Topic of the Week: Struggle
The concept of constant struggle holds strong as definitive measure among a range of anarchists. We may be struggling against our preexisting conditions--or the level at which we are at odds with what we oppose as anarchists, or intentionally confronting or attacking our opposition in a direct drive towards a intensified state of struggle. This isn't intended to present a binary either, as of course there can be a range of ways we may attack our enemies that make sense in our situation.
How broad or specific is our so-called situation, or level of struggle that we as anarchists are either forced to or should be compelled to engage with?
How do our goals shape or define our tactics? What consideration is placed on overarching strategy when considering our tactics or praxis? How does the concept of direct action shape our praxis? In a time of Trump (and beyond), how do we assert and employ ourselves as anarchists when so much value is placed on mediated or representative (i.e. indirect) forms of action? How do critiques of activism relate to our notion of struggle or anarchist praxis? How do we gauge the value or efficiency of actions or tactics? When is it important to take action without taking things such as strategy or utility into consideration, and what drives alternative impetus' to action? Have you ever been driven to action simply out of pressure to act (in the name of intensifying struggle or otherwise)?
Is there value in the notion of an overarching, progressing and/or accumulative force of anarchist struggle? How does struggle in this sense relate to the concept of movement-building? How do theories or tendencies such as insurrectionary or social anarchism inform our notion of struggle?
What are forms of anarchist praxis that exist outside of the notion of the struggle that you find valuable? What should be taken or left from the concept or tendency to be involved in the struggle?