TOTW: "The Boogaloo"

A couple of months ago, we spoke of civil war, not as passive spectators, but asking what if anarchists could be its main agitators. That hypothetical turning point seems to be foisted upon us. Recently, "professional anarchists" and "ANTIFA"tm have been accused of being "outside agitators" and the "terrorist" protagonists in the ongoing riots. Without denying our pedigree, we acknowledge that this time around our supposed role as protagonists is an exaggeration by the media and the government, as scaremongering and scapegoating tactics. So let's give credit where it's due: meet The Boogaloo.

Often styilized as "Boog", this is a term used by (mostly right-wing) insurgents to refer to a Second Civil War in the United States. Some on the right see it mainly as an opportunity to cleanse the states and establish a "proper" government, some on the left have come to see it as a chance to execute their own agendas. They figure that the size of this country, its relationship with firearms and its many headstrong citizens will lead to a breaking point, the start of which is already here, according to some. The current riots that have erupted in many cities across the nation might the be closest thing yet to the fantasized Boogaloo.

So who are these lonely boogers who might soon be your cellmate? First and foremost, most pro-boogaloo are also pro-government, albeit a smaller one that enshrines the constitution - particularly the 2nd amendment - and private property. So while it's true that their ideas that are not usually engaged with in good faith by our camp (except for counted exceptions), they'd nevertheless receive a heavy dose of critique from anarchists who are consistently anti-authoritarian, and may even be anti-society or anti-civ. But what about listening to critiques they may have us? Anarchists (many often mistakenly seen themselves as part of "the left") are overly influenced by liberals, though some are doing the thankless effort of trying to distance anarchy as opposed to frameworks of "right" or "left".

Many on the left, still in search for a revolutionary subject, raise the false dichotomy between "normies" and "insurgents", when an insurgency is precisely the moment when one can't be distinguished from the other. The truth is in the USA anyone can have a gun and go wild. Meanwhile, Covid-19 proved that the peace-keeping "Anarchy-is-order" anarcho-liberals - subsumed in charity and activism - to be the least willing to take risks with their health (much less their lives), by being the most adamant observants of quarantine and social-distancing, and are therefore farther away from being insurgents than increasingly larger - and increasingly polarized - segments of the population that they would dismiss as "normies".

The state is aware of its increased vulnerability facing ongoing disasters and crisis. These conditioning factors encumber the state's ability to project power, creating more opportunities for insurgents (whether they be right-wing/left-wing or not) to create their own spaces. It may come to resemble a sort of pan-secessionism. As it falls apart and each group and individual is given free range, who will gain more ground and be able to stand on their own? When overt conflict is generalized, do anarchist interventions only look like organizing or can we extend and deepen the conflict? What input and contributions can people give and receive from each other? What are the opportunities for synergistic collaboration and antagonistic interactions?

[This topic was based on this post submitted by anon.]

There are 82 Comments

OK first thing, look at political compass... anarchists are bottom-left quadrant, right-libertarians and ancaps and minarchists are bottom right, authoritarian left are top right. This means anarchists agree with right-libertarians about half the time (when it comes to anti-statism) and authoritarian leftists about half the time (when it comes to anti-capitalism). No reason we shouldn't work with either provided it's issue-by-issue and we're not recuperated. The far-right in the usual sense, along with neoliberals, Third Way liberals, neocons, and other conservatives, are at various points in the top-right quadrant. Diametrically opposite us. They're the main enemies (though of course the Republicans tend to be further up and right than the Democrats, and the Nazis are more authoritarian than the rest).

Right-libertarians and anti-government militias =/= the far-right. There is certainly overlap and cooperation, like the three-percenters showing up in Charlottesville. But they're very different ideologies, and there's nothing *necessarily* racist or authoritarian about right-libertarians.

Actually the right-libertarians were our closest allies on the lockdown issue. Even the left-anarchists sold-out completely.

Second point. Right-libertarians actually have a rather effective counter-power in the US. Lots of armed survivalists out in the hills who are a de facto limit to what governments can do. Neither anarchists nor the left have any comparable force. The net effect has been to protect civil liberties.

Finally, civil war. Today it does not look much like the US War of Independence or the Spanish Revolution or the US Civil War. There's usually dozens of distinct militias, each connected with an ethnicity or political faction. They're holed-up in guerrilla terrain - forests, mountains - and don't have territorial control. Mostly they attack civilians or infrastructure rather than each other. There's blurry lines between insurgents, local state forces (army, police, special forces), organised crime, and political groups such as youth associations. Sometimes the "insurgents" are just hirelings working for local bosses in contexts of state weakness. Other times the militias are connected to social problems, particularly land rights and resource struggles. Sometimes these groups are just predatory, but they can also play important roles in dispersing power and making areas hostile to state forces. In the US there's also a high probability of separatism and break-up, de facto if not de jure, if civil war happens. Some areas will become super-reactionary, others not so much. Sites like Native American reservations might become de facto independent. There's certainly a possibility for anarchist activity - c.f. Zapatistas, OPM, MEND, Azawad, Rojava - though it's rare. In general, civil war encourages the "soldier-male" type discussed by Theweleit, aka "militarised masculinities". However, when there are clear stakes and popular involvement, civil war can actually reduce predatory violence (compare Central America or South Africa before and after "peace").

Are you really going to base your politics around a simple chart? I will say I’ve met boog boys who honestly span a wide spectrum. Maybe more so than anarchists I’ve met who mainly seem to just be anarcho liberals.

The chart was just a shorthand used in passing to get to more interesting parts of the conversation more quickly (namely what the human terrain is like in the USA in this juncture). You complain about this political chart, yet revert back to its "spectrum" just as uncritically in your low effort comment. Anarchy as an anti-political framework certainly makes the reification of that cartesian caricature a moot point, but these are spooks that can't be waived off when engaging with people who congregate and organize around them.

That cartesian chart is basically what it is... cartesian. The real world ain't like a chart. This whole crap is yet more social media-produced ID pols, only for ideologies.

