head with question mark silhouette

Topic of the Week - In my local anarchist scene, anarchist theory and tendencies aren’t often discussed. There’s the obvious anarchist positions against capitalism, Marxism, and bigotries. But beyond that? Not much to say about theory of change, discussing the varieties of anarchist ideas, or even discussing the “big names” of anarchy: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, Bookchin, Aragorn!, or Zerzan. In fact, after a recent meeting, it was suggested to avoid centering particular anarchist beliefs, ie, anything beyond “capitalism, fascism, stalinism, and bigotry are bad.” This is because a statement such as “Fuck [person or idea]” may be interpreted by new folks as fact and not opinion. This is no shade on my people, I appreciate them deeply and some private context at least makes it somewhat understandable.

3 years ago, I never could have imagined associating with such a space. I’ve always interpreted avoidance of theory as cowardly, anti-intellectual, and boring. That isn’t to say I imagined my anarchist scene as armchairs, but a space for the interaction of theory and practice. The whole idea, to me, is that you act on a theory, and if it works, it reinforces your theory, and if the action failed, go back to the drawing board of theory. Theory and action. Action and theory. Not only did I not foresee my future (and now, present) anarchist scene relating to theory in such an avoidant way, I didn’t expect I’d be this way, either.

I always imagined my theory of anarchism as a strong insurrectionist, anti-civilization one. Now I focus on political education and fundraising around migrant issues and the occasional “cool protest.” I am not happy with where I’ve ended up. It’s confusing, because now I hardly read that theory, or any theory. I’m too busy with this "good work." My town has seen increasing ICE activity and I took up with fellow anarchists a rapid response and outreach project. Where is the “end civ” in that? One friend said to see the inherent anarchist position in an anti-border, freedom of movement, fuck 12 activity like this. But it still feels disappointing. Maybe part of it is the scene. Me and one or two other hold these anti-civ views. It is best for us to avoid the topic of civilization and technology at all, for the sake of not being called “genocidalists.” Regardless, is that a good enough excuse to avoid putting theory to practice, or even possibly compromising your values? The education and outreach project I’ve engaged in, I helped found on an explicitly anarchist basis: no discourse on “criminal” immigrants or ideas about “think of the economic impact!” Still, how is this really different from the Leftist-anarchism I’ve historically fought against? Is it a personal weakness, or do others find themselves in a similar position?

Guest TOTW by anonymous south-east anarchist. 

Brooding questions:

  1. Is there a gap between theory and practice in your life?
  2. How does your local anarchist scene utilize theory in their daily practice, if at all?
  3. How has your personal understanding of the relationship between theory and practice changed?

Comments

lins collective (not verified) Sun, 11/23/2025 - 09:12

theres no gap between theory and practice,
except of course it helps that we don't practice "theory", because that would imply it has not already been done. that would imply it is theoretical, and it is not the vast majority of the time.
We discard the worthless european conformist assholes you named- who did not center indigenous and marginalized experiences in their rhetoric, despite so often taking their ideas whole-cloth.
And we do our best to prioritize those experiences in ours.
In so doing this, practice is "theory"- in so doing, our every action is in some way toward the destruction of the state and capitalism and building up our local community and healing the world in general.
Even the more entertainment-focused things we engadge with, we try to do so with the focus of improving ourselves so as to better assist our larger goals.

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 11/24/2025 - 11:58

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Reply to 04:12

No, I am not trolling. One measure of the real world credibility of someone's putative radicalism is that it is readily taken seriously by friend and foe alike, so let's see some brief recounting of examples of this by 'lins collective.' They can take all the space they need.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 11/23/2025 - 13:32

"Test the theory" is a phrase I say to myself quite often. If one does not have a habit of testing theories one does not have a practice. Theory is practice, practice is theory.

In my experience, many anarchists find some theory to hold and never test the theory, or add or subtract from it. Like "anti-civ." What do you mean by civilization? Living in cities, or a more or less clean break with the natural world? (As if that were possible.)

As the great Tom Tolbert once said, "Nothing is all of one thing and none of the other." Just a thing to keep in mind.

As to why it feels like theory has gone by the wayside, we are living in interesting times as the ancients would say. Flux is our medium. Hard to have good theory when the ground is constantly shifting underneath our feet.
One way to balance this flux is to look to Indigenous, Black, Queer, Disability, Women's & Trans theories, etc. If you read these it rapidly becomes apparent that most people want to be rid of the current order. From there the leap to anarchy is small.

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 11/24/2025 - 19:31

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Anarchy is not ID pols, btw. And thanks but no thanks tryin' to teach us what the neolib academic Left has been regurgitating for 15 years at least. Wow.

