TOTW: ALL V. ALL

DIE.

One narrative of Leviathan posits Anarchy –described as the war of all against all– birthed Society, described as a social contract, its Order enforced by the fear of a common power. This fabled cosmogony of the State traces the grassroots origins of all authoritarian structures. Partisans of Society have waged power-building campaigns under banners of Unity like “Join or Die.”, and mottos like “United we stand, divided we fall.”.

Populist strains of anarchism seek to mobilize a mass movement against the ruling class. Waging a crusade for the People’s Will, united under the Black Banner. Justice, their compass, an arrow pointing North. Onward on a high horse, jockey of the masses, shepherd of swine, leading its Legion off a cliff. Their motto “Anarchy is Order”: another Order in the shell of the old. Sea snakes molt often.

Anarchists of a more aristocratic, narcissistic, megalomaniacal disposition claim to be above the herd and its shepherds, exempt from its flaws. The arrogance of baseless egoists, vulgar nihilists who peddle their own Manichean slaver morality, and delirious individualists who consider themselves Above the Arch. Their compass points inward: Self-centered, self-affirming, self-satisfied.

Other anarchists, feeling inextricably implicated in the loathsome social dynamics they reject, turn pessimistic and misanthropic. Noting hierarchies are externalized abstractions of the intrinsicly political social relations. Execrating the entire pyramidal edifice of Society with indiscriminate force. Pressure, being inversely proportional to area, is greater at the top, becoming diffuse toward its base. Given its wide base of structural support, it would take incommensurate attacks to shake its foundations. At most, it can be made to tremble in terror. Being social animals, short of the disintegration of all individuals, however few remain will always gather. At a smaller scale, while one hierarchy may be toppled, many others recompose.

Society is inescapable. It cannot be improved, only endured. Lashing out against it does not hope to banish its odious aspects, but to make one’s suffering more bearable.

Recognizing these odious traits, within and without, does not beget repentance or chastisement, but an urge to be a scourge on Society, for catharsis. Wary that Law avenges each lash sevenfold, some temper their strikes to self-effacing incitements of dissent, discord, and disarray. A compromise that scratches the itch, but never fully satisfies. Anarchy is a tension. Society is never satiety.

Consider this (Society!) an open question that ends with a bang (!), prompting your dissent and horizontal hostility in the comments below.

Questions for discussion:

Do you believe in narratives that paint people as predisposed to a particularly harmonious, or bellicose, coexistence?

Do you favor narratives that paint anarchy as an alternative social contract which allows for a more harmonious coexistence, or do you lean into a reappropriation of anarchy as a war of all against all?

Where do you stand in the divide between pro-social and anti-social anarchists?

Do you see anarchy as a point of unity or the joy of division?

References:

Note: Incomplete examples, references, and comments listed for context. Some historical names were used as metonymy, in order to name and discuss general tropes. While the particulars inform the discussion, the intention is not a discussion of the particulars. Such is the construction of grand narratives and forced framings.

Leviathan is the name of a mythical sea serpent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan

It’s also a book by Hobbes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)

This narrative can be described as a transition from Bellum omnium contra omnes to Omnia sunt communia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum_omnium_contra_omnes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnia_sunt_communia

For further reading, “The Political Theory of Anarchism” by April Carter https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/april-carter-the-political-theor...

“Join, or Die.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join,_or_Die

“United we stand, divided we fall” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_we_stand,_divided_we_fall

“People's Will (Наро́дная во́ля)” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnaya_Volya

“The Black Banner (Черное Знамия)” p.20-34, from “Attentat” https://files.libcom.org/files/Attentat.pdf

“Above the Arch”, by Renzo Novatore, currently unobtainable https://contagionpress.com/pocketbooks/above-the-arch/
https://www.activedistributionshop.org/shop/books/4232-above-the-arch-by...

The provocation “slaver morality”, the implication being “will to power good, ressentiment bad”, is a simple inversion derived from a vulgar misreading of “slave morality”, and pretensions of overcoming it.

For further reading, “Anarchism and the politics of ressentiment” by Saul Newman https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-anarchism-and-the-po...

