resist

The sad treatment of the topic of hostility from various folks, and a friend's question about definitions of anarchist, and an old @101.org question of whether anarchy could exist without the/a state, brings me to this question, which could be simplistic or complicated, depending on where y'all want to go. Below are various routes into this topic, pick the one(s) that interest you most. 

What is a non-reactive definition of anarchy? 
Is there a way to be anarchist in the world that is not about resistance?
How does resistance (at least as commonly understood) feed what it's resisting?
How can/do buddhism and anarchist thought work together (not how are they the same, but how can they  [or can they?] complement each other)?

I read somewhere ages ago that indigenous turtle island folks believed that paying attention to something (either for or against) makes it stronger, which aligns with my understanding. (don't be distracted by the pan-indian nature of the memory, gods dammit.) How does that jibe with most anarchist behavior (not to mention yours) in the world?

Note: any references to nietzsche must come with page numbers and titles or will be aggressively removed.


Want to submit your own TOTW? Use our fancy new form here!

Comments

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 12:23

Written by ADHD. Holy shit this topic is all over the place.

Real quick though: anarchy is a NEGATIVE philosophy. It's a NEGATION of the existent. That's it. For all your other random kitchen-sink questions about Buddhism or pan-indian Island source citing name dropping, etc, etc, etc.. maybe visit the anarchist library. Wow.

Don't be so butthurt about "the sad treatment of the topic of hostility". It deserved the.. hostility, "y'all". As does this one.

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 13:13

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The words reactive and reaction have many different meanings in various different contexts. I appreciate that the TOTW author left their questions somewhat ambiguous in regards to which contexts they were alluding, because there's a lot in this TOTW. Perhaps more than one can chew in one bite, so allow me some rumination.

Given the milieu Anews is situated within, and current events in the States, one might presume this TOTW to be concerned with that, in bulk. (Ironically responding in such a way is immediately engaging in reactive discourse, which is a good segue into the heuristics of reactive-ness that I may pick up on later.) Nevertheless in America, anarchists are suddenly very hard to distinguish from liberals and patriots, because the Left has shifted once again into opposition mode.

Broaching the questions posed above indeed requires the preliminary establishment of the definitions of a whole range of terms and concepts which are incredibly complex, and the whole project likely requires imagining some new concepts as well. First and foremost, "what is anarchy?" You could spend a lifetime on this question alone. Again, while I really appreciate the scope of what can be responded to in these questions, and other folks will have exciting approaches of their own—where does one jump in?

There are probably many non-reactive definitions of anarchy; for me it's sonething utterly separate from anarchism/Leftism. It's just a physical fact or state of things. It's chaos. This provides a non-reactive vision of the anarchist as well, activism aside. The one who interacts with or merely even observes or experiences chaos/anarchy is a type of anarchist in the same way traumatic events often generate victims and survivors and many in-betweens.

Jumping ahead, the TOTW also asks is there a way to be anarchist without resistance? Disregarding solipsism in this consideration altogether, perhaps there might be. But we also live in an atrocious, global, capitalist society that makes that non-resistance itself an act of resistance or opposition.

Hopefully these thoughts help to hash out the beginning of our discussion in the comments here. There's a lot of accelerant for an interesting and far-implicating convo. I'd like to add one provocation despite our already bloated table: the relationship of these questions to sacrifice/self-sacrifice, heroism vs. ascesis/hermitage/withdrawal, tragedy vs. comedy, etc. Don't we all have to resist dying? Won't we all eventually fail? What things are worth resisting to the death, if anything?

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 16:11

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"anarchy is a NEGATIVE philosophy. It's a NEGATION of the existent. That's it. "

Orly? First time I'm reading that.

The etymology of "an-" related to an absence, not a negation.

Furthemore you just shoehorned the concept of the Existent here. Not that it doesn't make sense, but it's a rather arbitrary definition where "archy" or "archies" relates to some sort of authority or governance, or political dynamics where power is consolidated around a party or actor within a hierarchy of exclusion to power. The Existent is a much, much broader concept that is not inherently about power dynamics.

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 19:22

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Put down the drink, lumpy. You've been around long enough and know enough about black anarchy to know these basics. You're also not that silly of a goose to think that your river analogy is relevant here (it's not). Perhaps, however, this is fake lumpy in which case... CRINGE!, as the kids say.