I agree, and we're talking about groups of people that self-identify accordingly, and the ways in which they interact. Fuzzy use of fuzzy concepts can still communicate things among people with shared understandings.

I introduced the political compass grid mostly because of the tendency among anarchists to dismiss/demonise all rightist movements as "far-right". Regarding the anti-lockdown protests and conspiracy stuff for example. I don't know the boogaloo scene well but my general impression is that they're *mostly* right-libertarians. Sovereign citizens for example have used a similar discourse for decades.

I'm not sure how far they fit the Theweleit soldier-male model, though I get strong impressions of this in US gun culture. I also don't know if the gun as technology/tool encourages this type of power-formation or if it's basically neutral. Small-arms disperse power, but also seem to encourage banditry rather than production/creation, and make it far easier to stalemate social conflicts than to build anything. I wonder if they also favour authoritarian armies and bands which can use them more effectively - the same way production lines favour authoritarian labour-relations.

I've also seen this kind of argument (various phenomena as "masculine") made rather badly by idpols who want to argue (for example) that preppers are actually scared of losing their masculinity and not of disaster or SHTF, they're yearning for a return to a world where traditional masculine skills are needed. That's a pretty absurd way to spin things IMO, obviously there's a lot of macho prick preppers but their discourse is speaking to widespread anxiety and social collapse, not mainly to gender. The people making these arguments seem to think we'd be better off all living in cities so we're close to "the people" and "accepting our vulnerability" instead of preparing for collapse or creating our own alternatives. However, it seems that there's differences between male and female preppers, women are more likely to be hippy and communal about it - so gender comes into it somehow.

Interesting that you mention Thelweleit, seeing as how kitted-out open-carrying protesters have been characterized as macho posturing, chest thumping and larping manchilds playing out their male fantasies.
This also in the context of a still predominantly male gun ownership and gun culture.

Previously, one of the most multitudinous protests, before the ongoing ones, were the "Women's March", which seemed to have been of a different character. Last year, I can think of a various rowdy protests and actions around the world that were of visibly predominant female presence.
More recently, a lawmaker (black, female) was escorted by armed citizens (black, a few of them female) in response to the presence of armed protesters (white, male).

For many decades now, women have been regularly entering the ranks of the army and the police, although still far from parity.

All this to say is that there are issues of gender that will still remain even if there's more equity roles, or if they're inverted. Men are still predominantly the ones that drive cars through protests and lash out in acts of mass murder etc. And there doesn't seem to be anything geared to deal with that trend.
It's not as simple as suggesting people should be armed and in the frontline to the degree that they're most marginalized or oppressed identities, telling all white males to stay at home.
While women are empowering themselves by doing things previously considered to be male, gender is for the most part not being eroded for/by men who are doubling down on it and causing misery for all.

How can, if at all, masculinities be demilitarized, demasculinized even, without giving up the empowerment of bearing arms? How can there be a drastic increased of armed women present in the frontlines, without having to emulate such militarized masculinities in order to "compensate" and fit in being around macho gun culture?

Progressive narratives would say that in the long run it will all get solved and trends toward equality and justice for all will prevail, but we know that a. that's not true b. best case scenario for the is diversity and equality of opportunities of representation within the hierarchies, which not even that is likely.

I don't like the implications of these scenarios, for anyone besides the most powerful elite. Changing the rules of the game without stopping the game itself only benefits the most powerful. Think Russia, 1917.

The best way to end a system is through denial of energy (Frere Dupont), not increasing it. Creating a vacuum of power leaves the (already) most powerful with the best chance of taking advantage of such a vacuum. And vacuums are soon filled. You can't just coup de grace the existent. Even so, if that was a theoretical goal, wouldn't theoretically attacking and downing (an already faltering) electrical grid be a bigger KO head kick to techno-industrial society?

"The best way to end a system is through denial of energy (Frere Dupont), not increasing it."

That was Ivan Illich, decades before this self-important "nihilo-communist" pedant published his repackaging of old ideas, jsyk. And it's not "denial of energy", but rather the reduction of energy demands/input, one way or another. Energy is there; you can't deny it. What Illich was positing about is a kind of rationalization of energetic processes, either through Soviet-like structures or by a more grassroots pressure for *de-growth*.

"Denying energy" sounds vague and esoteric, while "thwarting the drive for more energy demands" leads to clearer avenues and outcomes irl.

but i don't think you're fully realizing the "deny energy" point, there, 8:53. lots of kinds of energy. from the kind you're talking about to the mental, emotional, etc kind. dupont's vagueness frequently is meant to be read as inclusive, though for literal/practical minded folks, that can come across as needlessly obtuse.

"denying energy" to me just reads like an abstract (and vague, yes) partial reformulation of reduction of energy demand and input, or "low-energy input" societies. I don't see how it can mean anything beyond that.


Mystical powers?

Fucking hell — pedantry abound.

Let's try this again, shall we? Capitalist society recuperates everything with no exception. Agreed? But it can't recuperate what's not there. Where others posit activism and revolution, I'd propose dropping out, moving to the country, becoming self-reliant, and healing your mind and body.

But this doesn't address the tension that results from the State/society/civilization still continuing if one "drops out". Same problem I see in Saul Newmans post-anarchy. If we all ignored the cops they wouldn't go away.

but doing all those at the same time is really hard, ultimately nobody is self-reliant, if you aren't a human you have a much better chance being that way.

Not really that hard. Many anarchists (and the left in general) seem to have poverty fetishes, among other issues. I'm disabled, the child of refugees, haven't had a job since 2014 and figured something out. Land in the USA can be as cheap as $1,200 per acre. People just get caught in a trap of moving somewhere "happening", paying rent, grocery shopping, etc.

it just depends on several different factors whether you can just escape from the woods, most of them independent of how much money and privilege you have. Some people wouldn't even want to move out to the woods because they would be missing out on the things they cherish in exchange for some sort of Walden fantasy.

second of all, i've basically done that, set myself up with low-burden work and cautious living expenses, done gardening, avoid wierd social situations, avoid really stressful acitvities, and in the end it isn't enough to really make the planet we live on a better and less oppressive place.

