TOTW: What is Anarchism in 2017?

  • Posted on: 2 October 2017
  • By: thecollective

This week we ask a perennial question. What is anarchism today? Is it the activity of anarchists? Is it an ideology of negatives (no state, no capitalism)? How about an ideology of positives (mutual aid, solidarity, and sharing)?

How do modern anarchistic activities map to our definition of anarchism? How do you describe anarchism to your grandmother in such a way as she understands and agrees with your choice to be an anarchist? Have you convinced her to join you (us)?



"Anarchism" means different things to different people, so there is no one unified definition. With this in mind, it is kind of pointless to talk about what anarchism "is" in 2017.

For myself, my definition of anarchism is a belief that authority and domination are harmful to people, that all forms of capitalism and the state are expressions of authority and domination, and that we should therefore find and create new ways to meet our needs together without the state, capitalism and authority in general. Perhaps this definition would be palatable to my grandmother, but I've never run it by her, so I don't know.

Your granma was hawt 50 yrs ago during the Post-Marxist era!!

Tony Montana's sister in Cuba?

In fact the key concept is difference. To defer, to differentiate as to both Time
and space. This implies a viewpoint of immanence, a flow of plenitude, with an emphasis
On force- fields of motion . Applied to our sentiments and inclinations, we express this
Plenum as our ability to create movements with a multiplicity of praxes leading
a variety of temporary autnonomous zones. These creations have the attribute
of Singularity as to our craving for freedom and universal univocity.
This is the way; this is the struggle. Our heritage from the days of Bakunin's "Alliance" to more recent " Occupy" , to the current BLM, antifa, and Rojava movements. demonstrates our flexibility ,
Innovation and yes, success. There are no permanent outcomes, thank you,
Of Sclerosis and Stasis. In short, we " make a difference" as we nurture our difference
and our differences .

Keat doing the good work

my grandma's just waiting to die.your questions are too confusing

Why is it that has has to be negative or positive? Always felt that both was the best. It is a rejection and it is a set of ethics and principles.

In today's US, it is a subcultural identity phenomenon, wholly owned by the all-entertainment, all-the-time ethos of the larger consumer society around us. The scene exists solely to keep scenesters entertained.

Well that all originates from centuries old cultural Weltanschauung, you know, there were identity types in the Middle Ages entertaining the hoi polloi.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Scenesters can still show up for the class war and the idpol.

1- "Class war" is something that's fought on a daily basis, much less at spectacular events of opposition.

2- Idpols worthy of anything? You're not serious here aren't ya?

3- You can be easily fought by throwing thick history books at ya, I guess.

4- Not being hostile or hateful against you tho. Got no reason to not be frank here.

You can be Frank if you want to, how you identify is your business but if you're anti idpol then you're a white supremacist.

Yep chaps! Jes keep pushing the sarcasm. It made me laugh slightly... so you may be on the right track after all!

These macho douchebags are just one or two cosmetics alterations away from being neonazis or WPs

And you're the one coming here and calling everyone white supremacists just because they don't like maoist identity politics?

Fuck off, you Nazi yourself.

Maoist (often), but anti-capitalist NOT. I use Identity Politician to signify any attempt to use race or gender to SHOUT DOWN any discussion of capitalism. This is especially unhelpful in the case of structural racism. WHERE are the reparations black people are owed going to come from? Working-class whites? Liberal capitalists everywhere are down for that!

Now I'll have you know that I'm a member of an Official Identity Politics Oppressed Group (which working-class whites are NOT). I've been in love with other guys and have even (gasp!) slept with other guys. This is why the Bad Kitty pen-name is REQUIRED. "If you are a male who has slept with other males, you are REQUIRED to have a Federally Registered Camp Name. If you do not chose and register a Camp Name, a Camp Name will be assigned to you by the State."

we should therefore find and create new ways to meet our needs together without the state, capitalism and authority in general. In others words, a harmless personal trip. Not your Goldman and Berkman's anarchism, to be sure.

What "harm" and "harmless" have to do with anarchism?

My approach to anarchism is more based on the kind of understanding exemplified by this Gustav Landauer quote:

"The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another…"

Likewise, I see capitalism and authority in general as also being a kind of relationship between human beings that can, and should, be replaced with different kinds of relationships between human beings.

Is it:

-the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society?
-an instinct towards destruction?
-a sublime figure in the modern eclipse?
-a saintly call of revolt against the established order of things?
-the hatred of the ill-constituted?
-romantic pessimism?
-a pathological transitional stage?
-a misunderstanding (of freedom)?
-an approach to hierarchy lacking nuance?
-political comedy?
-a refusal to justify existence?
-our only hope?


A sublime figure of hope and resolute belief
In our ability to create new worlds as new
peoples to-come.

Anarchism, as far as it is merely humans talking to humans, is proving to be a failed political project like all other human-centric political projects.
Anarchy is everywhere we look, except for in the Human realm. Anarchism is humans trying to keep our false sense of control over everything and telling ourselves we have figured out how to live.
If we really want anarchy, we need to listen less to humans and more to squirrels, redwood trees, the wind &the rain.

Sure but how "anarchism" was not some socialist or commie agenda disguised as something else -while not being much else- in the first place? Anarchism is a poorly-defined ideal, maybe not even a formed ideal... just an embryo of ideal. I don't like ideals first of all, and if you wanna push one at least agree on some plan (like the socialists and commies have been doing). What I'm seeing with the anarchism of self-described anarchists is an order that doesn't need to be one.

Anarchism is order just like fascism is freedom. This is shallow and doesn't make any sense. I don't want any of this bullshit and give me instead a heavy dose of anarchy alll the time... keeping hierarchies maybe just for the theatrical fun and games like French or Czech comedy. Hierarchies are only to be turned into a derision, and it's been a common behavior among all the true anarchos I've known to be laughing at those.

Anarchism in 2017 is still lame, but it should be mostly about satire, among other kinds of subversion too.

...yes and that last part of 15:17's comment especially. I don't need fucking Merleau-Ponty or LyoTard telling me about life in the ways of anarchy. This is something to observe, experience and realize.