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 11:28

In reply to by anon (not verified)

yes, i've been around and i simply don't agree. if you (or anybody) want to try and declare some sort of anarchist ontology, you must fight the rest of us. that's how it has always been and it's one of the strengths of the anarchist position

if you want to try and sell snake oil off the back of your jank-ass nihilist wagon, pretend like the argument is settled, you will be called the huckster that you are. and i fuck with nihilism plenty! i like it! i use it every day, brush my teeth with it, etc

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 12:05

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Anarchy is defined by what it is 'without,' by the literal negation of it. It is a negation of 'archia'. This is not up for your disagreement or interpretation. Because words, maaannn!

Also, I simply don't agree with you that "you must fight the rest of us. that's how it has always been and it's one of the strengths of the anarchist position". Anarchists are not monolithic and there are plenty of anarchists that see that the 'nihilist wagon' is the way off the highly regimented and restrictive tracks of the ye olde world anarchism train that actually goes nowhere. We simply don't give a fuck enough about what others think anarchy must be enough to 'fight' you over it. Capisce?

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 13:22

In reply to by anon (not verified)

heh! not telling you what you have to do, meant more like if you want the argument to be settled (which it never will be) in a meaningful way, rather than just declaring ultimate truth like a pedantic jackass

but of course, you can do whatever you like, we're all supposed to be anarchists here :)

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 14:42

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Say what you will about "ye old world @", but at least, back then, it was a legit powerful force to be reckoned with on a global scale.

Now tho? Its kind've a joke. Tell me, what improvements have been made by reducing anarchy to a bunch of Big Lebowski extras smoking clove cigarettes?

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 14:55

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Oh I must have missed the part where ye olde world @s won and or made things sO much better, you pathetic reformist.

Additionally, your referencing the Big Lebowski for present day anarchist-nihilists speaks volumes about how out of touch you are. But go off I guess?

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 15:02

In reply to by anon (not verified)

well i mean they're clearly doing a mean-spirited mischaracterization so does it have to be "in touch"? probably just outs them as old enough for that movie to seem relevant, whatever, i thought it was cheap but funny

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 19:15

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Orly? First time I'm reading that. "

No shit? I NEVER would have guessed you're a complete and total unread, yet highly opinionated nonetheless, noob.

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 09:08

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Negating teh Existent" is so dumb. Its just marketing for angsty edgelord teenagers who listen to The Cure, or something. It sounds cool I guess, but when you think about it for more than 2 seconds, it falls apart. Trees "exist", indigenous people "exist", the sun "exists", rivers "exist", trans people "exist", etc. All these and more are part of existence/The Existent, so wtf?

Again. It's just really really dumb.

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 09:16

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Tell us you don't understand the concept of 'the existent' as anarchists use it without explicitly saying it. LULZ

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 09:58

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I'm saying that "the way anarchists use it" is retarded and edgy for no reason. I think it's just a branding/marketing tactic to make your stale and boring leftist politics look cooler and edgier than they really are.

Similar to the Australian "Camp Anarchy" people who organize on Facebook. They should really just call it "Camp Socialism", because thats what these lame people-managers really are, but it doesn't sound as "cool" as anarchy.

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 09:41

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Existent" doesn't equate to existence or anything existing. Tho there's not really a direct relationship to "archy"... Here we got yet again a charade between two people getting things wrong.

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 10:30

In reply to by anon (not verified)

So, tell us about your relationship with Sartre. Tell us more than your vEry profound seething assertion above attempts to provoke. While you're at it tell us all about how things must remain frozen in time exactly as they were whence they first manifested. We'll wait.

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 10:54

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I dunno! Like I ain't the one who's tryin to provoke with sassy-ass shallow ASSERTIONS like "anarchy = Negation of the Existent, because reasons!". My statement about "anarchy" meaning "an-" and "anarchy" is rather unprovocative and obvious. It's etymology!!!

"Archy" does it refer to "the Existent"? Not so sure about that. First off, there ain't really a Greek equivalent to "Existent" beyond the "ontos", or maybe rather the "nomos". So why is anarchy not being called "anomie"? Coz that's not an anomie, brow. Even if, yes, there's an ontological relationship to be seen here.

Cane Nero (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 09:14

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Different dog here to help out an unread, yet smug, noob.
There are deep roots to this that grew from Galleani through many of the Italian anarchists that became known as the insurrectionary anarchists.
Aragorn! wrote and talked about it (perhaps in Attentat and/or one of the noob series pamphlets, but certainly in conversation and possibly on one of his blogs). I'm also fairly certain this is discussed around in "Enemies" as well. Certainly Alfredo Cospito and the other various essays and communiques by other FAI and CCF--Italian and Greek comrades.
Of course you're going to stomp your feet and endlessly complain that the exact phrase as paraphrased by anon above doesn't match your search engine queries but that's the great thing about reading and critical thinking: you can fill in the blanks.
Now go chop some cops and capitalists. Hurry, comrade!

