secret service. honeypots. and we shoudl organize something together? with whom? I don't say you need psycho help if you speak against obama, nsa, keith alexander, but if I say something against secret service and their infiltration (look how many CCF and anarchists in spain are arrested, even friends and relatives, that's not possible without spies among us), I should go to psychiatry. and above all, spies are using such terminology, if you push obama or fidel in the water/sea, they will send you to the mental hospital, not to the prison. the same as attaque and chronikde. if you attack politicians, you must be crazy, not only criminal. there is no possibility for federations, anarchists should make their actions alone. come into office of a political party, kick them in their faces, destroy their cars, or anything else. fuck honeypots and spying shit and federations. it is all condemned to fail, the same as in the past. long live bonnot gang, ravachol, down with shitty attaque, chronikde and other spies who attack anarchists who speak against secret service, who make imperialist war propaganda against Muslims, etc.

Seriously though, you should probably see a shrink.

federations? jesus fuck, how about starting with a few trusted friends first?

a magnetic field induces remanent magnetism in magnet materials, these materials being condensations of the e/m field [Einstein]..

so, if the magnetic materials move, the field transforms and if the field transforms, the magnetic materials move. which causes which?

in this case; i.e. simultaneous mutual influence [Mach's principle], 'time' and 'causal agency' do not come into it; i.e. in general relativity, everything is relative and self-organizing; i.e. the transforming relational continuum is 'All'.

“Fields of force are the primary reality, and ‘matter’ a secondary or derived phenomenon” —Michael Faraday
" What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).” – Erwin Schroedinger
“Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves.” — David Bohm
"the dynamics of the condensates of the field are conditioning the dynamics of the field at the same time as the dynamics of the field are conditioning the dynamics of the condensates of the field" --- Mach's principle

the 'is' and 'is not' of binary logic comes from the notion that 'existence' and 'non-existence' are both real options, as in the religious notion that we come into being and pass out of being, ... rather than understanding ourselves as relational features that are gathering and are regathering in a transforming relational continuum. intuition suggests that matter (being/thingness) and space (non-being/thinglessness) are one and the same, as with storm-cells in a flow, and that the 'yes' and 'no' or 'is' and 'is not' of binary logic is 'not of the real physical world of our actual, natural, relational experience'.

"“Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also be called space and matter. Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation.” — Einstein, ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity’


this comment was in response to a flat 'no' comment [since removed] which was in response to this moved-to-here comment of mine

sir einzige has run into 'projective identification' twice already in this topic;

1. people believing in the existence and power of the 'state'.
2.a person commenting: "Can you please stop for a minute and let other people talk?"

projective identification is an important influence when it comes to discussing "the meaningfulness of "anarchist organization"

the physical reality in (2) is that a person is sitting in a room alone, looking at text on a computer screen and building 'projective identifications' that seems real to them although there are only words on a screen. although the reader sees only words, he is using something of himself to construct a notional 'living entity' that he is engaging with to the point that the reader becomes angry because he doesn't like what this other 'person' is saying, or he is irritated because the other person's comments are going on for too long. physically, there is only one person in the room and that one person is the author of the other 'imagined person'. in other words, the 'other person' is a 'spook'.

in non-dualist understanding [e.g. advaita vedanta etc.] this "projective identification" is captured in the aphorism;

You don't see the world as it is, you see it, as you are.

if you are the submissive servant of the state, you see the state as a powerful Agency that controls the behaviour of others. projective identification is so convincing that watching some words come up on a computer screen or piece of writing paper may bring on the need for a change of undergarments [seeing the words spell out that this is an invitation from the Queen/President/Brad Pitt].

Only you can put together the depiction of what the words you are hearing or reading 'stand for'.

You don't see the world as it is, you see it, as you are.

"Donald Trump is a powerful man", "the state is a powerful agency", "sir einzige keeps interrupting our discussion", ... "emile's comments don't make sense and so long that they are irritating and should be removed".

'projective identification' [belief in one's own manufactured 'spooks'] has become the norm in Western society. people can be convicted of hate crimes on the basis of other people who sit alone in rooms manufacturing 'projective identifications' from the words presented to them on display screens by the social media.

constructing 'anarchist organizations' is 'spook-building' ['projective identification']. it is a way of organizing, like statism, that stands or falls on having participants 'believe in spooks'.

In short: I am narcissistic, therefore I am. BLIP

Late to the party here but to me this is more cart coming before the horse. What would these networks be good for minus real power and even with real power would they be needed? On some level sure say food distribution, resource sharing allocation etc.

Ironically, for mass action these sorts of networks are probably needed more than anything. Possibly even solidarity support in terms of funds as well. For instance if anarchists stateside actually had the ability to raise significant amounts of money a trusted solidarity fund would work well like this.