"Like "anti-civ." What do you mean by civilization?"

I mean going against, fighting, resisting, or at best divorcing from the ever-invading forces of civilizing and domesticating, that takes many shapes including "neo" colonialism of the real estate industry, related car industry and the ever-developing bureaucracies that keep creating themselves managerial jobs out of... yes, mediocre, contrived political theories that both turn individuals into big entities while also reducing them to flat, meaningless categories, because Winter Oppression Olympics 2025 n shit.

And please go back Raddle and stay there forever.

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 11/24/2025 - 21:04

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

19:31 you're being  a jerk. 

asking someone to define what they mean by civilization is perfectly reasonable. as it's frequently used to mean whatever-thing-the-speaker-is-against/all-the-bad-things.

and paying attention to identity can be reasonable, and can also slide into dogma. just like most things. 

(why do i come to anews to cajole people to listen to each other. why?!)

GEF (not verified) Mon, 11/24/2025 - 22:37

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Has anyone here said anything negative on asking about the meaning of civilization?

But if you want my definition of it, based on the known etymology this relates to a process of integrating (the feral, the vagrant, the "savage") into the citizenry (the "civilis") and its society. This also meana the same when applied to the land, to bodies and minds.

It is domestication, basically, across its many facets and forms. And we're still *actively* doing it, or a least supporting it... 'till we aren't.

13:32 (not verified) Wed, 11/26/2025 - 13:06

In reply to by GEF (not verified)

Civilization can refer to living in cities. It can also refer to refinement or cultural achievement. My question was which one were you referring to but it seems like you had neither in mind but instead follow Zerzan in talking about domestication.
And here I'd like to say that when I first read Elements of Refusal in 1990 it seemed to be cutting edge and I am glad to have encountered it. Now though, the edge is quite dull and his theories are not that useful to me any longer.

Here is where those "IDPol" theories you denigrate come in for me; disability theory for one. Unless you think it is okay for disabled people to die.

If domestication is in part language and art etc. then I do not want to be rid of it. Not to mention, these seem to be integral to humanity.

Too many anarchists want to wallow in a Stirnerian, egoist, individualism that leaves no room for communal endeavor. We are not exiting the current order alone, nor are we going to ameliorate the excesses of capitalism alone. We need all of us.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 11/26/2025 - 13:25

In reply to by 13:32 (not verified)

don't have a problem with your ending sentiment, except that it's also jargon that gets used to stifle dissent, ignore valid disagreements, etc. 

not saying you're doing that, but those also-real problems are what stirner (etc) were at least partly responding to. so, just putting down those folks is short sighted.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 11/26/2025 - 13:44

In reply to by 13:32 (not verified)

" you think it is okay for disabled people to die."

right. we can't desire to be free unless we can guarantee absolutely everyone will live forever, in bliss. unless we can eliminate death itself, any act of rebellion is de facto eugenics

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 11/26/2025 - 16:25

In reply to by 13:32 (not verified)

"Too many anarchists want to wallow in a Stirnerian, egoist, individualism that leaves no room for communal endeavor."

I am seeking a fair balance between the two, actually. Of course that's the hardest thing to do, as collectivistic relations are so toxic they can easily become a state in themselves.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 11/26/2025 - 16:26

In reply to by 13:32 (not verified)

As a disabled person, let me say that civilization is ableist. Want to see the mass extermination of disabled people? Go to any hospital or group home. The equation of anti-civ with death of the disabled is stupid. It is already happening!

I don’t want you fucking pity.
Gooba goba

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 11/23/2025 - 13:38

i feel ya on the anti-civ thing. i have the good fortune to now be in a milieu of nihilist anarchists but for 15 or so years i just kept my politics to myself, because i lived somewhere that required me to collab with all kinds of disgusting liberals (some of whom pretended to be anarchists, or believed themselves to be).

isolation is not healthy imo so i'm glad you got a couple of fellow-travelers. if you're looking for advice (besides "find your people") i think the key is to build capacity. i learned a lot during my long sojourn in the lib desert. i did various things that tested and expanded my tolerance for risk. if you have two likeminded people you can trust, that's imo as big as you'd want a direct-action group as you'd want anyway. so, test yourselves. take secret actions you believe in, despite nobody else appreciating them-- even despite liberals denouncing them.

during my long period of relative political isolation i also learned from those around me who had anything remotely useful to share theory-wise (mostly communists-- because as i said, the "anarchists" were almost all just liberals in punk uniform. i also learned how to calmly encounter and move past disagreement, to find areas of overlap and be patient with people i found personally pathetic or of zero merit. even now that i'm where i want to be in terms of who's around me, those 'soft skills' remain useful.

i think theory is useful inasmuch as it helps one refine or develop one's own analysis and priorities. for example during covid lockdown i was able to delve kind of deep into stuff. it was then i was able to finally move past and free myself of the stultifying christian mindset of 'organizing' and charity-masquerading-as-mutual-aid so prevalent among usa anarchists (and maybe those elsewhere too). i came to feel i didn't really have much in common with anyone who didn't already have the desire to fight, an understanding that crypto-christian liberalism had still partially obscured until that point.