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 09:54

In reply to by Cane Nero (not verified)

All you did was drop a bunch of names without saying what they even mean by the concept. I suspect because the concept is so vacuous and convoluted, or because, again, its just a kewl buzzword catchphrase thats meant to just be parroted rather than an actually well grounded and thought out concept. Also just because so and so uses this or that, doesn't mean it's useful, or makes any sense. I get that they probably just mean it as something interchangeable with, "The Way Things Are", but it's still not a very useful word, because from an outside perspective looking in, it would just look like angsty teenager, "mad at mom and dad" bs.

Cane Nero (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 11:37

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I sincerely encourage you to read some of those "bunch of names" and see what they are saying regarding the concept of anarchy being a negation, if you're actually interested. Part of being an anarchist often involves doing things yourself and not requiring others feed it to you pre-chewed--please don't ask me to provide a quote on that and then get upset when it's not exactly saying "part of being an anarchist often involves doing things yourself and not requiring others feed it to you pre-chewed"... Understand?

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 14:36

In reply to by Cane Nero (not verified)

That's right, it does involve doing things yourself. So did you do your own thinking and come up with this on your own or did you rely on anarchist intelligentsia to pre-chew your stupid concepts that you're thoughtlessly regurgitating like it's gospel? Idgaf what they have to say, honestly. I think it's a silly and confusing term that isn't actually saying anything new when you strip away it's pretentious veneer, it's just a soulless rebrand. The fact that you're unable to defend this concept on your own terms, with your own words, and have to point to these other thinkers, and have them do the arguing for you, just betrays the irony of supposedly "doing things yourself".

I explained why the term is dumb, and instead of defending it yourself, you want "daddy bonanno" to defend it for you.

You should practice what you preach. Understand?

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 14:51

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Bro, you asked and were answered. It's not their fault you didn't like the answer or that it chaffed your smooth brain meat. Do you even read the things you write? At least lumpy had the sense to merely disagree with them. Like little baby you are. Change poopie diapey.

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 07:37

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Power is a relationship, Bakunin dimwit. The "shoemaker" has a level of power for as long as they can claim expertise in the craft. Same for the police being given power to surveil, harass and repress, but only by the courts and politicians but indirectly by public workers and to an extent the citizenry in so accepting the police's monopoly. That's because they claim an authority, through expertise as well as possessing the means to exert such repressive power.

Tho Bakunin the antisemite seems to have cautiously kept more problematic "trades", like the police, from his theories.

lumpy (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 08:12

In reply to by anon (not verified)

all true but i personally don't think it was being avoided, more like the skilled craftsperson has a simple, functional relationship to others that fits neatly in to the worldview and seems to prove that expertise can be separated out from the uglier power dynamics. i make a thing real good and you want it, use it, can't make it yourself so we cut a deal, not necessarily any problem there

talking about how a hypothetical "utopian" community would relate to their skilled fighters and the use of violence is just waaay messier and more difficult haha

YourWholeAss (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 09:35

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Power is a relationship"

Orly? First time I'm reading that.

The etymology of "power" related to an ability, not a relationship.

Furthemore you just shoehorned the concept of the Relationship here. Not that it doesn't make sense, but it's a rather arbitrary definition where "pouair" or "potere" relates to some sort of relation or alliance, or kindred dynamics where power is consolidated around a party or actor within a hierarchy of exclusion to power. The Relationship is a much, much broader concept that is not inherently about power dynamics.

*Flaps arms vigorously*

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 14:11

In reply to by YourWholeAss (not verified)

"The etymology of "power" related to an ability, not a relationship."

"Power dynamics" got little to do with capacity or ability. Its authoritarian form a relationship, in how it's about making others bend to your will, not question your authority and stay in line. Power is the successful exertion of authority over yourself or others. There is having things within your capacity, of being able to do, that is, yes, one definition of power. That other definition, tho, is relational.

You have power over your kids... a governement has power over a cuntry... a techbro has power over CHUDs minds... all this has to do with a level of capacity, yet it concerns a relational dynamic. It's the capacity to *control* others, but inherently it is relational.

The relationship is exactly about power dynamics. We're not talking about a power plant here... but about people acting and thinking under the influence, or sometimes coercion, of some authority; hence giving it POWER. If I say and people follow, that's power.

"Orly? First time I'm reading that."

No it's not. Unless you don't read that much.

From Merriam Webster:

"a
: possession of control, authority, or influence over others
b
: one having such power
specifically : a sovereign state
c
: a controlling group : establishment
—often used in the phrase the powers that be"

But mildly amusing trolling attempt. Keep it up!

anon (not verified) Thu, 03/06/2025 - 04:55

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Using the term "etymology" implies a certain condescension and privilege, of an assumed cerebral superiority and the authority by judgement and virtue signalling, therefore a fallacy.