In the end though, you can only look out for yourself...

Yet I ain't sure you got a clear grasp of what it means to be isolated in a rural area. Especially for socialites like some of the contributors of this site. I've seen many intensely-motivated eco-farmers starting land projects with just economics in their heads (i.e. gaming their farm so to make it a profitable business kinda model), and they got dissolved by economics.

I'd rather be looking at open land communes for nomads as the best solution you can afford. Individual or mutual ownership just reproduces the same old problems, it restricts, forbids, puts under a centralized control, hence, back to 1127 AD or something. Anarchy's not feudalism.

Aaah, yes... "moving to the country", which means a lot of things including supporting invasive real estate developments and helping with the collapse of ecosystems by buying houses and lands for farms.

I can believe that some of you will be decent and consistent enough to rather go start permaculture gardens on some abandoned or public domain land (that doesn't have to be far away in a remote rural area), but good luck making me believe that the "back to the land" paradigm wasn't already being recuperated by capitalism, too, just like the rest of the "energy".

"I can believe that some of you will be decent and consistent enough to rather go start permaculture gardens on some abandoned or public domain land (that doesn't have to be far away in a remote rural area), but good luck making me believe that the "back to the land" paradigm wasn't already being recuperated by capitalism, too, just like the rest of the "energy"."

but for me, my focus, with the many acres of inherited land that i have (a lot of it is just forest and i want to keep it that way and beat back one of the invasive species) is to become more and more self-sufficient on my own foods, i've made significant progress over the past few year but i have a long way to go. The major challenge in this situation though is also engaging in forms of capitalism that aren't oppressive to me personally, because with land ownership there are property taxes, and if you don't pay it the state comes and takes it.

A highly agricultural or "self-sufficient" life style does not necessarily imply a more anarchic one, but at the same time, "back to land" has a lot of control advantages that people in cities simply don't have, there are way fewer cops out in the country.

I want to talk about the concept of "healing" to all of you. How can we help each other to heal from the abuses of neo-liberal leviathan, police states, "white supremacy", etc.? How can we escape the bogus narrative of feeling responsible for the world around us at the same time? I feel like this is a field of thought that should continue to be developed outside of academia and psychotherapy. I want to help other people heal themselves in similar ways that i've healed myself but outside of all those bogus paradigms. And especially fuck "charity" too, that shit is just sinister.

Permaculture™ isn't gardening. Gardening is a slight aspect of it, or benefit you could say. Permaculture™ is kind of like an ideology.

The soil on abandoned lots are typically depleted of nutrients, microorganism, microbials...etc, probably pretty compacted, and have god knows what kind of chemical residue in it. The soil would need to be rehabilitated to bring life back to it after testing it. This obviously takes a few years to do depending on how fucked the soil is. Doing permaculture™ doesn't make on a more consistent anarchist. Permaculture™ has been co-opted by capitalism too. I think the people point was to limit their relationship with capitalism & the state as much as they can. Moving to nowhereville would help them recover slightly than staying in an urban area trying to rehabilitate some abandoned lot that'll inevitable be redeveloped.

I *think* deny energy = exodus. Turn on, tune in, drop out. For some reason the French (or wannabe-French) never use plain English. Exodus has different forms - back to the land, DIY culture, autonomous zones, squatting, skipping, off-grid, etc.

I think the insurrectionist objection would be: what's to stop the state just suppressing your attempts at exodus? For example, with the hippies they just started banning free festivals, banning squatting, using zoning/planning shit to sabotage dropping-out, using closed disposal units instead of dumpsters, etc. In a lot of countries, subsistence farming is being squeezed by agribusiness, often backed by violent statism or paramilitaries. If you wanna hold your sites of exodus you'll need to defend them, or at least have enough of a viable threat-capacity that the state thinks twice about repressing you. There's also the question of whether back-to-the-land is as viable for black people (given racism in rural America), people with disabilities, single mothers etc.

Personally I think exodus and insurrection supplement each other. The most effective insurrections start in liberated zones or places with more space to breathe. Rural Bolivia has seen some of the most impressive revolts of the last few decades for instance, and all the best guerrilla struggles have been rural too. Exodus doesn't *always* need insurrection. Often the state leaves things alone because they're too small, remote, or invisible to worry about. Often it has limited capacity to control lightly-populated areas. But the two go together quite well.

Depleted soil can be revigorated (not rehabitated?) through permaculture, which aim is to be just that... to create the conditions for ecosystems to replenish.

As for contaminated soil, the best solution ever found is to let it to itself for quite a while, so it will eventually recover and rid itself of the heavy metals and other contaminants. And helping with plants that are efficient for decontamination such as thistles and burdock.... yet they tend to grow on their own anyways.

mushrooms, the best there is for cleansing and replenishing the soil (and water).

Some will also cleanse and replenish the mind (and perception)

lol you dissed Nihilist Communism without making any effort to understand its ideas on its own terms, while still finding a way to name drop texts and authors that are more re-assuring and familiar as if they are some brilliant checkmate?

(in the Spengler sense) someone like a Jesse Ventura(will probably have to be someone more left then right) then the US probably is heading for boogaloo territory on some level(we can speculate how hot things will get). I'm not prescribing this of course, simply pointing out what will keep the Washington construct going.

I think if there are secessional events that correlate with a contraction age(I refuse to use to the loaded term dark) this could be good for anarchist and anarchic currents of orientation. The 'dark age' brought you the free spirits and the troubadours. You need a clearing away of the current Rome(which is Western Modernity) for these things to happen. I'm of the stream of thought that the Renaissance was an extension of the upper Dark Age and not a bridge to modernity and The Enlightenment. The Renaissance and the late dark age periods are basically my favorite periods of the last 1000 years.

"...Then the US probably is heading for boogaloo territory on some level"

well, to the extent that this is very possible. There are lots of people from my hometown posting these videos with black people who are denying systematic racism, lots of people also rallying around cops.

Oh dang. The montgomery county cops killed this Duncan Lemp rich kid/leader of the boogaloo facebook group in his home deep in the heart of Potomac. I didn't hear about that. His parents are gonna become a few million dollars richer. I heard about the other guy they shot, but not this peepee memelord.