There are 41 Comments

According the section I'm about to paste, there are only left-anarchists, egoists/aristocratic anarchists, and eco-extremists:

"Populist strains of anarchism seek to mobilize a mass movement against the ruling class. Waging a crusade for the People’s Will, united under the Black Banner. Justice, their compass, an arrow pointing North. Onward on a high horse, jockey of the masses, shepherd of swine, leading its Legion off a cliff. Their motto “Anarchy is Order”: another Order in the shell of the old. Sea snakes molt often.

Anarchists of a more aristocratic, narcissistic, megalomaniacal disposition claim to be above the herd and its shepherds, exempt from its flaws. The arrogance of baseless egoists, vulgar nihilists who peddle their own Manichean slaver morality, and delirious individualists who consider themselves Above the Arch. Their compass points inward: Self-centered, self-affirming, self-satisfied.

Other anarchists, feeling inextricably implicated in the loathsome social dynamics they reject, turn pessimistic and misanthropic. Noting hierarchies are externalized abstractions of the intrinsicly political social relations. Execrating the entire pyramidal edifice of Society with indiscriminate force. Pressure, being inversely proportional to area, is greater at the top, becoming diffuse toward its base. Given its wide base of structural support, it would take incommensurate attacks to shake its foundations. At most, it can be made to tremble in terror. Being social animals, short of the disintegration of all individuals, however few remain will always gather. At a smaller scale, while one hierarchy may be toppled, many others recompose. "

The writing is quality, but aren't these conclusions still pretty freakin' ridiculous? People in the anarchist news comment section constantly try to shrug off each other using these prefabricated ideas, but how well does this describe your immediate existence? I don't think the leftists are really working towards a common goal, and I don't think the "aristocratic anarchists" are really as narcissistic and haughty as you make them out to be...I don't even know what to say about misanthropy as a form of anarchism, or if it's really a form of anarchism. To me, my misanthropy comes from long years of disappointments and personal betrayals related to actual people.

finally a good comment on anews. I agree the stereotyping is goofy

it doesn’t say these are the only kinds of anarchists and the last group isn’t eco-extremists

about "The Leviathan", "Do or die", "War", sorry but i can't let totally unclear writers off the hook, and i'm not going to assume that what i read on the internet is actually true.

The "right" was sarcastic btw, i wasn't validating what you are seeing in the article.

DIE

What do you think thecollective totw author meant by this?

i think it means if given the choice of joining forces to form a state, or die, they choose to die. death before conformity or compliance or something like that. seems they’d prefer "give me liberty, or give me death!" if we’re going with american slogans

SOCIETY!

I wonder, after all the shitting on other anarchists of all walks, where the "anonymous" author of this blog entry places themself?

Just kidding, the author is not even trying to hide who they are:

"... prompting your dissent and horizontal hostility in the comments below."

I see your hint. The uncredited author is none other than Master William Gillis. The smugness and ressentiment should have given it away even without the obvious peacocking quoted above.

Master Gillis, the author, is uncategorizable.
Everybody knows this.

Plot twist, William Gillis named their podcast "Horizontal Hostility" in reference to Aragorn! and most likely The Brilliant Podcast, but need to double check the notes for that last specific. I think Gillis mentions this on one of their first episodes or later somewhere online, but anyways - it seems the deeper inspiration here would be Aragorn!

Prove this, you can't. A falsity, it is.
Existed before Aragorn!, I have always.
Apologize, you must.
Everybody knows this.

Lol, sounds like the constipat... er, the confounded, wait, the contemptible

"Anarchists of a more aristocratic, narcissistic, megalomaniacal disposition claim to be above the herd and its shepherds, exempt from its flaws. The arrogance of baseless egoists, vulgar nihilists who peddle their own Manichean slaver morality, and delirious individualists who consider themselves Above the Arch. Their compass points inward: Self-centered, self-affirming, self-satisfied."
Huh, isn't your liberal democratic tantrum a tad harsh and derogatory towards those individualists who are gregarious, generpus and charitable with their energies towards those who are weaker and lacking equity? Ease up youngun, us individualist can seem pompous sometimes, but hey ;p

Maybe, just maybe, there are anarchists that value the consideration of context and relations enough to adopt a viewpoint of also/and rather than strictly either/or?