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 10:01

In reply to by anon (not verified)

no one here has read foucault? or is his insight not allowed any more for some reason?

power exists everywhere, within everyone. the problem is when and where it becomes reified/stagnant/dammed up. 

authority can be an agreement entered into because while i CAN make shoes, i'd rather do something else, especially if you make shoes better than i do.

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 16:55

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Silly grasshopper, it is not negative, my anarchist gf told me that the pursuit of procreation is a daily positive creative act. Reich said you have to get laid to dispell all negative hostility lurking in your loins.

anon (not verified) Wed, 03/05/2025 - 09:16

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Anarchism is a negative philosophy? Okay who gives a fuck why would you put effort into keeping it that way. Whenever anarchists talk about negating something in the present circumstances it involves employing an alternative 99% of the time. Let's be transparent at least, no?

EmmaAintDead Wed, 03/05/2025 - 14:40

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I dont accept that as true at all. negation of the police doesnt mean an alternative police. negation of the state does not mean an alternative state. more abstractly, negation of identity, race, gender, etc sure is an uphill battle but the clear and defined end goal is not an alternative identity, race, gender, OR etc. 

anon (not verified) Wed, 03/05/2025 - 17:28

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

Negation of the police necessarily means the presence of a social order where people don't go apeshit absent the threat of centralized violence. Sure, whatever arises from spontaneous order MIGHT be an answer here, but it's a positive proposition nonetheless. Similar things apply to gender, race, etc.

Cane Nero (not verified) Wed, 03/05/2025 - 19:34

In reply to by anon (not verified)

No. What anarchist-nihilists offer is an entirely negative proposition. It is not an offering of an alternative. It is a joyful commitment to the complete negation of the existent. That's it.

We know that only through negation and the total destruction of the existent will it be possible to even consider building something new.

TL;DR: There is no need to know what’s happening tomorrow, to destroy a today that makes you bleed.

EmmaAintDead Wed, 03/05/2025 - 20:06

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Youre making two big assumptions, first being that the police in any way prevent apeshittery, and second that going apeshit is undesirable to anarchists. 

 

Anyway, negation of policing does not necessitate a new social order of posi vibez or whatever. violence exists with or without the state directing it through armed bureaucracy. if whats left atr is the violence of tornados and earthquakes and tsunamis and wolves and fire and man in our much much smaller than the state capacities, i would wager the whole anarchist project could more or less grab its hat and coat and let out a satisfied "welp!" on its way out the door. apeshit is the underlying condition of all things. nobody i know has designs on curing it. thats a job for statecraft, building higher and higher walls to keep the barbarians at bay. 

 

 

anon (not verified) Thu, 03/06/2025 - 02:36

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

Going apeshit is more or less an example rather than an astute observation of what the police force actually does, but yes, having widespread strategies among human communities enabling those within them to coexist in relative peace and prosperity absent power relations is the point; "government is civil war." As far as I'm aware, this is a positive proposition, not a negative one. Anything else is quite frankly the edgelord wing of the voluntary human extinction movement, in my view

anon (not verified) Thu, 03/06/2025 - 07:45

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

"apeshit is the underlying condition of all things."

Really? Have you spent even a minute looking, watching, noticing the entire world around you?

Not to mention — there is no underlying condition of all things.

EmmaAintDead Thu, 03/06/2025 - 08:24

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Have you spent even a minute looking, watching, noticing the entire world around you?" 

 

Yes. it is pretty brutal. that isnt a value judgement, it is a plain observation many before me have made. chaos isnt an abstract anymore when you leave the city's boundaries. apeshit, in fact, abounds. 

anon (not verified) Thu, 03/06/2025 - 10:14

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

every judgement and observation is a valorization

our consciousness taints everything except the most basic sensory stimuli (which are themselves hindered by a whole host of other phenomenon), and your "observations" ain't that, e.a.d.

EmmaAintDead Thu, 03/06/2025 - 14:19

In reply to by anon (not verified)

That and the other things. that coyotes eat rabbits. that a stray tide is all it takes to wipe out a whole generation of life. that the earth opens and belches molten rock that swallows forests whole. that fungus exists. that paralyzing venoms are a feature of creatures present on nearly all land. that planets are consumed by stars. That ferns grow where bodies fall. that man kills for pleasure when need is met. 

