Is Trumpism Fascism?

  • Posted on: 9 October 2016
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

From Anarkismo - by Wayne Price

Summary: Donald Trump and those who follow him have shown certain specific traits of a fascist movement. Does that make Trump or the Trumpets into fascists? What is fascism? How is it counterposed to bourgeois democracy? Is there likely to be a fascist movement in the U.S.A.? How do we fight fascism?

Whether Donald J. Trump wins or (more likely) loses the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the movement which he has stirred up will continue in one form or another. A question which is widely asked is, whether this movement—call it Trumpism—is fascist, semi-fascist, or a forerunner of fascism?

Unquestionably, he has been supported by out-and-out fascists, U.S. Nazis, white supremacists, Ku Klux Klan members, and others of the “alternative right” or “alt right,” as they call themselves. He has repeatedly re-tweeted posts from Nazis and Klanspeople, he has quoted Mussolini, and he adopted the slogan “America First” from the pro-fascist-dominated America First movement of the pre-World War II era. He has expressed admiration for dictators and “strong” rulers of other countries. He appointed a notorious anti-semite and racist as a top official (“C.E.O”) in his campaign (Bannon, formerly the main person of Brietbart News). When asked about his supporter, David Duke (Nazi and Klansman), he coyly denied knowing anything about him, until a later date when Trump officially rejected Duke; Duke and other white supremacists took this as “something Trump had to say.” Hillary Clinton, his opponent, has denounced Trump’s support from the alt right and similar “deplorable” people. Trump responded that his followers were all good, patriotic, Americans. Meanwhile various alt right groups held a joint press conference in Washington D.C., laying out their support for Trump and openly expressing their white racism. (They claim to be an “alternate” to the more mainstream far-right “conservatives,” who present themselves as opposed to racism and for “small government.”)

These actions are in the context of an election where the establishment candidate, Clinton, is widely disliked, or at most, is uninspiring to the mass of voters (despite being a woman). A large proportion of the electorate is disgusted with both candidates and rejects voting for either.

The overall point is not just that Trump is playing footsie with previously marginalized crackpots and has opened the door for them or that Clinton does not seem to offer much of an alternative. Even more significant is that these people see something they like in the campaign of the nominee of a major U.S. political party. They like his openly expressed hatred of immigrants, Latinos, and Muslims, and his implicit hatred of African-Americans, his misogyny, his isolationism somehow combined with militarism, and his general authoritarianism and opposition to civil liberties. They like his appeals to violence and his posing as the “strong” leader who will fix everything for the U.S. people. Are they correct? Is Trump a fascist or Trumpism a fascist movement?

Fascism against Bourgeois Democracy

“Fascist” is often used as a broad insult, a label for politics we don’t like of the right or even left. Many people (even some anarchists) have an essentially liberal vision of capitalist democracy. They believe or believed in the picture of a free, democratic, society which they learned in school. They are then shocked to learn that the U.S. government spies on its citizens, tortures prisoners, discriminates against workers, the poor, and People of Color, wages unjust wars, and generally is a servant of the rich. This isn’t democracy! they cry. It’s dictatorship, its fascism! They do not understand that this is what capitalist democracy is. Bourgeois democracy is and has always been limited. Every democratic gain in the system has been won by the blood and struggle of the mass of people.

We have only to think back to the 50s, when the U.S. was proud of its freedom and democracy, having defeated the fascist powers in World War II and now facing off with the Communist states in the Cold War. In fact, U.S. politics was overwhelmed by anti-communist hysteria, when thousands of leftists were purged from jobs in government, universities, schools, and unions. Meanwhile a third of the country lived under Jim Crow legal racial segregation, enforced by the terror of the Klan. To change all this took the massive rebellion of the African American population, and its white allies, and the demonstrations and rebellions of the movement against the war in Vietnam—and a virtual mutiny in the armed forces. (It was not elections which changed society for the better but independent mass actions—something worth remembering in this election year.)

There are also people who think “fascism” should be used only for the historical examples of the Fascist Party of Italy, the German National Socialists (Nazis) led by Hitler, and various other movements and parties in Europe in the 20s and 30s. However, I believe that certain traits of the historical fascist parties may be drawn out and applied to current events. While history never repeats itself exactly, lessons may be learned from the past.

The single most important trait of fascism is its goal of overturning bourgeois democracy and replacing it with dictatorial rule. Under a capitalist economy, society is dominated by a small number of very rich people (capitalists, the bourgeoisie, a fraction of the “one percent”). Without any democratic control, they own the corporations and semi-monopoly businesses for which just about everyone works, directly or indirectly. From the labor of the mass of people (the working class or proletariat), they draw their vast profits, while paying the workers the least they can get away with.

They insist on a government which will guard their interests: enforce contracts, keep the money supply stable, keep the workers from rebelling, protect their interests internationally (going to war when needed), and so on. So long as the government carries out these tasks, it is a bourgeois state. Yet the government may take various forms, while protecting capitalism.

Under a capitalist democracy, the people are allowed to vote for officials in leading positions, such as president. (After voting, they go back to their jobs where they take orders from their unelected bosses.) Of course, the alternatives are kept limited. In 2016 we get to chose between two rich people both of whom are enthusiastic supporters of capitalism and its national state—and so it has been throughout U.S. history. (Third party candidates haven’t had a chance since the Republicans got elected on the eve of a civil war.)