Hey, we gonna rock down to electric avenue and then we'll take it higher! Ohh yeah, higher (rock it in the daytime, rock it in the night).

The so-called Renaissance (or Humanist) era did bridge to modernity in the way that it introduced a new vision of mass-scale management and systemic policy-making (i.e. the Big State, as well as the corporations, that ARE the contractions of centralized regimes, not a response to it), that first was harnessed through absolutist monarchist regimes but the the absolutist republican regimes (where Rousseau made it clear that there could not be any other power than the republic, in society).

My better historical narrative would be that there was an Imperial age (Greco-Roman), then a Feudal age, then the neoclassic Absolutist age, then the Modern Scientific Republican age. And now we're bordering on the Neofeudal corporate age, which is NOT good news for anarchists, beyond the fact that it's giving power more recognizable -and reachable- faces.

And no I ain't necessarily talking about racist ethno-states and militia-run enclaves, but also the now obvious techno-feudal regimes such as Amazon, Google and Facebook, that are hidden in plain view and are clearly rivaling and undermining the power of the governments just like during the archaic struggle between ultramontanists and regionalist monarchists, with a third layer of parliamentary or popular opposition.

"The 'dark age' brought you the free spirits and the troubadours."

The troubadours, jesters, free spirits (whatever that means) and culture of protesting, carnivals and charivari have indeed arisen during that Feudal age, but saying it was facilitated by such order is like saying the Nazis facilitated antifascism.

Jesse Ventura!?

Okay, good to know you want more meathead clowns in charge, lol.

Interesting you mentioned those techno-feudal regimes. So far recent protests have had them as the elephant in the room (except for the few overt actions against Amazon). Most people expressing their indignation indistinctly use social media and streets as public space, but will directly confront the police and storefronts, but these big internet and tech companies are out of harm's way.

Yes and no...

They totally aren't out of harm's way. It's just that your average protesters and even rioters aren't looking in this direction.

Last summer I came across a local Google employee BBQ in a trendy park. Even if I'd have noticed the few activist-focused anarchos I know around, they'd have been all smug about it. There wasn't much to do on my own, and I was notified very quickly as I started picking some food from the tables.... Or maybe I should re-learn how to properly crash a party and get away with it ;-)

Anarchy is ahistorical. There are historical epochs however that can be more conducive to anarchy facilitating itself.

You're not wrong about the renaissance, however, I like to focus on the polymath knowledge aspect of that era. There's also scientific enterprises that did not come from gatekept centralized sources. I find that preferable to more imperial civilized epochs.

You missed my point about Ventura. I don't care for him personally, but someone like him is what it would take to keep the Washington construct afloat away from the plutocratic context that cannot go on much longer before some type of Caesarian charismatic figure comes along. Again, I'm being descriptive not prescriptive.

Looking for one main factor, I feel the intellectual bridge between the Late Dark Ages/Renaissance/Enlightenment over into the Modern Era was ironically the mechanical SteamEngine/Industrialization. All religion/ideology/humanism aside, the exponential quantitative shift to mass production/transport defines Western society to this day, only recently during Covid19's lockdown and its repercussions are we reminded how monotonously dependent modern society is on this one main mechanism. Steam killed the Troubadour.

Jesse Ventura 2as awesome in PREDATOR. He could clean any swamp out, he knows underwater demolition.

anarcho-liberals are the socdem and sjw caucus of the democratic party

alt-right is the channer caucus of a post-ironic fascism, republicans are mostly tradcucked neolibs

boogers are the tacticool caucus of an otherwise fudd NRA, the e-boy caucus of the libertarian party

-"Hold it there, comrade. What is up with these yucky cyber lingo?
Are you remarking that there is a continuity in historical positions masked by the promiscuous accelerationist intermingling of aesthetics used as astroturfing fronts?
Are you remarking that there's a generational factor at play?"

i didn't say boomer nor zoomer nor millenial

-"Then may I ask what is the point of this diatribe?"

machine gun go brrrr

"That is it! I have had it with this derelict youth and their Internet subcultures! I will torch all 5g towers and all Internet boxes in my vicinity!"

The white anarcho liberals are all over social media policing other white people to become human shields and not be destructive at BLM protests. Defenders of order who can’t have a real conversation with a poc person in the street and throw down with them. Too busy being soy boys for ally points, not interested in being alpha accomplices.

in general to be supportive of property destruction/riots, it's only psychos that you find on here (including me) and other places in the dumb anarchist scene that see the value of destroying buildings and capitalist institutions...i don't see what the point is when you will just go to jail anyway unless you are super calculating/discreet.

I'm fine with waiting for the planet to do this and just kissing my ass goodbye if/when the real environmental apocalypse comes, it will be a sight like no other...

What happened to the good ol' Boogie-man lurking in the shadows within a binary Manichean-esque society? It has been re-invented into e-chatter/slang on the social network platform.

"The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas on Wednesday said they self-identified as part of the 'boogaloo' movement, which U.S. prosecutors said in the document is 'a term used by extremists to signify coming civil war and/or fall of civilization.'”

"Loomis stated he wanted to firebomb a power substation, according to the informant in the criminal complaint."

in fact that are the best kind of anarchist. sure pm goes into a lot of economic silliness, but he's to be commended for using his imagination and being visionary.
anyway, this staunch anarchist stands by bolo'bolo overall. the ideas about the trunk and the suicide pill are worth the book all by themselves, and there's lots more good stuff.

agreed. the commie flavor that predominate especially the first part of the book is easily ignored. the practical exploration of a life without mass society, with affinity-based relations and freedom of movement, is the best example i have seen of another world that might be practical for the wide range of human thought and desire. and for sure, the pill and the box are great ideas.

you can always tell who is amateur hour when they grab the one "inconsistent Evil" from a concept to dismiss the rest.

"Everything must be pure, consistent and holy or my secular theism can never be enacted"

So many anarchists just have the brains of dogmatic fundamentalists that re-tweet the same logical framework over and over.