 

The world is full of blastbeats and caveman riffs, my dude. apeshit is ho-hum.

anon (not verified) Thu, 03/06/2025 - 17:02

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

with all due respect, EAD, it seems like you are upset at life. the only apeshit act you list is that man (sic) kills for pleasure, otherwise all that you list (and more) is just life in a body. i am afraid there is no remedy for that.

EmmaAintDead Thu, 03/06/2025 - 18:25

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I am not upset whatsover. i am saying that man's violence is unique only because of our use of the state to carry it out so massively and without that apparatus any "apeshit" behavior is pretty much on par with the world in general. In the presence or absence of the police, violence exists. they do not prevent it. same for the state. 

 

My point being, going all the way back upthread, whether or not people go "apeshit" because there arent police around is not a concern of mine or the anarchists i am surrounded by. the elimination of the scale and direction of violence is. i think the urge to massively control for this on a social scale is out of line with my own desires and i would hope it would be out of line with broader anarchist desires. the negation of policing does not necessitate an alternative, and i would certainly oppose any presented to me. 

 

anon (not verified) Thu, 03/06/2025 - 10:50

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

There is nothing very odd about lambs disliking birds of prey, but this is no reason for holding it against large birds of prey that they carry off lambs. And when the lambs whisper among themselves, 'These birds of prey are evil, and does this not give us a right to say that whatever of the opposite of a bird of prey must be good?', there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such an argument - though the birds of prey will look somewhat quizzically and say, 'Wehave nothing against these good lambs; in fact, we love them; nothing tastes better than a tender lamb.‘- It is just as absurd to ask strength not to express itself as strength, not to be a desire to overthrow, crush, become master, to be a thirst for enemies, resistance and triumphs, as it is to ask weakness to express itself as strength.

FN
GM, Essay 1, Section 13, pgs 25-26

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 12:53

The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment" itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge. While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed. This inversion of the value-positing eye-this need to direct one's view outward instead of back to oneself-is of the essence of ressentiment: in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all-its action is fundamentally reaction.

Genealogy of Morals
Essay 1 Section 10 pg36-37

23:32 (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 13:21

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Of course, ressentiment is founded on an enslaved externalized perception of the cause of one's condition/being and the resultant frustrated disdain directed towards an imaginary enemy/rival. Succinct what? ;)

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 13:23

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Do the peeps who always love this quote think slave revolt is a bad thing? Are they equating it with proletarian revolution? Don't we want slave revolts to begin?

Nietzsche's critique here is only valid anachronistically, and even then he still acknowledges the necessity of slave revolt in the process of the creation of new values or societies or gods, a point that almost always seems totally neglected by the folks that love this quote. Without giving any pity, in other words in the interest of the teleogy of agonism.

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 13:38

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Can the moderators hold folks with bad faith critique of Nietzsche to the same standard of proper citation? This retort has zero to do with the quote or its relation to the TOTW aside from illuminating the poster’s lack of familiarity with Nietzsche beyond comment section bickering.

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 13:49

In reply to by anon (not verified)

It's not bad faith solely because you find the statement disagreeable. Furthermore, the eternal "good faith/bad faith" complaint, while often valid, is more and more being used to route and deny. Your intellectual safety may be important to you but it's not an argument and seems like an impotent response. If it's so bad faith than surely it'd be easier to debunk the complain then endlessly complain without anything but ad hominem justification.

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 21:33

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Always found it self-contradictory that some people seem to be needing the moral approval from some rather messed up Euro philosopher from the 19th century for when they revolt. Is Nietzsche the gatekeeper of any slave or worker revolt? That'd be slave morality in itself!

Also what is slave morality... to be accepting the conditions of enslavement being enforced, as a king of unavoidavle condition, or a condition of nature.

Not that I don't agree with Nietzsche's views, but I shouldn't giving a fuck about his approval when I feel oppressed or alienated from conditions that I need! Those who revolt do because they refuse to submit; they bow to none, and in such, they basically are not slaves but freemen.

And for sure the übermensch's approach to life is about self-affirmation; that's what every autonomous being does. It's generally wasteful to be living in ressentiment, tho it's easier for the dispossed to make that mistake, as they're surrounded by more upscale people only caring about their person's and their family's capital... that they acquired usually through privilege. Amor Fati is much, much harder in here than when being some bourgie Artiste with a few PhDs... just saying, Freddy.

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 23:56

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I wish he was more nuanced with his words, like, he should have instead said " What doesn't kill you makes you more intelligent "
Because all the tough alpha male patriarchal sexists latch onto the ,,,,,makes you stronger ,,,,expression.

anon (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 13:48

What's this obsession (adhd?) with Buddhism, a cosmology concocted by a smug elitist aristocratic priesthood to keep their peasant serfs grinding away on a cyclic eschatological fallacy!? That's a far-cry from any anarch-esque existentialist idea I've ever encountered.

lumpy (not verified) Sun, 03/02/2025 - 17:26

Q: Is there a way to be anarchist in the world that is not about resistance?