The struggle is dooooope

We have figured it out! Now we know what to do and our alienation is a thing of the past! I send a magic light beams of solidarity to all my brethren/(and sistern, sorry to be sexist), across the sea! THE LIGHT WARRIORS ARE STARTING IN HAWAII AND MAKING THEIR WAY ACROSS JAPAN, BLESSING EVERYONE, EVEN BLESSING THE COPS

Political anarchy is what it is, something to be retired to the edgy liberals and conservatives. Let anarchy be an apolitically unfiltered orientation.

To the anarchs.

anarchism follows from the mode of understanding wherein relations are in a natural primacy over 'things-in-themselves', where humans are not seen as 'independent biological systems in themselves' residing, operating and interacting in an absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame that is perceived as an 'operating theatre' [as noun-and-verb language-and-grammar would have it].

if human forms are relational features in a transforming relational continuum and there are no 'things-in-themselves' animated by 'their own rational purpose', then harmonious organization is 'immanent' in the continuum, and the notion of formulating 'rules of behaviour' that hold 'people as things-in-themselves' fully and solely causally responsible for their actions and results makes no sense.

without rules of behaviour applied to 'things-in-themselves', there need be no courts, no tribunals, no police, no military and no state to manage the legislating of rules and the maintaining of regulatory structure.

the organized relational dynamics that manifest generally in (non-human) communities in nature are inductively actualized by environmental influence, not driven by rational purpose of notional 'independently-existing things-in-themselves. in other words, epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression within an inhabitant-habitat nonduality.

humans have the same capacity as in nature generally for experience-based intuition to take precedence over reason, ... relations to take precedence over things and fixed rational structures, and the result of this mode of understanding and operating is 'anarchy'.

as Emerson observes, the tool of reason has run away with the workman, the human with the divine. anarchy as the natural operative has been buried beneath rational purpose driven regulatory structure.

anarchy 'resurfaces' for those who suspend mentally reducing relational activity patterns [as with storm-cells in the flow, inhabitants in the habitat] to notional 'independently-existing things-in-themselves with notional internal genetic agency driven development, actions and accomplishments'

I believe I said this, more or less, with fewer words.

Anarchism comes from and for the most part still is ensconced in the western enlightenment tradition, & we can't get anywhere worth being from there.

Anarchy, on the other hand, is self organizing systems, at many levels of resolution, interacting freely at the limits of their will.
You can call this view New-Age, but really it is as old age as it gets.

to 11:34. This is part of why there needs to be a discourse of Neo-Anarchy that is a clean break from the political-economic enlightenment derivative discourse of anarchism.

Anarchy will need anarchs and the anarchic not anarchists. Leave the political-economic stuff to the ideologues.

Well, no.
If the goal is anarchy, yes we need to understand what that is apart from the western project.

But in contradiction to that (and in saying anything real, one necessarily will contradict oneself) I see we are still smack dab in the middle of a political/ economic paradigm. I don't think it behooves us to jettison modes of communication merely because we feel we have a better answer. I think we should be able to move between modes of communication when the time is ripe.

the enlightenment 'reality' is based on belief that the material forms THAT WE WE SEE OUT THERE 'really are' 'independently-existing things-in-themselves animated by their own internal will. This is the 'being-based dualist 'object reality'.

as nietzsche says, this is just the fabrication of the Western little ego-self. schroedinger calls it 'schaumkommen'. Poincare calls it 'Cantorian realism' which is essentially abstraction or 'pragmatic idealism'.

this pseudo-objective-reality is a noun-and-verb semantic reality construction which the enlightenment mode of understanding deploys as its 'operative reality'. Every political faction rallies around their own cherry-picked version of 'objective reality'. none of them are 'real' because there is no 'objective reality'.

for the anarchs, the only reality is one's personal experience. this is the 'perspectivism' of nietzsche and indigenous anarchists and their 'learning circles'. as nietzsche says,

""The more eyes, different eyes, we know how to bring to bear on one and the same matter, that much more complete will our 'concept' of this matter, our 'objectivity' be." -- Nietzsche, 'A Genealogy of Morality'

you can describe these as 'modes of communication' if you like, but experience has shown that people divide on the basis of which version of these two 'realities' is the 'real reality', and the belief in the 'existence' of an 'objective reality out there' of the politician, he is anchored to by his own 'ego' whereby he sees himself as an independently-existing biological system-in-itself with his own internal will and genetic agency that puts him 'above nature' and gives him the power to control and improve on nature.

when an 'anarch', talking to a political anarchist who has committed himself to a positive causal approach to constructing an anarchist community, says to him, ... 'you can let go. you were never really in control of anything. it will only happen if you 'let go', ... it scares the shit out of the politician. the politician is convinced that all will be well once he gets elected and gets everyone backing a common blueprint. that is because his 'objective reality out there' is in terms of a whole lot of 'independent things-in-themselves with their own internal rational purpose' that somebody or some theory has to 'organize'.

my point is that it's not just a different mode of communicating, its a different sense of 'what's real', starting with 'one's self'; i.e. ... is my material being 'all she wrote' so that i am independent of nature and/or field and all that, or am i a sort of brahman-atman habitat-inhabitant nonduality?

lastly, the brahman-atman types can switch between dualist atman mode of communications and nondualist brahman-atman mode of communications, but the enlightenment has not only reduced 'reality' for many people to one-sided dualist atman view where scientific talk rules, it has given them the scientific bias which has them reject nonduality (inhabitant-habitat nonduality).

clearly, you can say 'new-age' is 'old-age' and i agree, but a lot of folks think 'new-age' is bullshit and thus cling to 'objective reality' and all that it implies as an 'operative reality'

I agree with what you have said here, & with your critique of my imprecise use of language.

Language, no matter how precise & exact, is still an approximation of the "reality" being described, which doesn't excuse sloppy usage, but points toward my frustration at trying to get at precise language when most people don't care about it.

It takes effort to get to a non-dualistic perspective, and people don't go there because such a perspective is not rewarded in this culture. I'm not trying to be arrogant or sell others short. I'm just cognizant of the many of forces arrayed against one in a search for a non-dualistic pov. Everything, even the language used to describe everything, is a hindrance to such understanding.