Like I said though, cart before the horse. These networks are needed when we have the ability to impact society, The same people in the same network is just silly jerking off. I don't want the illusion of freedom in my life because 100 anarchists are actually willing to engage with each other despite laziness and confusion. I want freedom in my life because tens of hundreds of thousands of people are willing to fight for libertarian ideals and strike a blow against actual power. Sure at that point large networks are preferable. First though anarchists need to dig their head out of the sand and build power against society successfully.

On the other hand, you know who has the most time for this kind of shit and the willingness to jerk off. College kids. And, college kids are worse now than they were 15 years ago when we had decently function networks.

the summary of Anonymous Fri, 03/11/2016 - 11:32 in her exchange with sir einzige gives us some traction to compare alternative ‘realities’;

“The joy of destruction and the cult of spookbusting don't seem to have much crossover. Your fear of spooks is not one founded on destroying domination, just merely recognizing the lack of essential truth in all things. This so very basic grasp of reality, I have no interest in unless we are also talking about power and destruction.”

what does ‘domination’ ‘really look like’? is ‘organization’ a noun or a verb? do we really have two organizations, where the powerful one is dominating the other, giving the scenario wherein we want to destroy the dominating organization?

in the relational view, people are dispersed in the land as in a relational matrix. if the colonizers [or capitalists etc.] are flagged as white dots and indigenous [or anarchists etc.] by red dots, we can watch what transpires as the relational matrix transforms from a few white dots amongst red to a few red dots amongst white. it is the same common relational living space and what is happening is that it is undergoing relational transformation given by Mach’s principle: “the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants”. the white dots do everything different and it feels different, if you are a red dot, to live in the old neighbourhood now that it is ‘dominated’ by white dot inhabitants.

there is only one relational matrix but relational tensions arise because of the mix in the relational matrix. there are not two separate ‘organizations’ here; i.e. one ‘white organization’ and one ‘red organization’. to say that there are ‘two cultures that are in conflict with one another’ is semantic abstraction that comes about by using subject-verb-object constructs. this ‘semantic reality’ is nothing like the physical reality of our actual, natural relational experience. if the white dots drop litter , clear-cut trees, fill the land with machines and piss in the fresh water sources, then the red dots won’t find living in the old neighbourhood quite the same.

the red dots will say that the white dots “destroyed a wonderful established world on turtle island” while the white dots will claim to have “constructed a wonderful new world in America” with their ‘improvements to the land’, ‘technological progress’ etc. relational tensions within the organization-as-verb will manifest as clashes between the reds and whites.

as mcluhan says, it matters little what different groups of people claim they do; ... what matters is how our relations with one another and the relational medium we share inclusion in are transformed. the transforming relational medium is the message.

the ‘solution’ to relational tensions that manifest in local conflicts is to restore balance and harmony within the all-inclusive transforming relational medium. that means finding a way to wake up the white dots from the linguistic bewitchment that has them believing in their over-simplistic logocentric reality; i.e. their belief that reality is given by ‘what things [spooks] do’, a semantic reality to which they attach their own values giving highest scores to white dot preferred behaviours.

the red hitters are hitting into mostly white fielding while the white hitters are hitting into mostly white fielding. equal hitting competencies are not going to result in equal hitting results. all colours may be born equal but it is the fielding that dominates in shaping the hitting results. in the western 'semantic reality', fielding does not exist and one sees the hitter as a God-like-spook-being that is fully and solely responsible for his own hitting results. that's what absolute space and absolute time do for our Western worldview.

Unfortunately I wasn't talking about anything you are talking about and can't relate your examples to what I think. I'm not interested either because your point of view doesn't matter to me. You care so little for how others interact that you fail to see that you are becoming an implicit authoritarian, always insisting others conform to your standards when nobody wants to and your arguments for others becoming slaves to words have failed for years. You get an F for communication in my book, so I typically don't engage you because of this. There is something elitist in your approach that is also fearful of rejection, the more someone is interested, the more elitist and smug you allow yourself to become. I've seen it a thousand times, but usually not based in trying to outright make the English language operate as correct as fascist makes trains run on time.

You must be new here.

So you just got introduced to Emile, the infamous authoritarian pusher of WALLS of po-mo word salad, that are most often auto-generated with a program known as the Dada Engine, when not out of his self-masturbatory ego inflations that probably happen wehn he didn't took his psychotic pills.

To that regard and in a more back-to-Earth consideration, I advice ANYONE against taking med pills against any sort of mental condition, especially related to depression, schizophrenia, concentration issues and PTSD. These things fuck up your brain for a long time, and require a long period of recovery that may or may not be successful. There are good herbal and nutritional solutions for most of the socio-psychological/psychiatric issues people are suffering of these days. And there's also friendship that seem to help.

Aww, you two got so personal!

What other people are you both closed off to, or exagerate?