A: Sure but it wouldn't look like much because existing in whatever way you choose, mostly free of arbitrary constraints imposed on you by other humans (where you couldn't just leave), has many names and few enemies to define it. it's just 98% of the existence of our species, in all it's forms

Q: How does resistance (at least as commonly understood) feed what it's resisting?

A: in the sense that the ghouls of the panopticon security state just love to conduct sacrificial scapegoat rituals to justify their budgets and get more blank cheques for later.

there's an inherent thing to being a hired thug, where when nothing much happens for awhile, people start to get bitter about having to pay you for just standing around with your jackboots up your own ass. therefore, it incentivizes you finding reasons and usually, the already marginalized folks will do just fine! and if there isn't anyone like that, you make some goats! dress somebody in a goat costume! whatever! give the shitty reactionaries somebody to hate! they barely need a reason, it barely has to make any sense, it's all about vibes! make wild claims about how game developers are marxists because they don't hate trans people and weren't even talking about trans people! doesn't matter! dunning kruger! etc

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 20:24

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

"it wouldn't look like much "

Interesting words. But from which POV?

How about anarchists just living for themselves, and being defined as such because they are?

This can include resistance to the Existent, but depending on the situation, it may also be a way of being in the world, and with yourself. Not saying this is how I live, as I can be consider a gigantic loser... but even at that, who am I losing to, and according to what game?

What if the best way to be an actual loser is about deserting yourself for a bunch of externalities (i.e. alienation), like impersonal aspirations and positions that got nothing to do with your personal lived experience?

What if I live *for* myself, in respect of myself and cultivate my personal autonomy and dignity... just like I do with friends and other relatives? That sounds like a solid, decisive imperative for anarchy.

anon (not verified) Mon, 03/03/2025 - 10:11

The enemy of the black is not the white. The enemy of capitalist is not communist, the enemy of homosexual is not heterosexual, the enemy of Jew is not Arab, the enemy of youth is not the old, the enemy of hip is not redneck, the enemy of Chicano is not gringo and the enemy of women is not men. We all have the same enemy. The enemy is the tyranny of the dull mind. The enemy is every expert who practices technocratic manipulation, the enemy is every proponent of standardization and the enemy is every victim who is so dull and lazy and weak as to allow himself to be manipulated and standardized.

- A Guy With A Moustache Who Isn’t Nietzsche

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 08:48

In reply to by anon (not verified)

In a realm not so distant, where pixels danced like joyous phantoms and thoughts collided like thunderclouds, there existed an internet discussion forum known as “The Agora of Wisdom.” It was a sanctuary of erudition, where seekers of truth gathered to exchange ideas with the fervor of philosophers at the gates of Athens. Yet, in the dim corners of this digital temple, shadows lurked—those sly, insidious beings known to the unwary as trolls.

The trolls, in the dimmers of their underworld, were satisfied but not content, for their existence was defined by a relentless struggle against the light of genuine discourse. With twisted grins and minds more agile than the serpents of prophecy, they danced about the fringes of reason, crafting bait with the finesse of the finest of artisans. Their initial forays into The Agora were crude and clumsy, like a newborn fawn teetering on uncertain legs.

“Verily,” they would screech with heavenly glee beneath their layers of anonymity, “what foolishness lay here! Come, esteemed sages, let us debate the color of the sky, and thus plunge each other into the labyrinth of absurdity!” And the righteous citizens of The Agora, perplexed and bemused, would engage, believing they were enlightening the souls of lost travelers.

But lo! Over the years, as the sun rose and set in the digital firmament, the trolls found not just solace in their anonymity, but like Prometheus unbound, they tasted ambrosia. With every keystroke, with every absurd diatribe, they refined their technique until, like a fine wine, each post dripped with a sinister sophistication. They donned the veneer of reason—each argument laced with clever wit, each jibe drenched in irony.

And those who once stood vigilant against these mischief-makers grew weary. For who could detect the hand of a troll when it cloaked itself in the raiment of academia? Who could spot the dagger that delivered sharp repartee while appearing to craft a thoughtful critique? With each passing day, the trolls blended, slipped, and frolicked through the threads of discourse.

Now, behold the tensions that brewed, for the citizens of The Agora began to feel the bloom of resentiment. Once proud threads, bound by spirited debate, withered into barren landscapes of unending squabbles. “Why do they invite this clash of wit?” they lamented. “Why, O Fate, must I exchange barbs with these buffoons?” And yet, they could not resist the lure to engage, to uphold their dignity in the face of mounting absurdity.