Dealing first with subversion, it’s clear that every type of work, any one who functions for the Machine in any part of the world, has his or her own specific potential for subversion. There are different ways of damaging the Machine, and not every one has the same possibilities. A planetary menu for subversion could be described a little like this:

Dysinformation: sabotage (of hardware or programs), theft of machine-time (for games or any private purposes), defective design or planning, indiscretions (e.g., Ellsberg and the Watergate scandal), desertions (scientists, officials), refusal of selection (by teachers), mismanagement, treason, ideological deviation, false information to superiors, etc. And effects can be immediate or quite long-term — seconds or years.

Dysproduction: opting out, low quality, manufacturing, sabotage, strikes, sick leaves, shop-floor assemblies, demonstrations in the factories, use of mobility, occupations (e.g., the recent struggles of Polish workers). These effects are usually medium-term — weeks or months.

Dysruption: riots, street blockades, violent acts, flight, divorce, domestic rows, looting, guerrilla warfare, squatting, arson (e.g., Sao Paulo, Miami, Soweto, El Salvador). Effects here are short-term — hours or days.

Of course, all these acts also have long-term effects; we’re here only talking about their direct impact as forms of activity. Any of these types of subversion can damage the Machine, can even paralyze it temporarily. But each of them can be neutralized by the two other forms — their impact is different according to time and space. Dysinformation remains inefficient if it’s not used in the production or physical circulation of goods or services. Otherwise, it becomes a purely intellectual game and destroys only itself. Strikes can always be crushed if nobody, by dysruptive actions, prevents the police from intervening. Dysruption ends swiftly so long as the Machine gets its supply from the production-sector. The Machine knows that there will always be subversion against it, and that the deal between it and the different types of workers will always have to be bargained for and fought out again. It only tries to stagger the attacks of the three sectors so that they can’t support and multiply each other, becoming a kind of counter-machine. Workers who have just won a strike (dysproduction) are angry about unemployed demonstrators who prevent them, via a street blockade, from getting back to the factory on time. A firm goes bankrupt, and the workers complain about poor managers and engineers. But what if it was a substructive engineer who willfully produced a bad design, or a manager who wanted to sabotage the firm? The workers still lose their jobs, take part in unemployment demonstrations, finally engage in riots... until the police-workers come and do their jobs. The Machine transforms the single attacks of different sectors into idle motion, for nothing is more instructive than defeats, nothing more dangerous than long periods of calm (in this latter case, the Machine loses the ability to tell what’s going on inside the organisms of its body). The Machine can’t exist without a certain level of sickness and dysfunction. Partial struggles become the best means of control — a kind of fever thermometer — providing it with imagination and dynamism. If necessary, the Machine can even provoke its own struggles, just to test its instruments of control.

The P.M. people/bolo bolo are part of gentrification in Zürich, where this movement comes from.
Leftwing petite bourgeoisie that recuperates the spirit of the squatter movement and has become established.
Integration and coexistance with the system instead of revolt.

fuck the züri squatters too - they are the forefront of gentrification!

Anarchists are inconsequential. The same goes for the electric boogaloo posse. If anarchists and the electric boogaloos powers combined, they'd be boogaboops + anarchists = inconsequential. I feel like mentioning an "anarchist intervention" was supposed to be part of a funny haha joke, but it was scrapped. The US has been going more "conservative-liberalism or reverting to the old right in 'Murica" per se for awhile with the occasional hiccups.

I highly doubt these pro-bongo-boobs bother with these "heavy dose[s] of critique from anarchists."

If there is an inkling indicating a total breakdown of the monopoly of violence by way of armed internal challenges, I'll take talk of "civil war" more seriously. As of now, small scale banditry and rioting just doesn't cut it to be talking about civil war.

Oh no we're gonna rock on down to electric avenue and then we'll take it higher x2

anarchists may do,
-if no consequence follows-
anything they want!

ANYONE may do anything they want. consequences ALWAYS follow, you just can't know or predict what they will be.

do as thou wilt. and know that there are always consequences.

The Libertarian Party - Libertarian Socialist Caucus has been pushing a message of Bottom Unity, as has Vermin Supreme. Vermin Supreme has spoken against revolutionary violence but I know some boogers who supported him. Some of Adam Kokesh's ideas about localization sounds like a worse version of panarchy/pan-secessionism. And in general I see a rapprochement of the Libertarian Party leadership towards left wingers including left anarchists (mostly of the C4SS or mutualist variety).

I'm not sure you'll find a lot of enthusiasm for "bottom unity" or the like among "left-libertarians," who, frankly, were dealing with constant alt-right entryism before alt-right entryism was cool. There are perhaps anarchistic versions of panarchy—at least suggested in the writings of Max Nettlau, reachable by extension from anarchist individualism, etc.—but pan-secessionism has always looked like a survival strategy for reaction, sort of a posse comitatus movement for people who like to think of themselves as a bit hip. With the Boogaloo, it's hard to know if there are nuances to explore or if maybe there's just evidence that memes + guns doesn't really take the place of some kind of coherent theory.

Agreed. It's worth noting how guns remain lethal without any coherent theory, and memes can reflect a type of mob mentality whipping up certain trigger happy people into a frenzy. All the more scarier, chaos without reason nor rhyme. Most mass shooters/murderers/car rampage didn't write a single tome of theory. A lot of the recent ones were channers and memers though.

Speaking of everyone broadly now, it's also interesting to note how anarchists are often disqualified for flaws which are part of the wider mainstream culture and values, namely racism and sexism, sometimes rightly so, sometimes also identity politics and cancel culture politicking. During these protests anarchists have been tried to be characterized from the outside as "white outside agitators".

Now if anarchist face those issues of legitimacy in the face of public opinion, despite being way politically correct, and even as a result of understanding of systemic issues and striving for liberation, not as superficial cordiality, imagine how would collaborating with these groups that are labeled from the outside as "outright white supremacists and fascists" fare for them. Both characterizations have their doses of truth, but the point is that in this moment of peak ANTIFA it's unlikely to see wide adoption of overt collaboration of open anarchists with those groups.