Po-mo and Dada are one in the same? Can you explain to me how those things are the same or different from non-dualism? Can you explain non-dualism to me in a better way?

i was commenting on your point of view which matters to me [why shouldn't it? it is presumably shaping your behaviour which is conditioning the dynamics of our shared living space which is at the same time conditioning all of our dynamics]. thus, mexicans, like iraqis, syrians and afghanis, are interested in the point of view of americans for good reason [regardless of whether they agree or disagree].

the popular stance of not being interested in the point of view of others is characteristic of colonialism and capitalist society; e.g. it is the attitude of Euro-American colonizers relative to indigenous peoples. this stance goes hand-in-hand with the religious/scientific model of humans as independent beings that live in an absolute space and absolute time measurement/reference frame.

emile's comments are directed to this problem, rather than to you personally [people tend to change their views], and the comments are shared in the same sense as Heraclitus;

"listening not to me but to your own intuition, it is wise to agree that all things are one" [the world as a transforming relational continuum]


In related news from Canada, Common Cause just decided to end.

Fuck yeah! Those peeps were way cultish and weird online. I can only wonder how they acted in real life.

In real life, I've known a few, and I generally like 'em. Also, their journal of theory was pretty deece, albeit the thing's not necessarily gonna be to everyone's taste.

Important to note: though they started off as an "anarchist federation"-style thing, in largely the same sense as other groups that people are probably more or less familiar with (in real life or online), that's not really what they were these last few years. I would call it a more formalized affinity group, probably.

I am not sure I would have ever wanted to have been a member, and no doubt some weird history, but definitely a cut above basically all other formal anarchist "mass organizing" organizations I am aware of on this continent.

So if I was going to suggest an anarchist federation in today's world, it would have to be modeled after a website, annual conventions, an official online newspaper focused on what the anarchist locals were doing, both as individuals and groups, encourage local theory papers be shared on the website to encourage discussion of issues and if they are shared.

Attending local protests, reading local newspapers, regular local walking and observation, put posters up in an attempt to hit veins of dissidence and encourage them to activate in anti-mass and mass activities. Encourage a prison support structure that unites and strengthens anarchists and allies in prison instead of (only?) dumping money on lawyers and legal fees.

Basically not "synthesis" but make some principled beginnings and remain open to any type of anarchist joining based on those principles. Synthesis implies still some sort of concept that ideology should play a role in defining what the federation does, when really it is ideas and subjective/experimental principles. The federation is entered with the knowledge it is a temporary association that can dissolve and reform into other forms, that encourages organic associations between individuals within locals and between locals, as individuals and as group. The federation benefits from a looseness like a network, but unlike a network, through its annual conventions, the groups can influence the direction of the whole, which can amplify a tactic, a theme, a medium, a strategy, a style, an approach, etc. While this convention style probably would be best as a loose consensus, this doesn't stop and in fact encourages the locals to build their own networks through the conventions without formal structure, unless the federation ultimately decided that was the direction to go.

The problem with most federations is they are based on the era of structuralist mass, the heights of which was World War 2 on all levels, but has been in decline ever since. While Europe, without a fear of Marxism, has advanced how mass and anti-mass struggles are engaged, America has continued to be so defeated in one way or another, most places have to continually remake the wheel up until the anarchist cohesion that pretty much started with the first wave breaking based on the subject of this topic. The federation style most platformists and others have created tends to be looser than what their critics give them credit for. They fail to achieve mass, the workplaces they focus on are skilled, NGOs, worker coops and other areas that don't seem to be where radicalism at the workplace can achieve situations of uncompromising direct action. This is where the insurrectionary tradition steps in, but it too is more based on European late 20th century models.

So for a federation to work in America, it isn't about making those little connections first, then doing a big thing. A big thing can be done, but it must employ 21st century methods. There is a lot of hang up on decision making, but I've found that all methods of decision making aren't the problem with anarchists. The problem is the attempt to impose moral or ideological values on others, mimicking the left and its culture, allowing the view that oppression validates low class to low class conflict, pretty much a tribalism based on federalism more than anarchism and micro-authoritarianism justified because of wrong thinking. Now that most people have given up on ideas and have settled on identities determining struggle, there no longer is a need to argue, only conform or be condemned. While many patriarchal, right wing sympathizers and neo-nazis in leftist clothing might get exposed, it often ignores the authoritarian premises, often using the structure or lack of to allow an anarchist to justify such things, when really an anarchist measure of the problems should be based on what we are doing, our ideas and how to include as many as we can without compromising basic, shared principles. Am I saying allow right wingers in? No. I'm questioning the left wingers being allowed to dominate how things are handled and if how we make decisions should parrot the most authoritarian aspects of today's left cultures. Anarchists may not be a middle between left and right, but they are historically able to gravitate in the various social castes, not just those occupied by the left.

Cor some brevity please! Briefly, anarchism can never be federated because unity is authoritarianism in its simplest form, yup, got it.

Organization that is reflective of those wanting to federate around basic principles, general tactical agreement and a desire to work and coordinate collectively is positive.

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.
Enter the code without spaces.