Artist's rendition of the very first instance of hostility known to mankind

Anarchists are anti many things. Anti-state, anti-capital, anti-racism, anti-race, anti-patriarchy, anti-monarchy, anti-tech, anti-left, anti-fa. An onlooker could be forgiven for thinking anarchists are operating on hostility alone and define ourselves by the things we hate. Don’t worry, this isn’t one of those “So what are we FOR?” kinds of talks. I want to focus entirely on the animosity. 

While we are, of course, against all the bad things – who wouldn’t be? – anarchists are just as liable to be against the people who are against those things. We are highly critical of antifascists, though we are against fascism. We feud with feminists and queer theorists without ever fully breaking from them philosophically. We draw a bead on just about any tendency and pull the trigger twice if they have the gall to use the “anarcho-” prefix. 

The hostility intensifies when you start adding all those tacky flag colors to things. Green and Pink and Red and Orange and Blue and Teal and Magenta and Gray and White, more or less a constant state of social war over which crayola tendency deserves to bisect the black flag of anarchy. 

Some would argue the fighting helps keep us all sharp. After all, if we can’t survive each other we sure as shit won’t survive Leviathan. Others argue the real enemy is above us, not beside us, and if we’d all just be platformists we could move forward to revolution without all the petty quarrels. Middle-grounders say the infighting is perfectly healthy, but we cross into “doing the state’s work for them” by doxxing, physically attacking, and publishing outright condemnations of each other. 
 

What is the role of hostility in your anarchy? 

Are you the peace police? Or a good-fer-nothin shit-stirrer?

Is hostility something you value as an anarchist? What about when it’s between anarchists? 

Or are you asking “what’s so funny ‘bout peace, love, and understanding?”

Are there any anarchists or tendencies you are hostile to? Any you feel are hostile toward you? 

How’s that all workin’ for ya?

Comments

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/23/2025 - 16:57

hostility is something i always value as a principle, but as with many things it can be misplaced or excessive, depending on... stuff.

there are many things to be angry about in the world, and recognizing that, and experiencing that and living through each others' anger is palliative to the feel-good/be-happy/i'm okay you're okay shit that capitalism uses to placate and sell us things.

there was also a valuable lesson for me in learning not to own other people's anger. it is not necessary to jump in front of every bullet, apparently. who knew. 

triviabot (not verified) Sun, 02/23/2025 - 19:48

hostility can be oddly clarifying but i don't always like what i see. there was an essay on here a year or two ago with a line of "anarchy is more than ACAB and FTP" and the gist of that is something I think about a lot. Seeing or interacting with someone (a stranger or acquaintance) getting hostile with an authority figure clarifies someone's attitude/demeanor to authority, which could be a good starting point for anarchist friendship or comradery.

As far as not liking what I see, unfortunately, a lot of people are hostile to one authority only to be in search of another. That's where the nihilism comes in for me, a bit.

Mikester (not verified) Sun, 02/23/2025 - 20:15

This way of being is incomprehensible to me.

I don't speak to make others feel attacked. I speak to be understood. This is why I do inner work, so resentment doesn't hijack my voice.

If a listener is unsettled by an uncomfortable truth, let it be that I spoke it unflinchingly, not unkindly.

CalvinSmith (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 13:37

In reply to by anon (not verified)

To me, the post you are speaking to says "i do not want to be resentful who praises their anger" not "im a dumb fuck who can't wipe their ass". IOW, The echoes of self-healing gone mad!

anon (not verified) Sun, 02/23/2025 - 23:32

Empire induces hostility amongst its members. The pursuit of hierarchy and power, even in a tribe, is its genesis. Only the autonomous individual can be free of seething ressentiment.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 00:49

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Please explain to the class why an individual needs to be liberated from that which they resent? Not gonna hold my breath. Your type loves to parrot this line without understanding it whatsoever.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 06:13

In reply to by anon (not verified)

If "ressentiment" means anything in Nietzsche, it’s as a moment in a dialectical process, where the weak, unable to assert power directly, negate the values of the strong and create a moral inversion. It’s not just hostility or resentment but a structured reaction that gives rise to entire moral frameworks. Without this dialectic, this movement of negation, "ressentiment" is just another word for being mad.