On the other hand, there are many alienated youth which, like you implied, are only loosely congregated around memes and vague grievances and desires to lash out. They may flirt with whatever seems extreme or edgy or badass to them, but hold no deep convictions, or affiliations or theoretical coherence one way or another. In moments of riots and turmoil, you'll see some of them (most will not do anything) show up on the streets and do "their thing", without any larger pretension or goals.

Populist and big tent activist groups, organizations, and parties (left and right) will try to reel them in, or collaborate with them. It seems that THE PEOPLE (who will put a ruler to the gullotine to elect another just like him, or disband a police for to become it or replace it with militias) very civilized, armed and dangerous are as much a threat to itself, as it is to the State, as it is to anarchists. Honestly this is just a trending topic to get people talking of things as if they're new.

A new element is people are now carrying automatic rifles with red dots, have drones and the internet, and memes etc (not muzzle loading muskets and pitchforks, though those are still around). This has some changes on how things play out. I've bored myself, I apologize for boring you too.

As I understand, there's no boogaloos and the like (and if there are: better) that want to change the existing property relationships to something that makes exploitation impossible. I mean, there's a lot of different analysis from anarchists about property, but i think boogaloos probably are vehemently opposed to burning down property, any property, cause its in the constitution. I mean, there was a lot pro-property anarchists like Lysander Spooner or Tucker and the like. But they were consequentical. But still against property destruction? I don't know. Probably not. But now, at least people should be OK with burning down monopolists Property. Or tolerate it. But now it rather seems that boogaloos will join to defend property, and that means: to defend the state of affairs. So they are reactionaries.
My view anyway is utterly opposed to property, or maybe in favour of Stirners property. But the insurrection how i understand it is the destruction of the basis of the state - and not a political insurrection, like it seems to be present also in anti-lockdown movement.

But anyway: why the fuck are anarchists in the US looking for allies like boogaloos? Are they to stupid to act now on themselves in this insurrectionary situation?

And to the boogaloos: why not agitate boogaloos for our ideas instead of searching to ally with militaristic groups? I mean: don't you are able to base yourself on your own ideas? Don't you think anarchism has to offer a lot to rather confused anti-governement youth?

I mean, the lines should become clearer in the US and you'll find out how to create new possibilities and who will stand in the way of social revolution. Probably boogaloos too... most of em. They seem rather the material to host a putsch for one or another party, probably rightwing. Even "antigovernement" isn't anarchist necessarily. And: right libertarianism is defending legal property, which leads to hierarchy, which - doesn't create anarchy. Rather Wild West. But most of the time anyway they reproduce nothing than the normal capitalistic relationships and the state.

Anyway: is it militaristic illusions that leads you to seek the gunowners?

Try to become yourself a factor to be taken seriously - and the serious people maybe will take up your ideas. If they are to be taken serious.

it's basically the same thing as a "characteristic".

To add to your thoughts, basically any activist notions of "converting people to anarchy/anarchism" are silly anyways, i like to just use what i like about anarchy/anarchism in my interactions with other people (whether it's a political discussion or power relationships) and then just leave the rest in the trash when i can gobble on it later.

For sure, Stirner's Property has nothing to do with private property. As does mine (-; But its more of a relationship then of a characteristic. And basically Stirner is quiet convinced to having taken the discourse about property to it's conclusion and that the rest was inconsequentical. Anyway, just mentioned it to not be misunderstood.
And yeah, converting people is stupid.
As is Taoist passivity...

i don't know what kind of people you know or how you survive/keep your head together on a daily basis, but for me it's about being aloof about the way "i think things should be", because i honestly would destroy civilization if it were either possible or beneficial to me as an egoist. One of the initial reactions to being exposed to those kinds of radical perspectives (including stirnerism) was getting outraged at random moments at shit i didn't like in the world, and it wasn't helpful. I'd rather appreciate wu wei, or action-less action, which is in part bullshit but why would you care??

Don't care a lot what you do. Just didn't want to be misunderstood on the point of non-converting. Because the relationships i seek are maybe a bit more adventurous than wu wei (even that may be adventurous to you). And subversion and building affinities and escalating conflict sure isn't conversion, but it's also different from what i guess is your intentions...

If the downfall of civilisation is beneficial to me? I don't care about this future "me" which i am not. I try and desire to live in the moment and i like to be destructive to civilisation, if you want to name it like that.

How i keep my head together? Who said i do? Not with Tao, but am Ok with that anyway. If i'd be in the US, i'd be burning, rioting and looting. That would keep my head together at least.

it's just that i feel that people who claim to be dangerous subversives online are often full of shit, yeah you smashy smash go ahead but right now you are engaging in what's actually a very mediocre activity. To me people who have a problem with "doing nothing", as you clearly do, are just trying to get other people to do things for you. A lot of the people showing up at these peaceful demonstrations are just these tepid leftists who want to go and "show solidarity" and pour out their white guilt and moral sentiments.

Oh you live in the present moment you say and you never plan anything?

Did i say i'm dangerous?

Sure i plan things and sometimes involve in mediocre activities like this one now, unplanned, why not?

But sure a) i'm not gonna be able to plan the end of civilization, which is an absurd idea, which you kind of put as an option & b) it's end and it's effect it could have on me (positive or negative) are not going to change my attitude to it now. Cause all that is hypotetical future stuff. More hypotetical than my plans, which some i realize and some not.

I'm not opposed to "Doing nothing" as you believe (i'm quiet lazy it is said). I'm just opposed to Taoism as far as i know it. And aren't Taoists the ones that govern by passivity so that others do what they want or something the like? But anyway: what's the problem in wanting other's doing things for you?

I don't know what demonstrations you're talking about. I don't like demonstrations anyway. And I don't like leftists.

But anyway you're questions was more rethoric and gives me the feeling you felt insulted. Or why else do you suppose about what i do or don't and think or don't. And you seem to have a problem with me maybe doing nothing or mediocre things. Now that's mediocre (-;

Good night

i honestly apologize for that, but no that's not really what taoism is, out of all the ideologies i've read about that's just my favorite one because at its heart it opposes dualistic thinking, in other words opposites are not mutually exclusive, you can be both passive and active...

a lot of it was yesterday i was on here and social media a lot and seeing so much hostility/politics and i guess i just layed it on you...