And I know how long it took me to "see". I know, even when I heard/saw language that was most precise, I was not able to get it. & how I did get it, I have no idea.
So, I try to have fun & a sense of humor at the foibles & limitations of the human instrument.

it is frustrating, particularly because we are trying to talk about nonduality 'in english', a noun-and-verb language that is 'being' (subject and predicate) based, which screws things up from the get-go.

noun-and-verb language is meanwhile all we can use within our 'group', since few people are interested in learning nuu-chah-nulth or hopi or algonquin.

meanwhile poets do get around the limitations of noun-and-verb language, but people who want to engage in 'rational' discussion want to at least 'start' in rational space.

i am not knocking you for having fun with it, ... but can't we have fun while crossing back and forth. like, most people can intuit what you mean if you say that if there are two people in a family set and they have a child, this constitutes an addition of one more person to the family set so that there are three people in the set. but no, that is not right because when we add a new person to the set, we must redefine the members we previously defined in the absence of the new person. i.e. this is impredicative logic as relates to nonduality. it's kind of funny but people do intuit that 'who they are' changes when they raise a child'. upping the family from two to three [predicative logic] doesn't come near getting it.

that may sound like nerdy fun, but nonduality always tweaks the heart-strings because it invokes relational space.

anyhow, you are not telling me anything new when you speak of "the many of forces arrayed against one in a search for a non-dualistic pov."

in any case, 15:17, nice to 'bump into' someone so fluent in 'nonduality'!

I don't see why agents of anarchy should comport themselves to such modes. Remember it was people like Marx and Bakunin who helped to drive this by talking about the need for materialism and getting beyond idealism and philosophy. Why not return anarchy to a philosophical language as opposed to a political/economic one. From that you turn anarchy toward a personal everyday orientation not driven by a historical here to there project.

I do agree we need modes of go between communication but my idea is to have specific political ideologues who are sympathetic to anarchy but are political animals none the less out of habit. Basically these cyphers for anarchy would do the work that anarchists used to do. Perhaps it would be for those who continue to hold onto the anarchist label. For those however who want to live anarchy directly as a philosophy and a way of life I think an exodus from the political/economic realm of language is in order.

perhaps you may agree that while 'anarchists' see themselves as independent things-in-themselves that have the power to positive-causally construct 'anarchist community', ... 'anarchs' are people who let their actions be inductively actualized and orchestrated by the relational dynamics of the collective they are included in.

that is, in naturally evolving (anarchist) community (as distinct from intentional, rationally constructed community), the needs arising in the relational dynamic of a collective inductively actualize, orchestrate and shape the development of (initially formless) creative potentials of participants. this is a relational process which is, itself, 'community' (as a relational process and not as a managed structure)..

in this view, 'anarchists' are those who, coming from their 'head-voice', would try to deliberately construct and co-manage anarchist community while 'anarchs', coming from their 'heart-voice', are continually 'rising to the epigenetic occasion', letting their creative potentials be inductively actualized in the fulfilling of needs arising in the relational dynamics of the collective.

i am not used to seeing very many comments like yours, 15:17.

you really have said it very well in very few words, in my opinion.

my only complaint might be your imputing 'being' and 'will' to a notional 'plurality' of 'self-organizing systems'. (evolution is not destination-oriented)

my own view [and nietzsche's, mach's, schroedinger's] is that there are no 'self-organizing systems-in-themselves' that are 'actualized by their own internal 'will'. instead, as in field-and-matter nonduality, epigenetic influence is the inductive actualizer of all 'genetic expression'. the relational dynamics of the community is the source of the individual members of the community ["it takes a whole community to raise a child"]

my main point is one of agreement [without being able to see a more wordy 'deconstruction' of your words; e.g. as in your deterministic sounding phrase "self organizing systems ... interacting freely at the limits of their will]


Yes, I agree with your view, as far as I understand it.

I talk about discrete "things" because, for most people that is easiest to understand.

Of course, the relationships are as you describe them. But most people either already understand that or they don't. For the ones who understand you don't need to keep pointing out the obvious. For those who do not understand they think you are just being pedantic or purposefully obscure, and that just pisses them off.

So, I err on the side of simplicity.

i don't like writing solely for those that 'already understand' as if 'we' are in an exclusive club. when i write, i try to deconstruct in a way that shows how the nondualist view differs and 'contains' the dualist view as a simpler view within it. of course i don't need to do that for those in the nondualist mode of understanding, but if we are all going to bring it together, it will be necessary for more people who are stuck in dualist only mode to revitalize their atrophied nondualist mode of understanding, so i write to try to awaken that atrophied nondualist faculty.

i was about to comment on your mode of communications mode and i will put that comment in as i wrote it, but it pertains to this comment here, by raising the point that we are not just talking about 'modes of communication' but about how culture has shaped what we take to be 'reality'.

i'm pretty sure i saw her talking with an indigenous aboriginal who had been saying that humans and our four-legged, winged, crawly and rooted relatives, were strands in a web-of-life, that everything was dependent on everything else and that what we did to the web, we did to ourselves. and she was correcting him and telling him that God created us all equal, as independent beings with free will who were each fully and solely responsible for our own actions and accomplishments, so that the failure of the indigenous peoples to 'perform' was not due to some notional 'glass ceiling' where only European whites could rise through into master class jobs and authoritarian influence, wealth and privileges, but was instead due to innate genetic differences; i.e. to natural hard-wired inferior and superior attributes of our independently existing selves.

the indigenous man was objecting, saying that the web-of-relations was the primary physical reality so that the forms we observed were 'appearances' that were continually gathering and being regathered in the dynamic relational web, ... and they weren't 'really' independent things-in-themselves.

the lady with the tea said that the strand-in-the-web nonduality was a throwback to primitive superstitions that impeded the continuing advance of European civilization that had done so much for the primitive peoples of the world, rescuing them from a life of ignorance and superstition. she said she felt so sorry for the children of indigenous aboriginal parents who were being raised to believe in such rubbish as nonduality, and felt that those of us who knew better, who had the advantage of the Western European colonizing culture upbringing, should launch a program to rescue indigenous children from such life-crippling indoctrination, by giving them the chance to get a proper, scientific education in boarding schools where such nonsense as nonduality and other primitive beliefs would never have a chance to take root in them, and where they would be in a good place to come to grips with the basic facts of life and accept that we can't all be at the top of the evolutionary progression of genetic advances.

of course, she was probably speaking to deaf ears because anybody who believes in evolution as arising through an interdependent web-of-life where a whole diverse community of things is purportedly sourcing the new things in the web, as in the nondualist belief, ... will look upon Darwinism and its self-perfecting lineages, as an absurdity..