...and it was that realization that pushed me to go find my people.

idk, hope some of this is useful

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 11/24/2025 - 10:47

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

Just curious of what it translates IRL to have "a milieu of nihilist anarchists". Is it... your usual Colt45 oogles with dogs at the park? Loud-talking (peanut) gallery hipster artists? Just curious, so that maybe I can find them somewhere someplace and mate.

anonymous (not verified) Sun, 11/23/2025 - 22:48

I have attained the pinnacle of anarch conciousness, I breath anarch essence, just my penetrating gaze disturbs the sheep, my silences or combination of words destroys their hierarchical notions and sheepish obedience. I just have to look at someone and their oppression instantly withers away.
My calm composure disarms the most toxic masculine arrogance and their confusion forces their retreat to their materialistic fortresses. I AM FREEEEEEEEEE!

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 11/24/2025 - 08:44

Every action happens within the context of something like theory. That could be "theory of mind" or "worldview" or "paradigm"... Whatever you call it, it is there.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Mon, 11/24/2025 - 14:22

You started by believing that theory should guide action and action should develop theory. Then you found that insurrectionist/anti-civilization theory was pretty useless in guiding your actions under real life conditions in your town. You needed a guide for dealing with anti-immigration and ICE attacks. Anti-civ theory was no more useful than "the Leftist-anarchism I’ve historically fought against."

But instead of re-thinking your theory, you decide to pretty much drop theory altogether. To hell with studying and re-thinking the ideas of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, etc.! I find this very sad, even if all too common among anarchists.

I suggest you return to your original perspective of theory-action-theory and re-think your failed theories in favor of a revived revolutionary anarchism.

anonymous (not verified) Mon, 11/24/2025 - 15:02

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

wayne shouldn't you be in ukraine?! they NEED you brother, stop scolding zoomers online and go demonstrate the power and relevance of kropotkin's theory in the embattled oblasts

Anon op (not verified) Mon, 11/24/2025 - 20:53

In reply to by Wayne Price@ (not verified)

Wayne,

Thanks for your reply even if it reads of condescension. I did not drop theory because I found my theory from before to be lacking.But rather that I am actually caught up in the work and find myself not as intentional about considering the theories. Maybe that's not clear from the post.Even if I thought it was. Also, those people you mentioned are people I incorporate into my thinking even if I don't identify with their tradition. Esp Bakunin. I definitely don't identify with a strictly revolutionary anarchism, because I don't believe a revolution in the conception of what they believe to be a revolution is coming, generally because i'm skeptical of the historical progressivist view that they held, which necessitated a revolution to some sort of historic endpoint.

Wayne Price@ (not verified) Wed, 11/26/2025 - 13:42

In reply to by Anon op (not verified)

Anon op: I apologize if I read as condescending. You sound like someone who is active in the defense of immigrants and who has thought about its meaning for you. This I respect, despite the perhaps off-putting of my blunt comments.

You write, "I don't believe a revolution in the conception of what they [classical anarchists] believe[d] to be a revolution is coming...." I do not believe that a revolution is inevitably coming, contrary to Kropotkin and Marx. But (1) I believe a revolution *might* happen, and (2) I think that a revolution *needs* to happen if the world is to avoid economic collapse, ecological cataclysm, and/or nuclear war.

I am all for struggling for more limited gains, such as defending immigrants, but in the not so long run, there needs to be a world revolution of the working class and all oppressed, for anarchy and ecosocialism. I assume you disagree, but that is what I am advocating.

anonymous (not verified) Wed, 11/26/2025 - 09:06

anti civ practice is and remains highly relevant to irl struggles as you describe. fundamentally, direct action is anti civ. working with others doesn't change the fact you're acting without consideration for the socially accepted societal channels for discontent. in fact direct action converts the relationship into such a physical one that discontent is irrelevant. it becomes "this bus shall not depart" or "this food shall go to these takers". anti civ is primarily about remembering the autonomy of the individual in a way that can't be neutered by mediation by symbols.

at the same time i admit that few people want to hear anti-civ mentioned in conversation; thats because it's already been politicized as part of the function of mass media. but most actual anarchists are skeptical of industrial production, skeptical of democracy and representation (i think), and pursuing their autonomy and agency. just like anarchy, it's not about using the word to describe oneself. words fail

rabbit (not verified) Thu, 11/27/2025 - 12:49

Is there a gap between theory and praxis? Yeah, of course there is. But that's kind of the point, isn't it? The theory exists because the existing praxis is lacking. So praxis becomes the implementation of a new theory. This is hindered when, in the process of implementing theory, the real results diverge from their theoretical counterpart -- for whatever reason -- creating a need to modify the theory. This constant cycle is a form of dialectic.