So if Empire “induces ressentiment,” then those trapped in it aren’t just hostile; they’re defined by their opposition, still caught within the value structure they claim to reject. The only way beyond "ressentiment" isn’t to negate harder but to create something that stands on its own. Otherwise, you’re just another function of the thing you hate.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 04:00

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Another poster here, you make a good point, just look at the level of ressentiment and hostility that the whole Trump/Biden binary State Empire functions upon, and the seethingness that drives the whole voting/nationalist agenda with its hostility and hatred fed momentum driving Empire at its roots.
I suppose the autonomous individual is winning because they are removed from that whole socio-pathology, from the disease of participating and being infected by Empire's malignant and emotionally draining narrative.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 07:39

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"the whole Trump/Biden binary State Empire functions upon."

Used to. Some of you here still think and behave like we're in 2024 with the same old business-as-usual binary politics. It's problematic, if not self-defeating, to have your brain stuck in the past and not adapt to change.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 09:25

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Ok, kiddo. So when was the last time the GOP under a White supremacist President not only controlled both houses, but also the Supreme Court as well as having all the major US big tech bros (except Bill Gates) under his command?

Also hoping you'll figure out how to write a least one coherent sentence in response and without using the "N" or the homophobe "F" word to susbtanciate your cerebral expletives. No wait, I dare you.

23:32 (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 14:47

In reply to by anon (not verified)

23:32 here, it's the same dynamic moved to a new chapter. This year 2025, the new binary relationship is forming as the Trump/European UN cheapskates.
The script changes every year or 2, Anarchists ADAPT to every new cycle, we AREN'T stuck in any ideological bog, we are creative and spontaneous critical thinkers.

Calvin Smith (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 15:43

In reply to by anon (not verified)

trump does a lot of the same things that all his predeccessors do on a regular basis, like liyng. Pathologically.

Maybe if you actually had some constructive commands, then people wouldn't look down on you.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 19:05

In reply to by Calvin Smith (not verified)

"Trump does a lot of the same things that all his predeccessors do on a regular basis, like liyng."

That's a stupid weak-ass, tired argument that somewhat applied to his first term, and that only Trump apologists will be using elsewhere online. Everything he ordered since in office is in sharp rupture from ANY previous admin. I don't need to cite the news (you likely didn't read as you eat your billionaire shit straight from the X cesspool), as they're all over the place already there's fun surprises everyday.

Oh, and I didn't forget about "Calvin Smith" of the past year(s). You still suck ass, so no surprise here, darling!

23:32 (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 20:53

In reply to by Calvin Smith (not verified)

They can acknowledge eachother within the crowd. There would be discreet body-language hints, they will notice their manner of speaking to others in a non-condescending tone, the way their polite pauses in a conversation, the subtle choice of topics they introduce into a conversation, the way they enter a train or doorway, the wordless signals they use to meet in a park, all undetectable by surveilance cameras, like normie just going about their servitude, but actually floating in a liberating ether of unconditional poetic anarchist splendor,,,,,

23:32 (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 19:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The socio-economic pathology flows down to boss/wage-slave hostility, every toxic transactional relationship caused by the food/rent neo-feudal complex to property crime incarceration, (anarchism 101, but I have to repeat it, sorry) is the horror. But one can rise above this, thrive within the shell of the acquisition machine, and discard the quivering lusting and seething ressentiment it spawns. We must be bold!

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 07:34

"Anarchists are anti many things. Anti-state, anti-capital, anti-racism, anti-race, anti-patriarchy, anti-monarchy, anti-tech, anti-left, anti-fa. An onlooker could be forgiven for thinking anarchists are operating on hostility alone and define ourselves by the things we hate.

"ooooh u antifa? You're such a hater!"

What a moronic TOTW. Author should read a book or two maybe.

EmmaAintDead Mon, 02/24/2025 - 11:19

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Are you arguing that antifa does not hate fascists or are you arguing that anyone who expresses hatred is a hater? I am unclear. 

Either way, is antifa defined by anything other than their opposition to fascism? they seem undecided on that from what i have seen. 

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 13:09

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

Aaaah, little Emma. Fascists are inherently defined by hatred. This is an extreme ideology built on axioms like depersonalized cult of the Nation, the Race, the Don... but also irl they always the same band of repressive thugs. So to say... how is hating haters, being an "hater"?

I'm a big fan of "live and let live", but like there's always these dicks and nerks taking people's lives fro a distance coz it's part of their sick game. Of course that applies to all authoritarians. But there's a limit to tolerating these types, and even more acting like they don't exist.