I think the person on the left was saying "there is no tea" (neti neti) while the person on the right was saying "i am the tea" (tat tvam asi) one being a negation and the other an affirmation which are both wrong because the more you say about it the further you get from the truth. She who says doesn't know, she who knows doesn't say. Zen masters would have slapped each other or talked about something else. In reference to your post I am a high school dropout with limited education but it's obvious to me that we are integrally embedded in our world. The air we breathe and the water we drink are shared organs and damage to one part of this vast organism has consequences. Why the European man thinks he can destroy the earth and live in it at the same time probably comes from the ancient prime directive to be fruitful and subdue the earth. The European man thinks he is a God man but I just think he has wetiko psychosis.

Absolute and Relative Confusion

we seem to be on the same page in our worldview, i.e. that we are included in an inhabitant-habitat nonduality; i.e. the relational forms such as humans, are features in the transforming relational continuum [the 'flow' for short]. i deconstruct 'flow' to 'transforming relational continuum' to try to invoke the picture of forms or storms continually gathering and being regathered within the same flow, as with the relationship between matter and field generally and as with all forms such as humans, insects, wolves etc.

education, insofar as it is 'scientific' tends to screw up our natural intuitive mode of understanding. people use 'educated jargon' to elevate logic and scientific modes of understanding into an unnatural precedence over experience-based intuition. the other reason to use 'educated jargon' is to show where the errors are in the assumptions used by educators

accepting the non-duality you describe in our worldview is evidently not a problem; not for you and not for me; i.e. we understand that we are included in the world we are observing out there. if our eyeballs were on opposites our head instead of the same side, this would improve the ease of perceiving this, but its not a problem anyhow. but this is just to intellectually understand it which makes one a "Mahavit' like Schroedinger pointed out that he was, which means that you understand nonduality intellectually but haven't yet got to the point where you can kind of spiritually sense 'oneness with everything' [which would mean that your 'I' is dispersed in that moment.]

The challenge i see is that while intellectually understanding nonduality is not hard. it is in your expression of your worldview, the spiritual attainment is something else and much more challenging. schroedinger didn't get there and he didn't need to for his understanding of nonduality to make an important contribution to his physics-philosophy investigations which were tied up in nonduality.

here's my beef. mainstream science doesn't allow nonduality, ... not even in an intellectual sense as schroedinger was using it. so if a scientific view is hopelessly falling short because the phenomenon being considered can't be understood without invoking nonduality, scientists won't accept nonduality and they bring in distracting videos like 'the advaita trap' to make fun of nonduality so that anything with the label nonduality will be rejected even though mach, bohm, schroedinger invoked it. einstein's statement that field theory can handle matter so that we don't need a separate theory for matter is an acknowledgement that matter and field are a non-duality with matter forming in field in the manner that storm-cells form in turbulence. a theory of turbulence should also deal with storms since it is all the same phenomenon but science doesn't have a theory of turbulence and has to simulate it.

science ignores what it can't measure and it can't measure 'glass ceilings', but they are nevertheless there and we intuitively know it. nonduality explains how they can be there while science does not account for them. that is, physical phenomena involves nonduality but science removes it, so that important phenomena like 'epigenetic influence' go missing. 'epigenetic influence' is real it explains 'glass celiings'

for example it is possible to use 'fielding' as a glass ceiling that can be raised or lowered to inflate or shrink 'hitting'. if the master class lowers the ceiling too far (shrinks to hitting performance of the slaves or peasant) this may induce rebellion. however, without acknowledging the glass ceiling, the rebellion will be blamed on 'rebels'. intuitively, we know something is going on and we call it 'oppression' but it is invisible and science ignores what it can't measure. it can measure the actions of the people who are rebelling.

so long as mainstream science will not acknowledge nonduality in physical phenomena, rebellions will be blamed on 'rebels'. glass ceilings are invisible but real and science can't measure them so science ignores them.

did you ever play baseball when little kids were playing for the first time and were being given a hard time by slightly older smart ass kids? with empathic adults also playing, the pitching and fielding could be made more accommodating for the little newbies and more disaccommodating for the smart ass older kids. this is like lowering and raising an invisible glass ceiling. all that science can measure is the hitting. if a team is paid off by the mafia and lifts the glass ceiling, it will show up as a spike in hitting performance but only intuition can discern whether there is hanky panky going on with the glass ceiling.

hitting and fielding are a non-duality

the glass ceiling influence is, of course, real [we all know from experience we can 'throw a game' which shows up as a measurable spike in the other team's hitting performance]. but our messing with the glass ceiling is not measurable. intuition tells us that the glass ceiling effect is important in racial discrimination but science can't measure it. that's because science does not acknowledge nonduality or anything else it can't (easily) measure. it just goes by what it can measure. medical science can't measure deficiencies in digestive tract flora but it can measure the microbes like c.difficile that proliferate with lethal 'hitting results' and so it blames the rebel microbes. same with vitamin and mineral deficiencies (only a few deficiencies with dramatic effect are well-known). the invisible glass ceiling is not a readily measurable influence so science will ignore it and talk in terms of 'new virulent and lethal strains of microbes' that are hitting home runs. talking 'immune system' just clouds the view because it assumes pathogenic attack comes first [this already assumes rebels are the cause of rebellion and ignores the epigenetic influence of 'glass ceilings'].