I stopped worrying about "the right theory" a long time ago, or whether my praxis was "virtuous" by means of adhering to my theory. I don't think anarchism is a theory at all anymore, and I think pragmatism is the measure of virtue in the application of this not-theory.

I think anarchism is a dialectic. Not some academic bullshit that you do in a classroom, but a pragmatic dialectic we work through every day to figure out how, in every situation, we can maximize positive and negative liberty for all persons and non-persons with stake in the matter. Call it practical philosophy. Call it cooperation. Call it "democratic confederalist anti-civ post-elecotral voluntaryism" -- whatever the fuck -- I don't care. JUST DO IT.

This also isn't to say that theory is meaningless. It has its place; it's the start of envisioning a better world. But it needs to be dynamic, and it needs to be able to evolve-in-place, according to subjective experience. But when you add these qualifiers, it's not just theory anymore. It's a kind of pragmatic dialectic.

Think about it. It doesn't matter what theory of anarchism you apply, it's not going to jive for someone or something, somewhere. This is an invitation to a subjective dialectic but it only works if we let go of dependence on dead, static theory and allow it to bend and evolve in place. Otherwise the dialectic becomes an effort to enforce a theory... it becomes authoritarian in the weirdest but most real fucking way. And this is why I hate Marxism -- all the positive liberty in the world is not worth sacrificing individual liberty for the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

The reality of the situation is that modern, industrial, consumer society has a very real expiration date (and relatively reliable science suggests that date is about 15-20 years out). Societal collapse sounds scary, and I think a lot of people are convincing themselves that "something will prevent this," but we should be looking at this as the best opportunity we'll ever get. We can spend the next decade or so building the world we want and liberating ourselves as best we can in the present, or we can keep arguing about theory and praxis, and hope we've reached a consensus when infrastructure starts crumbling.

We're never going to convince everyone that any one theory is the right answer. But maybe we don't have to. Maybe we don't even need a theory. Maybe all we need is some basic, common-sense guidelines that everyone can follow, and a willingness to build something together that is not only suitable and effective for our purposes, where we are and as we are, but flexible enough to evolve as we do.

anonymous (not verified) Fri, 11/28/2025 - 08:36

This reads like your views of anarchism are rather transactional, and lacking a solid analytical core...

So the theoretical *weakness* within anarchist milieus lies, IMO, in exactly what you implied at the start of this text; that most anarchist groups have at least their views rooted in the big names of the Industrial period, and instead of moving on from this rather outdated yet useful epistemology, have just embraced more contemporary neoliberal realpolitik, from civil society engagement to single-issue struggles to -sadly in many cases- ID pols. And then you got that Epstein buddy Chumpsky being presented. for decades, as the only apparent modern "anarchist" theorist, next to that other pedo PLW (who still had more intelligent & relevant things to say than the former). This crap tradition's gotta full stop! Raid the fucking infoshops or trash a platformist table at the bookfair if you might and flood it with Merleau-Ponty lol... but this has gotta change.

I know I'd being bitchy here including with you, maybe beyond necessity... so the crucial question here is which more post-modern theory have you adopted?

Why the hell are we so rarely talking about the Up Against The Wall Motherfuckers and the Situs and Post-Situ (despite the latter being mostly edgy assholes IRL).

Like we used to be platforming some elitist Englishman dickhead like Paul Kingsnorth, but where was David Watson? Klee Benally also still way too underrated afaik. Doesn't even have to be po-mo authors... earlier critical authors from sociology like Simmel, James and Mumford got completely shunned maybe due to not being part of the workers movement? Just a few off the top of my head, and unfortunately just White guys.

My point is that contemporary Western anarchy is theoretically debased. Grounded on outdated, warped theory that's uprooted from THE SOCIAL CONTEXT WE'RE LIVING IN, NOW. What that leaves with, when anarchist recruits get to hit the reality wall? Yes, an "anarchism" that's irrelevant, pointless, and on top of it, doesn't provide with a *personal* rationale for living.

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
T
*
z
R
i
B
i
V
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.