EmmaAintDead Mon, 02/24/2025 - 13:16

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Sure, paradox of tolerance, right, im with ya. the question was whether or not there is an actual distinction being made between this commentor and the op regarding whether or not antifascism is purely an anti-position or if it defines itself as pro-anything. the issue being pointed out by the anon above is that the totw author was reducing antifascists to being "haters" and my question was "are they not?"

 

what fascism consists of is clearly being opposed, and i am in agreement with opposition to it. i suspect the totw author also is, given its place next to the other "anti"s and the context theyre listed in. but i do not see how fascism's contents as an ideology impact the position of antifa being solely defined by their opposition to fascism. 

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 14:22

In reply to by EmmaAintDead

Negative definitions are a thing, anti-bad-thing is every day use, the trouble is when ppl try to build an entire worldview or political position out of a negative definition, which they aren't much good for

CalvinSmith (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 13:26

In reply to by anon (not verified)

No, there's no "inherent" about that, just because words come out of context. Ive seen so many ppl in politics try to argue they are doing something other than what they are doing.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 08:21

FUCK YOU!

lumpy (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 09:44

welcome to the game! today we're playing Construct Your Anarchist Identity again!

as we all know, letting others construct our identities gives them a lot, for example, they might misrepresent righteous anger and portray us as The Hostile Other. some old anarchist hat!

hostility tends to define you while you're literally doing it, which is fine if you're good at it but what else are you? wouldn't want to be defined by just hostility, that's walking right in to the trap

so to the point about nietzsche, you're "trapped within and defined by empire" insofar as you're letting empire flatten you in to a cartoon enemy effigy, which empire will literally always try to do, especially when you fight back, which does not mean you shouldn't.

to me, fred is just saying your enemies will be dishonest in their perceptions of you and lie about you ... but of course they will and of course you shouldn't internalize it. that would lead to like ... problems of double consciousness. very serious medical condition! probably should get that looked at

CalvinSmith (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 12:44

These are both defensive, it's protective to flip out on someone. For this reason, cunning ppl see hostility as a weakness.

However, you can't stop me or others from getting mad, and we can't be nodding doormats forever...well, without drugs and confined situations we can't.

anon (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 13:43

What is the role of hostility in your anarchy?

-- little to none.

Are you the peace police? Or a good-fer-nothin shit-stirrer?

--neither.

Is hostility something you value as an anarchist? What about when it’s between anarchists?

--hostility is not something I "as an anarchist" usually find valuable. it is a tool in my emotional toolbox, used when needed, then put away again.
why would I value hostility between anarchists? because the other doesn't think exactly as I do? because the other holds slightly differing opinions? my anarchy is more rooted in non-hierarchical relations, why should I police other's thoughts and be hostile if I find differences?

Or are you asking “what’s so funny ‘bout peace, love, and understanding?”

--lol, broken record

Are there any anarchists or tendencies you are hostile to? Any you feel are hostile toward you?

--not really. hostility takes a lot of energy to keep up, I'm too old for such adolescent postures.
the anarchists who think hostility is good probably are hostile toward me, who knows?

CalvinSmith (not verified) Mon, 02/24/2025 - 13:52

However, this reminds of Novatore's assertion that anger makes us strong. In the absolute sense, it clearly doesn't. Yet, it's a comment on the strength of emotions. It's kinda depressing from an anarchist standpoint that anger doesn't always have a direct outlet, if an anarchist is mad at the cops, the cop isn't always standing there, smiling, asking them to get punched in the face.

23:32 (not verified) Tue, 02/25/2025 - 03:54

In reply to by CalvinSmith (not verified)

Yes, in my previous undisciplined inner naivete my anger ran unchecked and disproportionately, luckily it was only my naked fists and feet which lashed out at fascist cops. But now my wise interpretation of the game raises me above and beyond the futile pursuit of vainglorious spectacle to an empathic creative rebellion against the authoritarian hegemony.

ftpdistro (not verified) Tue, 02/25/2025 - 10:49

guess you could call me a centrist. not against debate or even some level of virtual shit flinging if it doesn't get out of control. yeah the doxxing is ridiculous and i dont get why some people seem to have no conflict resolution skills. trauma i guess, we are all pretty broken people

GEF (not verified) Tue, 02/25/2025 - 12:17

> What is the role of hostility in your anarchy?