About 10 years ago I had been reading a lot of emile's posts and had the realization that consciousness is fundamental, that life was happening through me not to me and the world was basically what I make it i.e. you see what you want to see. So I set about making my own Nirvana or Utopia by giving up all pursuit of negativity, quit watching news, reading @news, quit my social media accounts, started walking around barefoot eating dollar weed and pine needles out of the yard and being nice to the neighbors. I had been reading DEW, was becoming indigenous, no longer a settler but one with the land. This experiment worked, after a little cultivation I achieved calmness, clarity and peace of mind, I wasn't fighting or resisting, there was no conflict, I was adapting to conditions, living life on life's terms but as with previous iterations of the matrix I got bored with it, I needed some conflict in my life, something to fight for. So I fired up the social media accounts, turned on the news and there it was again all the ugliness that I left behind waiting for me, started analyzing the neighbors and determined that they are the enemy and quit talking to them. So the limits of my resistance is how much cognitive dissonance can I handle, how much trouble can I be in with the neighbors and still sleep at night. I would say that I'm under more oppression now, there is a high end marina/country club/boat storage facility with towering forklifts that move expensive yachts into dry storage, that looks like a huge prison block across the street from my house where once there was a pine forest, the new neighbors are playing me closer, there's more competition for the libidinal economy. So it's a constant balancing act, I want to be comfortable and sleep at night but I also don't want to be on bottom all the time. There is a glass ceiling, a social order, a hierarchy of souls. I've learned new ways to fight, sometimes it's better to lay down sometimes to stand up but the social order is dynamic, climbers are climbing, some people are staying down others are getting up, I have more tactics and coping skills but you have to be on your toes, they're just waiting for you to go to sleep.

Wow, you've obviously never embraced the ubermensch/lumberman concept or read Nietzsche from what I gather from your attitude to the everyday manifestations of the libidinal drive and its sublimation within the potentiality of the eternal recurrence?

Sometimes it's good to look at the classics.

A monk asked T'ou Tzu, "All sounds are the sounds of Buddha-right or wrong? "
T'ou Tzu said, "Right."
The monk said, "Teacher, doesn't your asshole make farting sounds? "
T'ou Tzu then hit him. Again the monk asked, "Coarse words or subtle talk, all returns to the primary meaning-right or wrong? "
T'ou Tzu said, "Right."
The monk said, "Can I call you an ass, Teacher? " T'ou Tzu then hit him.

"The brain is a locus of mental activity, the mind is nonlocal." -Me

That teacher/novice hierarchy, yoking the infant consciousness with stale tradition, oh no! Rather, guide me my kindred brothers and sisters who share the same environmental placenta,,,,

The thing is that the language was/is always there, the anarch language, not the sound or the grammar, but the animal language of the infant, and the phonetics and grammar came afterwards, they were only required to codify the ethic and community construct rising out of the beast's evolutionary refinement, the "anachimal" (my own word for the innate anarch animal) had chosen to live in the community of rules and hierarchy, thus the phonetics and grammar to articulate the complexity after having abandoned the anarchimal silences and grunts/groans/chants/giggles/whimperings etc etc.

Language is a useful tool but a terrible master. The narratives I was fed as a child by the school and the church were presented as authoritative and were difficult to deprogram. Once I started on a meditation practice and reclaimed the space in my mind I rejected the authority of the teachings of religion and science. I can even question my own ideas and be simple and quiet, curl up in the fetal position under my blanket like a little baby in the womb. I even found a teddy bear in a pile of debris that someone was throwing away, I keep it by my bedside and sometimes give it a hug, it's my anarchimal that doesn't think too much and lives out it's function.

That's quite humble and nice to know, keeping in touch with the real you,,,

Glad to see gender-less Le Anarchimal is not wearing red and black clothing which could be misconstrued as being a form of ideologically inspired uniform, cute,,,,,,,,

I'm the only one who wears black and red around here.

Shall compare thee to a summer rose,,,,,,

1. you are blind to the glass ceiling whereby your hitting results are invisibly inflated or deflated by epigenetic influence immanent in the web of relational social dynamics you are uniquely, situationally included in.

2. you are drafted into the army and the 'invisible' glass ceiling starts to be felt as a powerful epigenetic field of accommodating/disaccommodating influence that has been there all the time, which opens up for you and inflates your pecker like a vacuum pump if you comply with its expectations and closes down against you and shrinks your pecker into an ingrown dimple if you resist its expectations. [not literal 'pecker' since all genders have one of these].

3. you become aware that this invisible field of expectations is coming from a relational social matrix that is insane; i.e. the collective you automatically trusted now shows its colours as one big crazy house which englobes the old crazy houses which provided asylum for the sane.

4.a. you put on a bold face and pretend nothing has changed as you pick up a habit of sniffing something that smells a lot like dead bees in an abandoned hive..

4.b you jump ship and try to escape to a place that doesn't have the power to play with your member; to use its influence to make your member swell or shrink, ... using its influence like a navigational beacon that keeps you within its expectations-compliant travel corridor by swelling it if you stay in the middle of the corridor and shrinking it when you stray to left or right.

4 c. wherever you are, you become sufficiently overt about the views of your authentic, natural Self, that 'the spell is broken' and your pecker is no longer subject to epigenetic inflating and deflating when you chose a course that is transverse to epigenetic fields.of expectations. you reaffirm your relations with anyone in your social relational matrix that may still remain, and cultivate relations with others of all genders who have opted out of all pecker-manipulating affiliations. at this point, you can make traverses from the upper heights of wealth and privilege to the lower reaches of homeless and street dwelling peoples, back up, down and across,, hanging loose all the way,


Well I have begun to take erotic photos of myself and share them with certain people, strictly casual of course. I am a bit of an exibitionist so if anyone's interested in a fair trade hit me up on a DM! @neapolitan69

Spent a little more than a year in what's been hailed as one of the major cities for anarchy on Turtle Island, and most of what I've found were liberals, yuppie artists, deadbeats, activists and a few Red despots posing as anarchists. Yes there were a few people I'd describe as legit too, but they were so few and not very active. I couldn't get to exchange emails or phone numbers.