This thread has to be one of the strangest readings of Wu Wei ever.

Earth's processes just happen, and unfold out of a continuum. They are not governed by human Thought. Do no-Things. They're webs of inter-related relations...not Things. Active passivity. Not conditioned by human Thought. Do. No Things. Relations are all there are and all we have is now!

One can see from the current events that a world made to fit the plans of human Thought placing emphasis on managing Things impoverishes human relations, and is unable to handle changing conditions. Life is transformation.

"Escalate conflict" Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans. What happens when this planned-for singular quality of humans (conflict is merely one aspect and functions connected to a whole host of others (and even then there are so many types of conflict, push-back, responses) doesn't happen?

“The general form of propositions is: This is how things are.” That is the kind of proposition that one repeats to oneself countless times. One thinks that one is tracing the outline of the thing’s nature over and over again, and one is merely tracing round the frame through which we look at it. (Wittgenstein – Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 4.5):

Very well said.

“But anyway: why the fuck are anarchists in the US looking for allies like boogaloos? Are they to stupid to act now on themselves in this insurrectionary situation?
And to the boogaloos: why not agitate boogaloos for our ideas instead of searching to ally with militaristic groups? I mean: don't you are able to base yourself on your own ideas? Don't you think anarchism has to offer a lot to rather confused anti-governement youth?“

These questions could have very well been the topic of discussion. The answer for many would be no to all those questions. And those aching for a BIG mass event thing happening, this makes sad. So they find a way around it: what’s something they already like? Therefore entryism, frontism, populism, demagoguery, rebrandings, etc. Realpolitics, whether miscalculated or misguided, or not anarchist, they think they can get something out of it.

“Anyway: is it militaristic illusions that leads you to seek the gunowners?”

Yes, like that other comment, something about male fantasies and militarized masculinities.
Maybe macho leftists (like what someone encountered and described here: feel more at home with these other groups. Also something about “weaponizing identities”.

Yeah, for sure Theleweit is a good question when it comes to this type of people. Even if he is analyzing mainly high Nazis and not rank-and-file.
It's a pity, that the anarchists in US are so often in the political logic, and have not really an own perspective. Search for quantity is often the problem. And then all this youth rioting! Oh!
With the newer feminist stuff i cannot agree and what your posting seems to me to be an activist-internal discussion. I think activism is often paralelling revolt. But paralells don't really meet like that. Leave that milieu, i just can say. For me the discours from Adrienne Onday smells like that activist milieu and its problems. And like the wish that it becomes better. But hey: there's a world outside!

Yeah and here's why I introduced Political Compass.

Anarchists want to destroy capitalism/private property (or hierarchies involved in private property... whatever). So do communists and other leftists.

Anarchists want to destroy or weaken the state. So do ancaps and right-libertarians.

Too many anarchists take the position that fighting private property is the "principal contradiction" and so right-libertarians are always beyond the pale. Yet they're quite prepared to allow wiggle room for alliances with leftists, idpols, liberals, social-democrats, etc. Often they end up blurring the lines between leftism and anarchism (or between left-anarchism and authoritarian leftism). Cue such disgusting spectacles as anarchists supporting the COVID-19 lockdown and focusing on workers who want their workplaces temporarily closed; and anarchists enforcing idpol thought-policing to the point of banning post-left stuff, while also tolerating stuff like black nationalism and PKK. What this really shows is that these anarchists aren't *really* anarchists, they're leftists who actually are quite fine with authority but don't like the current state because it's capitalist. Their basic class-belonging is to the better-off stratum of organised workers and they pose no threat to the state. Alternatively, anarchists just take a super-sectarian position of never allying with anyone outside the left-libertarian quadrant. Or outside their own tiny group.

My own position is that we *should* be fighting with leftists, liberals and idpols (without taking orders from them) when the issue is anti-capitalism, but we should *also* be fighting with right-libertarians when the issue is anti-statism. We should give equal weight to the anti-capitalist and anti-state struggles, and seek to join them together and radicalise them. (We should *not* work with the far-right stricto sensu).

A lot of the same leftists who wouldn't support anti-lockdown protests because there were rightists involved, will also support routine workers' struggles which raise neither anti-state *nor* anti-capitalist demands. At this point nobody says "but the teachers/miners/rail workers/whoever don't have a full critique of private property and the state and so supporting them means you have some suspect authoritarian desire etc etc", nor do they require that the occupation in question contain no racists or sexists. Nor do critiques of teaching, mining etc come to the fore.

These kinds of double standards suggest to me that a lot of left-anarchists covertly belong to the top-left quadrant, or at least feel a worrying degree of affinity for that quadrant.

I think the schematisation you're proposing is maybe of a certain use it seems, even i'm sceptic about it.

I think, the thing you're posing is that you can ally with left and right which so far is logical - seen from this schema. But what if you cannot ally with any of them?

Personally i'm not against doing stuff with any people in certain situations. But the problem is, i think, with for example antilockdown protests, or protests in general, that you are moving in a political field, and in their field. I think proposition is direct action against domination, so excludes all politics and all progromic situations.

Personally, to "work" together with political organisations i'm totally opposed, and i would differ between rank-and-file people that are part of an organisation, and working together with them as individuals moving beyond party, or working with them as member of this or that. I thinkt this is an important aspect. I think the destruction of all hierarchical organisations should be the aim. So to create a dynamic of people against also the hierarchical institutions they themselve use(d) to propose and reproduce.

Left anarchists are ugly and the "radical left" prooved worldwide to be the left wing of capital during lockdorn. Political Correctness is absurd and i think that people who want to create their perfect milieu can do so, but leave us alone. And if they ally with authoritarians, which is what happens most of the times, there should be hostility.

Anyway: i think the so called "apolitical" people are more interesting for revolt than organized left- and rightists...