"Broken Heads
Brainwashed
Hatred Pulls Me Through
In Your Mind
Instinct For Survival
Censored Views
Trick And Confuse"

> Are you the peace police? Or a good-fer-nothin shit-stirrer?

No u. Tho it's true we fucked your mom, tho.

> Is hostility something you value as an anarchist? What about when it’s between anarchists?

Always handy, but breeding and cultivating it, that's a stupid/toxic thing to do. Just get over it when unneeded.

> Or are you asking “what’s so funny ‘bout peace, love, and understanding?”

Yes, coz that's what grown ups are usually asking.

> Are there any anarchists or tendencies you are hostile to? Any you feel are hostile toward you?

Most! Ok... like, say, commies in anarchist disguise... Social democrats in anarchist disguise... Then the usual fake-ass clowns that account for the remaining half. Tho I don't deal with them a lot irl these days, so I don't bother much. The real "anarchists" are all over the place but they might lack the consciousness and opa stand up for themselves enough.

> How’s that all workin’ for ya?

Read Critique of Dialectical Reason and get back to "us" in few years, maybe.

anon (not verified) Tue, 02/25/2025 - 15:14

ThE snITcH-hUntErS aRe aLsO sEeThiNg wItH rESsenTimEnT wITh tHeIr cOmPliCiTy wItHiN tHiS BiNarY gAmE oF mOrAl sUpRemAcY!

anon (not verified) Thu, 02/27/2025 - 04:10

The role of hostility in my anarchy is purely reserved towards the systems & structures of authority and domination that we live in. I see no point to having hostility to other anarchists or radicals. As I see it, anarchism has certain values underlying it, values such as cooperation, mutual aid, solidarity and sharing, and the practice of these values is undermined through having hostility towards one another. Hostility towards systems of domination makes sense to me, since that is what is diminishing and destroying us all, our very lives are at stake because of it. Hostility towards each other... Why?

In addition to cooperation, mutual aid, etc. not taking place when there's hostility, I don't even see learning and the development of new ideas taking place in an atmosphere of hostility either. That's because it puts people in a mindset of defensiveness and suspicion, which is not a good mental state to be in if learning and creativity is a goal.

I don't aspire to be either the peace police or a shit stirrer. As much as I don't like it when anarchists are shitty towards each other, I don't see policing people's language and behavior as accomplishing anything either. As I see it, people need to have an authentic desire themselves to change in order for it to be real and lasting.

There are no anarchists or tendencies that I feel hostile towards. I believe that there is always something that I can learn from and appreciate about other anarchists. Anarchism is such a marginal and misunderstood perspective in our society that I am just grateful that there are other anarchists out there in the first place.

As far as hostility towards me from other anarchists, yes, I have experienced plenty of that over the years. I have found that to be quite sad and discouraging. Rather than respond back with my own hostility, my tendency has been more to withdraw and retreat, to just do things by myself or online. This is not ideal for me, since what I am really wanting is open dialogue, active listening and working through things when there is disagreement and conflict. People are capable of this just as much as they are capable of hostility.

lumpy (not verified) Thu, 02/27/2025 - 14:47

In reply to by anon (not verified)

that's an admirable sentiment but aren't you describing conflict avoidance?

obviously i don't know the details of why people came at you and if they were being fair or not but i do know that "working through things" becomes almost impossible without being able to navigate some hostility during a disagreement

it might even literally be some of the F's out of the fight, flight, freeze or fawn responses, which is a nervous system problem, which makes working through disagreements extremely challenging

anon (not verified) Sat, 03/01/2025 - 19:15

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

Nothing wrong with being a fawningly meak empath bruh, it would stop all the wars and selfishness in the world. I cwied when my gf gave me a black eye.

anon (not verified) Fri, 02/28/2025 - 18:49

Impatience also fuels hostility, like the child's tantrum. Many goals are achieved incrementally, and may appear to be reformist, however looking at the big picture, like pouring a glass of water into a barrel, over and over without any apparent benefit and people complaining, but in the end they can have a bath, wash their clothes, pour the water onto a vegetable garden.

anon (not verified) Sat, 03/01/2025 - 06:47

In reply to by anon (not verified)

What fucking goals the anarchist movement is neutered to all hell. Fucking poseurs managed to "deconstruct" simple social-revolution to where shit means fuck all.

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
@
X
w
g
!
#
9
f
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.