So I'd say that anarchism over the last few years has become a bubble, in the financial sense of the word. Isolated "attacks" has inflated it, and made the hot air balloon people get high on cash, sex and dope, and get smug about any sort of anti-cap and anarchic mutual aid.

Community fridges are cool, but they hardly help building relations. Even dumpsters are better at that (I can testity by experience). And let's be honest.... we all want to have friends who got our backs. Those who already have that don't get how important that can be. to say, I ain't against local activists. Some of what they do is relevant and necessary.

Now you can yell about it in the streets to comfort everyone around. Of course everyone in this city cares about either me or you. lol

...but I ain't sure activism is the best way for us to sustain, and build better networks. I can name only 1-2 anarcho-friendly activists that haven't become corrupted by this business, and very little White people around here can show that much integrity with their ideas. Who among you will still be in that anarchism thing 10-15 years from now, gotta ask?

So yeah, if you think that's still the way for you, then go for it, but to me anarchy should be found in better activity and endeavor than activism.

How to un-make the authoritarian constructs of the world of domination? How to cancel the next Oktoberfest, and replace it with a FULL Mardi Gras/XXXmas the whole year? That's the anarchy I'm the most intrigued about, not the protesting.

Or do a better, less dumb and more self-assuming Occupy... Dunno. But maybe we're a hundred years away from the context for another one.

Anyways who wants to pool in money with me for an open anarchist commune on the beautiful countryside near a mid-sized city?

That's lively as any real-life non-conversation with hipsters at the community bike shop... yawn.

Or why do you think I folded back to comment sections?

Ha! As if you have any money ...

What is anarchism in the United States:

For all its spiky posturing, anarchism in today's US is n fact an extremely conflict averse phenomenon, befitting its Harry Potter fan quality.

I tend to get into direct confrontations when I have issues some other people, like douchebags or car drivers. I guess that this would disqualify me from being anarchist, in the view of many other anarchists, but even if diplomacy is a great thing to master, I don't think there's anything empowering with having this reputation of being soft nonviolent people who can be abused and beaten by authoritrians as they like.

I'd like to know what anyone thinks of my self-defined doctrine of being an oppression for the oppressors.

... Problematic?

,,,What makes it so?

I was kidding ... There's barely a real question here: "I do stuff and think stuff and anarchists are weak but I think they should be strong. What do people think of my rambling conjecture?"

I think you need to learn how to ask a question.

"I'd like to know what anyone thinks of my self-defined doctrine of being an oppression for the oppressors."

I don't where is the reference to the value of strenght, or the strong-weak duality.

If you believe that oppressors are strong people, there may be a.few things still gotta learn about humans and the miserable relationships they maintain. "Strenght" is also a value that is very complicated to measure...

Just reread the post fool, earlier in their ramble, they mention that anarchists shouldn't be weak or whatever.

In the future, try not to confuse your shitty reading comprehension for what you imagine I'm trying to say.

Ok well, then cite your sources, fool.

It's literally a few fingerswipes for you but ok, the part that starts at "I don't think there's anything empowering about - " and continues til the paragraph break. That quote. Clarity achieved?

It's a shitty strawman and I was appealing to ridicule because I like picking apart bad logic.

Yes, I'm an asshole but that's beside the point.

- still no reference to "strenght" in that quote.

- strenght and power, and especially empowerment are two very different notions. Free example for you coz you're so nice and clever:

I likely have the strenght to punch and break the nose of that real, dangerous fascist Erik Prince. But my power to get on his expensive luxury yatch, bypass his security, and maybe overcome the advanced martial arts skills he may have learned, in order to punch him in the face, it'd be very unlikely.

- no matter your contorsions for winning this non-argument, you still suck. I know that to you this could mean something fun to do, but that's the not the implied meaning here.

"Winning this non argument"?

You're a piece of work. Here's what happened, I made a joke and you misinterpreted it, then you went off on a tangent that has little or nothing to do with what I said or what the OP said and you're somewhere off in the trees right now. Have fun playing in the woods weirdo?

Ahems... look who's talking. Coming on this site almost daily just troll on supposed anarchists in vain.

Got life?

Bored at work and all is vanity ;)

... based in Norway, The Old World, I can only add to this wonderful mess that anarchism in 2017 is of course still what it always was. Go figure. If you don't know what it is by now, I guess it's wasted time to try to explain, but you'll probably find out for yourselves sooner or later anyway. Nothing beats home grown conclusions.

So stop asking for my advice, take what you need but be fair, share with those of your kind and mind your own dirty business, right?

And as if that wasn't a nice enough hint, I'll throw in another one for good measure, just to show what a generous sharer of ideas I actually am:

"Freedom" and "Responsibility" are one and the same. Not a duality, or a conceptual pair of terms, or mutually conditioned phenomena, or anything else that is less than 100% synonymous, but the exact same goddamned thing. Same thing, just considered from two different angles. The very moment you declare yourself a 100% free, autonomous entity, you are and will be held 100% responsible for your actions as well. He who is not free to chose cannot be held responsible for the outcome in any given case, and only he who takes responsibility upon himself has (confirmed) his freedom. Freedom is a word that says responsibility on the flip side and vica versa.

Now, get a wrench and go subvert some authoritarian pig system, will you?! Jeez. ;)

with those of your kind.
seems like we turning wrench, together.
so beautiful!

I detest the word "responsible" (/"responsibility"). It implies a connection between ability and obligation that in practice is hardly ever useful. A prison guard is "responsible" for the well-being of the prisoners, but if you're a prisoner, you're a fucking fool if you view them in this framing. Oil companies are "responsible" for climate change, but they will not face the consequences the way someone in Puerto Rico is right now. Basically, "responsibility" is a way of slightly obfuscating moralism by tying it to agency, when the truth is the is/ought gap looms large as ever.

As a direct example of this type of foolishness in the anarchist space, this sense of "responsibility" is reflected in the whole IGD/Patreon lolfest (IGD was built on donations from Patreon, then they started crying about it when Patreon froze the account). You can cry all you want about Patreon's responsibility towards fairness or whatever, the fact of it is they don't give a shit, and it was your mistake to rely on it. You could try to re-frame this as "IGD were the ones who were *really* responsible, and didn't act as such!", but that's still looking at it through a lens of obligation, when the reality is it was much closer to a strategic blunder.