Didn’t even have to scroll far into the comment section before running into the same political debates that plague anarchist discussions at practically every turn on the internet these days. Almost as if to prove the main poster’s point, we are faced—once again—with an example surrounding the elitist ‘monopoly on truth’ politics among the anarchist community. Who would’ve thought that such an anti-ruler ideology would become saturated with an authoritarian perspective dedicated to charts, graphs, definitions, ad nauseam? Thus, It seems that we can’t go anywhere without people arguing over the political science and minuscule definitions of anarchy and their supposedly ‘absolute’ ‘factual’ interpretation of “THE” truth derived from hundreds of years of philosophical ideas and discussion. Sometimes I read these discussions and wonder if I’m reading a transcript from a congressional debate. It appears that most can agree that anarchism was based on a philosophy and—as thinkers have noted over time—this philosophy pre-existed the coined term “anarchy” with the inherent natural resistance and desire for freedom within human beings. Where this unity seems to depart is how this idea has been interpreted in the many different ways over time. It’s come to the point that now, some of us want to assume that only one of these interpretations is the “correct” one while also assuming that at some point this ability to interpret and philosophize magically stopped whenever our favorite pre-21st century anarchist thinker died. This hypocrisy that certain members of our community have come to accept is extremely absurd and arrogant to me and I’m constantly bewildered and amazed that people still manage to live within such a medieval attitude.

yes, it’s true, anarchists are such hypocrites, they should be cancelled. these people are so elitist talking about books and big words. people who are spontaneously anarchistic without naming it are the real deal. we all want freedom and goodness deep inside, there’s no reason why we can’t all get along and work for a life in common if we just come together and drop the bullshit.

Don’t be disingenuous, you know that’s not what I meant. What I meant was that anarchist on this site and elsewhere should conform to my expectations to appease my disapproval.

Don't worry, the air is alot cleaner, some animals are returning, consumerism and growth has dipped, people are discovering alternative less destructive lifestyles, there's been a sobering awakening of Earth's future fate, anarchs always look on the bright side of life.

Ah yes, on cue come the anarchist police, exerting their authori—I mean, dictating how—oh shit. Never mind. I forgot there was a singular ideology everyone needed to conform to and you guys are just doing your job. Keep up the good work, no one would know this undeniably truth without you!

I believe I’ve been misinterpreted and I’m honestly a little shocked at the responses here. I’d like to clarify. I don’t want this platform to conform to my “bigotry” nor am I protesting the people here. I was simply trying to make a point and that is: we all share the same anti-statist views, why not share this unity instead of division? I’m fully aware that there are different schools of thought but I believe the essential foundation is more or less the same. Why all the arguing over what seems to be, in my opinion, “anarchist politics?” Whether you consider yourself, “individualist,” “mutualist,” “syndicalist,” etc. I don’t believe these minor differences constitute a suspension of progress toward a freer and healthier coexistence. Perhaps I am get getting old, but growing up, my experience with anti-statist communities resided within the mutual goal of progression. Whether that would be progression in understanding or progressing toward autonomy. Don’t get me wrong, I believe debates can be a healthy form of intellectual engagement, but more often than not my witnessing of what I believe to be dogmatic, heated arguments have only increased. I’ve always been hesitant to claim that my “version” of anarchy is the one and only true version and therefore can never be refuted. I believe this type of thinking Is dangerous and could lead to confirmation bias and attempts to claim monopoly on thoughts/ideas. Ideas are good. Ideas can change the world and I don’t want to see anarchism turn into another political “party.” Surely there are more who share these views? Perhaps I truly am delusional or have come across comments that represent only the minority. Correct me if I’m wrong, but to me it appears to be an issue and was only therefore attempting initially to provoke discussion over the matter in hopes that it could be improved or resolved. It appears that I went about it the wrong way and have instead added fuel to the fires of division. Apologies.

come from the "how", in terms of "how anarchists live their lives", and naturally as humans we're meant to live in small groups rather than large the divisions are un-important as you imply but they are also somewhat illustrative as to how people live their lives. For example I have zero interest in a lot of the things anarchists are doing in the major cities on the streets, just seems kinda dumb and ignorant to me. Despite my obvious love of the wilderness, I have also been very displeased with a lot of the "black and green" rhetoric i've seen from certain people who i shall not name as the list overall is pretty long to tell you the truth.

Overall, i feel it's adequate to say that the "lines in the sand" that the various/diverse anarchists draw is not as much of a reflection of "who they are" as it is a reflection of their ideals. And for that reason, I'm open to having conversations to any and all anarchists about these things. I'm really hoping to see the internet (and maybe even fucking CIVILIZATION!) totally die out in my lifetime, the events of 2020 have reminded me that this is actually a distant possibility. Not saying that i would strongly rise from the ashes or anything like that, but it would be very interesting to see.

I think that’s a very enlightening conclusion and I share your convictions entirely in that, whether intentional or not, people illustrate their diverse individuality when it comes to how we choose to live life. That’s very much why I‘m plagued by the desire to divorce myself from any kind of tyrannical control. I think that the “how” you speak of is entirely accurate but is also more like a daydream for the future after the restraints of authority have been lifted. I don’t believe the “how” anarchist live can ever be objective, nor do I think it should be. The desire to live out this “how” should, in my opinion, be what unites the anarchist community. I can only speak for myself and those whom I’ve had discussions with prior, but the desire has never been to determine how others live, but to organize the opportunity to make available these other possibilities of living.

because i've only made any progress with anarchist thinking by realizing that i MUST divorce myself from tyrannical control. Really, i have never really figured out how to "get the dictator out of my head", but of course i have all sorts of magic tricks that work in varying degrees. It becomes harder when the dictator in someone else's head starts to come to the frontlines and attack, which i hope and pray i will no longer do to other people...

oh, but i will! Hitler/Mao is always bubbling in the cauldron right outside of my field of vision!

Sheesh dude, sounds like General Macarthur is bubbling away inside your head. The magic ain't working dude, the rabbit you pull out the hat is actually a smashy-smashy baseball bat!!!

Add new comment