Despite the provocative tone, I read this TOTW as using lot of words and citations to trot out a boring and tired dichotomy for the sake of stirring up the “picking sides” crowd.

look at that, ruin, i agree with you here.

the either/or, black/white, binary thinking behind this totw is jarring. aren't anarchists on this site through & beyond this already?

Hobbes living during the English Civil War might have had something to do with his view of the nature of humans, don't you think? not to mention that such a view meshes well with the urge to conquest.

in order to see nature as a war of all against all one must not be really looking.

i also reject these grand narratives and forced framings noted in this prompt

references on a totw isn't the default, but i think this has few citations, most are from wikipedia, only 3 are short texts. it's longer than a toot, but it's still a short prompt with few references. as far as the "picking sides" comment, i don't see it that way, since none of the sides mentioned are painted in a good light

"The arrogance of baseless egoists, vulgar nihilists who peddle their own Manichean slaver morality, "

no even a good insult as you have to rely on individualist/nietschean concepts as " slave morality" which obvious you don't understand.

Do you believe in narratives that paint people as predisposed to a particularly harmonious, or bellicose, coexistence?

I've found them to be two extremes of the human condition, inevitably relevant when you interact meaningfully with the world for any length of time. Also found that only leading a quite sheltered existence allows for ignoring it.

Do you favor narratives that paint anarchy as an alternative social contract which allows for a more harmonious coexistence, or do you lean into a reappropriation of anarchy as a war of all against all?

For me, the beautiful idea is about both. The alternative to hell world is possible when groups of people intentionally relate to each other in different ways. But leviathan always looms over all attempts to "harmoniously coexist", waiting to destroy anything we don't ruin ourselves with our mistakes and petty squabbles.

Where do you stand in the divide between pro-social and anti-social anarchists?

I'm both. Give respect and i'll return it. If you can't manage that, i might try and take it, unless you got lots of guns.

Do you see anarchy as a point of unity or the joy of division?

See previous answer. Joy to be had in both cases.

"I've found them to be two extremes of the human condition,"
Either authentic, ooOoor sEEething in ressEntiment!!

did you mean to give away how you're not bothering to read most of the post?

LEVIATHAN IS PEOPLE!
ANARCHISTS ARE PEOPLE!
LEVIATHAN IS ANARCHISTS!

ANARCHY IS THE WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL!
POLITICS IS WAR BY OTHER MEANS!
WE'RE ALREADY LIVING IN ANARCHY!

GET YOUR OWN SHTICK, BRAH!

BORN TO SHOUT
ANEWS IS A FUCK
Troll Em All 2023
I AM CAPS MAN
410,757,864,530 DUMPSTER POUTINES

ALL V. ALL?!
MORE LIKE ALL OR NOTHING THINKING!

Anews has been infested by noobs.

Read some basics before opening your mouths, comrades!

Please!

i’ve also noticed this annoying incongruence by some of the very spiky rhetoric anti-social types who don’t throw down, while sometimes movement types and insurrectos throw down the hardest. funny how historically some of these populists were labeled as nihilists. nowadays people in those circles throw around the terms stategy of composition and destituent power. they also reference Hobbes as well as Agamben https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-revolution-destituent-...

Ultimately law is about property protection, mostly in land possession. Leviathan is state law within national borders, everything from laws against assassination to laws against vagrancy. Simple.

i've been thinking about this part of the prompt:

"Do you favor narratives that paint anarchy as an alternative social contract which allows for a more harmonious coexistence, or do you lean into a reappropriation of anarchy as a war of all against all?"

for me, anarchy is none of that.

to the first part - *Do you favor narratives that paint anarchy as an alternative social contract which allows for a more harmonious coexistence*, do we really want to color anarchy as any sort of "contract"? social or otherwise? what is a "social contract" anyway? supposedly our society is based on a social contract of some sort, but i do not recall at all being shown a contract, or asked to agree to one, and yet i'm still supposed to adhere to one. is this the sort of unwritten but also inviolable contract the author(s) have in mind with this question?