So generally, I find it much easier to reflect on the effectiveness of actions and choices by removing the word "responsible" from my vocabulary.

So if morality is imposed from outside the individual and ethics is the alternative for autonomous thinkers, what about ethical responsibilities?

It's pretty easy to offer examples that reasonable people (including radicals) would agree to, like caring for children you helped create, by choice or accident. What about ethical responsibility to resist tyranny?

My personal opinion that I'm trying to express is that I think this sort of thinking is lazy. There's no reason to ever think about things in terms of responsibility, be it moral or ethical, because it becomes far too easy to mask what we're truly trying to say.

For example, what does it mean to have an "ethical responsibility to resist tyranny"? I resist tyranny out of desire and love, not out of obligation. In fact, I would be wary of those who only resist because they feel they feel there is a set of rules implying they must.

Similarly, I wouldn't ask anyone to care for children except out of love. Someone who abandons those in need shouldn't expect love in return, but that's how life goes sometimes, and expecting a sense of obligation to hold them close doesn't seem particularly anarchistic (or effective, without some form of coercion).

It's fairly simple in my view, that there are things I need to do that I'd often rather not do but it's still in my best interest to do them. Therefore, they don't get filed as my desires.

You can use whatever words you like but when you start suggesting that my thinking is "lazy" because I don't agree with your little semantic games, you're being disrespectful for a highly subjective purpose, no?

Apologies, wasn't my intent to offend. And I definitely wasn't trying to single you out as lazy, I was speaking to the entire line of thought that I find all to prevalent in this community (and generally). My purpose for discussing this isn't to make people feel bad, it's because I like talking about it and because I think people I care about, even if only abstractly, could stand to benefit from it. If you don't see this sort of discussion as being useful or interesting to you, feel free to just ignore the rest of what I say, as it's not a life-or-death point of conversation in most cases. :)

I guess I would just question what it is in "your best interest" that you don't actually desire. When I say "desires" I'm not speaking of hedonism, and it's entirely possible (pretty much guaranteed in fact) that a person's desires will consist of things that aren't pleasurable now for future benefit. So again, what advantage is there to discussing things in terms of responsibilities, that can't exist by discussing material benefit or desire instead? Because to me, it seems like all the term "responsibility" grants you is a shortcut to some morality that I likely don't hold.

That's fair but like I say, you can be "wary" of sneaky moralism but it's not always going to be the case.

This "responsibility" stuff doesn't really apply to immediate personal benefit and I guess my whole point is that there's some bigger picture goals that matter to me.

For instance, say you live in a city where there's an obvious need for better organized antifascist/antiracist groups. Lots of people from different perspectives all seem to agree this is true but typical sectarian bickering, laziness and lack of seriousness have prevented or eroded the relationships required, meanwhile reactionary street gangs are busily organizing their own shit and threatening people.

The work required to get to the desire (in this case, a ferocious community that can defend itself) will definitely not always feel like what I want to be doing: meetings, awkward/ frustrating conversations with liberals, fundraising ... none of this is "fun" but not doing it is much, much worse.

Maybe that's a good definition of responsibility? The things I hate doing but do anyway because not doing them has a high probability of leading to much worse. Ha!

Responsibility = "Respons" radical meaning "to respond" + "ible" suffix meaning "suitable to/able to".

Soooo... responsibility means the ability or propensity of a person/group/organization to respond, answer to his-her-their own actions.

Pure "effectiveness" means nothing. People just don't do shit because it works. This is dumb. We are driven by rationales, impulses desires and intents, even tho the efficacy of a practice gives us an impression that this can be a powerful course of action. I'm not saying one has supremacy over the other.

So responsibility is part of the rationale. To hold people responsible for, say, abusing your daughter, that's a rationale.

Yeah, agreed. Think I get what OP was trying to say but long story short, the fixation on the word "responsibility" seems a bit misguided IMO. It's not that everyone is trying to Jedi-mind-fuck you in to moralism every time they mention responsibility. But hey! Good topic tho.

The meaning of a word isn't its etymology -- language isn't so clean. When someone demands you act "responsible" or say something is your "responsibility", they are almost certainly not referring to your agency but your obligations. Even in your example, of someone abusing your daughter, what does it mean to "hold them responsible for"? In your words, to "answer to his-her-their own actions." What then does it mean to "answer to" something? You're just pushing meanings around using language, without getting to the substance of the thing. You could have just as easily said "accountability" and it would have changed nothing.

There is no "responsibility" involving abuse of your daughter. There is cause, there is revenge, and there is dissuasion. You use the word "responsibility" to cover up the naked emotions and motivations that drive actions, but it doesn't change what lies beneath. And this is why I don't like the word. You could have said they abused your daughter. You could have even made it a bit more passive, and said they caused the abuse of your daughter. But no, they are "responsible". You're hiding.

Perhaps true but it's also fair to say that not everyone who uses that word has the agenda you're ascribing to it.

So you don't like the word, that's fine. I'm an anarchist who isn't opposed to feeling certain obligations or in the most extreme cases, enforcing the obligations I percieve others to have.

A topical example of this would be Antifa activity. Sooner or later, agency collides with agency and an anarchist's responsibility is to be ready to tackle those conflict dynamics IMO... You know, instead of crying for some higher authority to come to the rescue? Just my two cents.

Oh, I'm not ascribing an agenda! I don't think people are consciously doing it. I think it's just a shortcoming of the language we use.

"I'm an anarchist who isn't opposed to feeling certain obligations"
That's your prerogative, but why?

"or in the most extreme cases, enforcing the obligations I percieve others to have."
And how would you do that? Ultimately any means of enforcement has no material basis in "obligation".