In corners dim and shadows thick, the trolls planted seeds of division, coaxing the scholars of reason to draw swords against each other. “Your logic is as faulty as a clock without hands!” cried one sage, his digital vitriol puncturing the ether. “And your ideals smell of mummified cats!” retorted another, both blinded by the luminous glare of their own righteousness. The forums devolved from spirited exchanges to tragicomic parodies—much akin to the satyr plays of old, where wisdom treaded the boards only to trip upon its own ego.

As the decade wore on, the trolls morphed like chameleons, donning the badges of expertise while still wielding their capriciousness like a rapier. They engaged in debates not as fools but as cunning strategists, injecting doubts like poison into the wellspring of reasoned thought, gnawing at the very roots of dialetic prowess.

“Ah! But what’s this,” cried one troll, playing the part of the critic. “Your argument hinges not on fact but on the fragile delicacy of your own delusions! I wager you feel a tug of despair as I twirl this sentiment with my master’s touch!” The citizens, now caught in an endless cycle of attempting to outwit the trolling masterminds, found themselves locked in a grotesque ballet—each pirouetting away from the truth in a desperate, comedic attempt to regain their footing.

But lo and behold, the trolls did not feast only on the defeating of wisdom; they gorged themselves on the sweet nectar of human folly. The digital players, ever eager to exhibit their superiority, crafted self-images that teetered on the brink of hubris, caught in a web spun with threads of their own creation.

Yet, amidst the silliness and chaos, a wisdom emerged—a species of wisdom lost in the fray, for the true jest lay in the folly itself. “What is this but the grand theater of existence?” bellowed one sage, observing the fracas. “Are we not the jesters in our own tragedy, while these trolls are merely the reflections of our appetites for conflict? If I cast my disdain upon their antics, do I not merely amplify their echo?”

Thus, as the trolls continued their merry invasion, the citizens of The Agora grew to embrace the absurdity. They laughed more loudly than they argued, for in humor, much like a light piercing through darkened skies, they found their strength anew. The trolls, now joined in the comedic tapestry of existence, revealed the profundity of this tragicomic dance—a dance underscored by the rhythm of agonistic rivalry thrumming beneath.

And so, dear reader, if ever you find yourself lost in the comments of a forum—beware, both of the trolls and of your own heart. Embrace the folly, engage for the joy, and perhaps, along that pixelated path, you shall glimpse the laughter of gods hidden behind the reflections of your own reflection.

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 16:09

A serious question from a noob:- Why is anarchism so anthropocentric? Shouldn't it be inclusive of the biosphere, of all species of life like a cosmology?

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 18:49

In reply to by Cane Nero (not verified)

Noob here, hold on, isn't antispecies Catholic and fascist, or are you being sarcastic. Also, I think giving up meat and complex technology ( not romantic steam engines though, just luuUuuv the bluesy choof-choof sound) is a good survival strategy for ecological and ultimately global equity.
I think there's also something essential about autodidactism in finding ones own "anarchy" and avoiding authors as much as possible sets one on a good anarch course. (Oh yeah, luuUuuv old sail technology in ships for ocean travel)

Mx. Puffin (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 21:24

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"hold on, isn't antispecies Catholic and fascist, or are you being sarcastic"

No. Anti-speciesism isn't an organization. It is literally what it says. Anti-speciesists oppose speciesism like anti-racists oppose racism or anti-fascists oppose fascism.

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 21:47

In reply to by Mx. Puffin (not verified)

Oh right, I was taking you toOo literally, so yeah, specieism is like anthropocentricity, like they think they are the ONLY species to take seriously, stuff all the other species. Thanks for clearing that up.

anon (not verified) Wed, 03/05/2025 - 12:07

In reply to by anon (not verified)

But yes!

anon (not verified) Tue, 03/04/2025 - 21:10

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Cioran rescinded all of the cringe shit he said about fascists when he was a young incel the moment he got away from his incel bubble and moved to Paris and actually met people outside of his stupid incel bubble (you should try it!). Derrida was one of the greatest, world changing thinkers that the West has ever known. You call him a hack because you can't comprehend his genius. MM-P is dope too. But I'm sure you haven't actually read him either. Don't be a seething chud. It's unbecoming.

anon (not verified) Wed, 03/05/2025 - 08:52

why does anews continue with the totw?

it is the most useless part of an already weak anarchist project. the topics are infantile and ask mealy-mouthed nothing questions, and this one is no different.