what about "a more harmonious coexistence"?
this sounds nice, doesn't it? more harmonious than what is going on now? sure, but that isn't really saying anything. also, "harmonious" is an interesting choice of word here. sounds Pollyanna doesn't it? & harmonious to whom? who is outside the community (forgive the margarine) to hear harmony? if the only choice i'm given (as in this prompt) is between harmonious & war of all against all then i would try for harmonious but i don't believe either is what anarchy is or could be. lastly, i would say this world, as it is, cannot be made better. this world is structured to be livable to only the very few. it can't be reformed, only destroyed, if we want to actually live. trying to make it *more* harmonious only makes the cell bigger, the chains a few links longer.

which brings me to this -
"or do you lean into a reappropriation of anarchy as a war of all against all?"

who is wanting "reappropriation" of anarchy? who is doing this reappropriation? and to "a war of all against all"? why would an anarchist want this? since Kropotkin, hasn't the project of anarchy been about debunking this trope; that mutual aid is more the way the world functions than all antagonism all the time? sure, hostility to those who bring hostility & conviviality to those who bring conviviality but not war all the time. that is just exhausting.

I don't have much in the way of religious beliefs, i personally am more drawn to just trying to live the best possible, because that is all i can do anyway, i can't factor in "the others" very well with this. To me it's an imposition to assume that I can really change the world, or to assume that I can really know whats best for others.

I personally even doubt that any of us has "free will" or agency anyway, as is implied by nietszches insights and writings. If we do have free will and responsibility, then maybe we only have a very small amount.

the reappropriation is of the accusation of anarchy AS a war of all against all. typically anarchists are accused of wanting chaos, disrupting society, and the downfall of civilization. historically some anarchists have said "no, actually, anarchy is order, and we'll play along nicely with each other", what you mention about kropotkin. the truth is both the claim that people are survival of the fittest cutthroat survivalist rational actor bots or altruistic mutual aid charity fairies are bullshit. this is a reaction against anarchist who have until now campaigned in the direction of making the cell bigger as you say, in the name of a convenient fiction. most anarchists are still attached to utopian fictions of progress, both by playing along nicely (solidarity and mutual aid) and attacking the system, or the state, or hierarchies, and other abstractions.

you say "i would say this world, as it is, cannot be made better. this world is structured to be livable to only the very few. it can't be reformed, only destroyed, if we want to actually live." but the prompt points out that society cannot be destroyed nor improved, only challenged, disrupted, disordered, etc, temporarily evaded, but not escaped. these implications are usually brushed off, and people fall back on leftists or liberal cliches and common sense. very few adopt an unambiguously anti-social stance. most anarchists in countercultural spaces have more in common with liberal politicians than with specter of anti-social subversive element, and many are okay with that. plus i don't think anyone buys the bluff of anyone who claims the contrary, so the anti-social posture is also a fiction.

what's left after one discards all these comfy myths, tropes, and cliches? i'd propose that taking inventory of them is not overcoming them. anarchists are just people like everybody else that tell themselves a similar set of stories to get by. they will not change the world or save anything and neither will anyone else,

i mean ... hobbes (the avowed monarchist) was claiming that the monarch is the only thing preventing the "anarchy", through military strength, which is a bit like hiring the most famous arsonist to protect your house from arson because he has lots of arsonist friends and they all wear the same stupid looking outfit when they do mass arson together.

also, they're not asking you for the job, theyre claiming they already were given the job by god and you gotta pay back wages from the moment you were born AND to continue existing and maybe by now, you're wondering why anyone would ever agree to this?

anyway, that's the war of all against all according to hobbes and after you're done shaking your head at how crazy and stupid all of that was, then you realize there's OTHER dickheads in the world too. lots of them!

Yes, Hobbes's idea --"has lots of arsonist friends and they all wear the same stupid looking outfit when they do mass arson together."
Sound familiar, like, remember the Black Block, like, are Muhrican anarchists Hobbesian in their pursuit of survival of the most violent?

I meant the military. Thought that was pretty clear but I guess you're pretty dim, huh?

Writing “reappropriation” when you mean “appropriation” is symptomatic of forcing a faux-academic tone, like “lived experience” for “experience”

society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families

- based individualist/egoist/nihilist agorist aristocratic anarch, Margaret Thatcher

Your desperation for engagement is sickening.
Have a little self-respect.

Add new comment