"an anarchist's responsibility is to be ready to tackle those conflict dynamics IMO... You know, instead of crying for some higher authority to come to the rescue?"
And I suppose this is where I would differ. I don't view myself as having any obligation to partake in antifa or antifa-like enforcement activities. When I fucked up fascists in my hometown, it wasn't out of obligation ("responsibility"), it was because I wanted those fucks off my block. I went to some anti-racist actions in a nearby city at one point, not because I felt I was obligated to, but because I like that city (loosely) and hate racists. When you measure these sorts of actions in terms of obligations, I think you lose sight of whether they actually work or whether you actually want to do them, and people just end up patting themselves on the back for "fighting the good fight" or whatever.

Yeah maybe but you can't say for sure whether that's because of the words people use.

Not to mention, people like me are the ones who build and maintain the communications and information networks that allow people like you to know when/where/who. I'm always very grateful for those who answer the call-outs but somebody has to do the calling too.

"Enforcing obligations" example: I perceive that everyone drawing breath should behave within a very loose set of guidelines, one of which is:

Dont be a nazi and if you must think your shitheaded nonsense because you're fucked in the head, don't gather in public with your shithead friends and expect a cheerful hello. This is just one example of an obligation I perceive everyone to have ;)

"Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work. Becoming has been deprived of its innocence when any being-such-and-such is traced back to will, to purposes, to acts of responsibility: the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is, because one wanted to impute guilt. The entire old psychology, the psychology of will, was conditioned by the fact that its originators, the priests at the head of ancient communities, wanted to create for themselves the right to punish — or wanted to create this right for God. Men were considered "free" so that they might be judged and punished — so that they might become guilty: consequently, every act had to be considered as willed, and the origin of every act had to be considered as lying within the consciousness (and thus the most fundamental counterfeit in psychologicis was made the principle of psychology itself )." -- Nietzsche, 'Twilight of the Idols'

the concept of 'freedom' is a bullshit concept. no relational form in a transforming relational continuum is 'free'. 'responsibility' means what? ... if there is no free will. it is a loose canon.

Here we have Emile the autistic robot pontificating about how freedom is a bullshit concept, on an anarchist site, while also claiming that any hostility directed at him is because you're too dim to comprehend nondualism.

I cheerfully judge and occasionally punish! Never did care for crazy old Fred that much. At best, a pompous windbag, later in life, literally a gibbering invalid.

we are each and all uniquely situated within a complex web of relations and are certainly not 'born free'

some of us do a 'unilateral declaration of independence' and start driving and directing our body or nation-state from out of its own rational purpose/intention. [me first!, ... America first!.

others accept our situational inclusion in a transforming relational complex and are happy to be epigenetically actualized, orchestrated and shaped by the complex of relations we are situationally included in, .. where cultivating balance and harmony within our not-determined-by-ourselves unfolding situation is in a natural precedence over driving our behaviour directly from rational purpose like a bull in a china shop..

the freedom that people and nations self-declare is a crock [delusion] that leads only to self-destructive bull-in-a-chinashop behaviours.

nietzsche tuned into this a century and a half ago and indigenous anarchists didn't have to (they were already tuned), while the lag time for certain others may exceed their life expectancy.

Yep! I'm just a dumb savage and you're just possessed of all your metaphysical hippy wisdom like a living saint of the internet. If only I'd realize that nondualism rules and everything else is dumb but my stupid ears are just deaf to your long-suffering brilliance and piercing insights of transcendental, ultimate truth. Yep!

You're like, really doing us troglodytes a favour by hanging out here, hey? Oh saint Emile, truly I am unworthy and will surely die in ignorance while you look on, with benevolent pity.

there's no point in challenging 'what i say' because what i am saying is that the sole source of 'truth' is our own unique and personal experience. if you don't believe that, then you can continue to go in search of truths that cannot be affirmed by your own experience.

you may be accustomed to being among people who try to convince you that they have found 'truth' that stands above personal experience, and want to share it with you.

emile is not into that bullshit. there is nothing in emile's writing that asks anyone to believe in ANYTHING that is not accessible through ONE'S OWN direct personal experience.

of course, most Western cultural beliefs are coming from religious and scientific formulations founded in unquestioned abstract idealizations such as 'dualism' and 'being' which define people as 'independent beings with free will'. emile is saying; ... reflect on that. test it with the truth of your personal experience, ... is that a 'truth' that can be affirmed by the 'physical reality of your actual experience', and if not, should you accept it as 'truth'?

of course nietzsche and emile contradict much of what WESTERN SOCIETY TEACHES EVERYONE TO BELIEVE IN, but such contradiction is not by introducing new stuff that you are supposed to believe in, but through understandings that shift the belief base to OUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE [each of us has experience based truth but there is no common objective truth as if there were a 'world out there' apart from us that is 'the same for all of us']..

so there is no point in setting up the strawman wherein you say that emile claims to be 'smarter than you' and 'know more than you'. the entire basis of my commentary is that THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH. therefore, no-one can be in possession of truth that prevails over OUR OWN PERSONAL SITUATIONALLY UNIQUE EXPERIENCE. Because we have unique and different experiences of the common relational dynamics we share inclusion in, it makes sense to share our experiences, meanwhile, there is no 'common truth' that is going to emerge as some kind of 'average' when we collect a whole lot of truths together; i.e. holographic views arise from the important differences in multiple observations of the same phenomena [the transforming relational continuum that we share inclusion in], differences in our own unique personal experiences that are the sole source of truth.

freedom and responsibility are used just like dignity, valor, prestige, honor, pride, wisdom, charity, hope and love or essence in a narrative of evolution toward some greater sagacity which characterizes a nominal identity-superior as categorically different (or deferent) in-nature from other relational forms. meanwhile, among the savage non-duality of our actual, holistic existence -in-which one's perceived realm is only a metaphysical apparition- the unending flow of life-will is yet anonymous and omnipresent.

I guess you can use that word salad to help push through your semantic indigestion?

nope.get your shit straight and act responsible! you protofascist, misogynist manipulator! or else!

Or else nothin! That's what you got. Mommy says eat your damn greens!

*mod rolls eyes, delete delete delete*

kale, spinach, red cabbage, sprouting broccoli, beets, kohlrabi, parsely, mustards, and birdsong comrade!

Mmm, I stand corrected. That's not nothing!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.