but to try and play along, i don't see anarchy as only a project of negation (although there is no shortage of things to be "against" -- an over-simplistic and often reactionary way to view things). anarchy is also a project of unlimited and unrestricted creation.

that being said, i am completely and rabidly against anews' totw.

anon (not verified) Wed, 03/05/2025 - 14:41

In reply to by Didacto (not verified)

I WAS A SUICIDAL ANARCHO-AUTODIDACTIST ICECREAM MAN THAT READ CIORAN AND DERRIDA SO I CRASHED MY TRUCK A PLAYGROUND THAT HAD BEEN SPRAYED WITH URINE AND FECES!!! I NOW SPEND ALL DAY ON ANEWS IN PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH BORED ANARCHISTS THAT REMIND ME I EXIST EACH TIME THEY DELETE MY TROLL COMMENTS! AM I MKAY!??

anon (not verified) Wed, 03/05/2025 - 23:47

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Will thecollective delete this plagiarizing piece of shit troll! I originated THE SUICIDAL KAMIKAZE PILOT and SETHING RESSENTIMENT expressions!
I am a troll Master and deserve some DEAD GOD-DAMN RESPECT, MKAY!!

anon (not verified) Wed, 03/05/2025 - 19:41

Jacques Camatte kinda adds something to this discussion. He's no anarchist, but he's pretty darn close (imo closer than lots of people who call themselves anarchists). In Against Domestication he writes about the obsolete terrains of struggle (the street, the factory, etc), the necessity to affirm life/humanity & the pitfalls of fetishizing violence. Here's a few quotes:

"Revolution can no longer be taken to mean just the destruction of all that is old and conservative, because capital has accomplished this itself. Rather, it will appear as a return to something (a revolution in the mathematical sense of the term), a return to community, though not in any form which has existed previously. Revolution will make itself felt in the destruction of all that which is most “modern” and “progressive” (because science is capital). Another of its manifestations will involve the reappropriation of all those aspects and qualities of life which have still managed to affirm that which is human. In attempting to grasp what this tendency means, we cannot be aided by any of the old dualistic, manichean categories. (It is the same tendency which in the past had held back the valorization process in its movement towards a situation of complete autonomy.) If the triumph of communism is to bring about the creation of humanity, then it requires that this creation be possible, it must be a desire which has been there all the time, for centuries."

"(T)he groupscules of the left and extreme left, but not the anarchists, preach about the necessity of learning to kill because they think they can make death “rebound” on capital. But none of them (and this is particularly true of the most extreme elements) ever take into account the fact that they are suggesting the necessity of destroying human beings in order to accomplish this revolution. How can you celebrate a revolution with a rifle butt?

....

the following points should make the position clearer: firstly, all stereotypes and functions must be revealed for what they are — roles imposed on us by capital; secondly, we must reject the theory which postulates that all those individuals who defend capital should simply be destroyed; thirdly, we cannot make exceptions on the ground that certain people are not free, that it is “the system” which produces both cops and revolutionaries alike. If this were correct, the logical conclusion would be either a position of non-violence, or a situation where human beings become reduced to automatons which would then justify every kind of violence against them. If right from the outset certain people are denied all possibility of humanity, how can they subsequently be expected to emerge as real human beings? So it is as human beings that they must be confronted. Now though the majority of people think in terms of the radical solution provided by class society — i.e., repress your opponents — even in this form the revolution would assert itself according to its true nature, namely that it is human. When the conflict comes, as it inevitably will, there should be no attempt to reduce the various individuals who defend capital to the level of “bestial” or mechanical adversaries; they have to be put in the context of their humanity, for humanity is what they too know they are a part of and are potentially able to find again. In this sense the conflict takes on intellectual and spiritual dimensions. The representations which justify an individual person’s defence of capital must be revealed and demystified; people in this situation must become aware of contradiction, and doubts should arise in their minds."

"If we are to successfully abandon the old centres of struggle, it will require a simultaneous movement towards the creation of new modes of life. What’s the point of occupying the factories — like car factories for example — where production must be stopped anyway? The cry goes up: “Occupy the factories and manage them ourselves !” So all the prisoners of the system are supposed to take over their prisons and begin the self-management of their own imprisonment. A new social form is not founded on the old, and only rarely in the past do we find civilizations superimposed on one another. The bourgeoisie triumphed because it staged the battle on its own terrain, which is the cities. But in our present situation this can only be helpful to the emergence of communism which is neither a new society nor a new mode of production. Today humanity can launch its battle against capital not in the city, nor in the countryside, but outside of both:[17] hence the necessity for communist forms to appear which will be truly antagonistic to capital, and also rallying points for the forces of revolution."

Add new comment

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

Filtered HTML

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