There are advantages for the capitalist class in this limited political democracy. It permits different factions of the ruling class to fight out their differences and make joint decisions, without (much) bloodshed. It lets them fool the majority of the people that they are free and run the government. It brings up new talent from the masses (think of the Clintons or the Obamas). If they get a crazy or incompetent leader (say, if Trump were elected), they can get rid of him or her at the next election, instead of being stuck with him (as the German establishment was with Hitler, by the tail-end of World War II).

On the other hand, there are disadvantages for the corporate rich, especially if popular forces use their apparent freedom “too much.” There may be riots and strikes and other expressions of discontent. Someone might actually run in a major party as a “socialist” advocating “political revolution,” as Bernie Sanders did (although his program was always mild—no expropriating the capitalists—and he quickly fell into line once he lost the primary, as he was certain to do). Or a candidate might be chosen for a party’s nomination who would obviously be unable to effectively run the executive branch of the national government (the bourgeoisie is more worried about Trump’s obvious incompetence than his reactionary program).

Meanwhile the openness and rights of a bourgeois democracy are immensely valuable to radicals (anarchists, socialists, communists, pacifists, black nationalists, radical feminists, etc.). Although tiny minorities, they are able to organize, to work out theory and strategy, to publish their views, and to speak to others. This is in spite of their opposition to capitalism, the state, and other institutions of oppression (patriarchy, white supremacy, imperialism, ecological destruction, etc.). The bourgeoise tolerates this so long as the radicals remain tiny minorities; but there is always the “danger” that they will grow during times of crisis.

What is Fascism?

The capitalist system as a whole is in decline, facing crises, long-term stagnation, and an expensive, drastic, need to deal with climate change. This requires the capitalists and their state drive down the standard of living of the working class in order to boost overall profits. There has been a steady long-term attack on the working class. A reaction against it fueled both Sanders’ movement on the left and Trump’s appeal on the right (speaking of popular motivations, not of the value of actual programs). If the crises continue to worsen, and if the reaction to capitalist conditions causes further rebellion, and if the radical minority grows in numbers and influence—then the bourgeoisie may decide to junk the advantages of political democracy and replace it with an open dictatorship.

In its history, capitalism has existed under a series of different political systems—while maintaining its economic system. Besides various forms of political democracy (some quite limited), it has existed under monarchies, police states, military juntas, “democracy” for only one race (apartheid South Africa and the U.S. South), as well as fascism. Under fascism and other undemocratic capitalist governments, there were no elections, no alternate political parties, no unions, no strikes, no radical political organizations, no opposition press, no right to assemble. These regimes differed in the degree of suppression. Some (most monarchies for example) permitted people a lot of freedom so long as they did not challenge the regime. Fascism was the most repressive, seeking to totally dominate every aspect of society, from politics to religion to chess clubs. Thus they were called “totalitarian.” They required everyone to declare their support for the state, the party, and the Leader.

To totally crush all independent organizations and groupings, of the working class and all other parts of society, required more than a military coup. It requires a movement of millions of people. The Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists organized large numbers of discontented people, mostly from unemployed veterans and lower middle class people who hated the rich but were afraid of falling into the working class. They did not just publish newspapers and make speeches, but went out to beat up—and murdered— socialists, communists, anarchists, and unionists.

While always extremely nationalist, fascism has not always been racist. Italian Fascism was not racist (it had Jewish members) until its last days when it became dominated by the Germans. In the U.S.A., as mentioned, the standard conservative (really reactionary) far-right has denied being racist, either anti-Black or anti-semitic. While most of these conservatives are still for bourgeois democracy, fascist sentiments are expressed at times. Occasionally spokespeople will say that if the “tyranny” of the government continues, then “second amendment remedies” will be called for and “patriots” will have to take to the countryside to defend themselves with guns. In fact there are various groups of armed “militias.” They have various ideologies, but some are preparing to resist the government when it comes to take away their guns (they think). This may be expressed in terms of local democracy or a wacky interpretation of the Constitution, but what is implied is the armed overthrow of the elected government. That is an element, at least, of fascism. (Similarly, Trump has hinted, in his speeches, that supporters of the Second Amendment should assassinate Clinton if she is elected.) Also, parts of the anti-choice movement have insisted that “God’s law” should be above “man’s law.” This is a way of calling for the replacement of bourgeois democracy with a theocracy, in which their leaders would dictate to the rest of the population, while claiming to speak for the Almighty.

But racism is deep in the U.S. consciousness, despite its decline among some sections of the population. Even the supposedly non-racist conservatives advocate programs which specifically target African-Americans and Latinos (such as voter suppression laws and cuts in public services). Despite denials of anti-semitism (and support for Israel), the right emphasizes its Christian faith and calls for a “Christian America.”

It is not surprising, then, that there is a section of the far-right which is openly white supremacist and anti-semitic. They say explicitly what the respectable right only implies. They believe that to whip up a mass movement to overthrow political democracy, it is necessary to openly appeal to the racism of much of the U.S. white population. (Why anti-semitism? Because the racist stereotype of African-Americans and Latinos is that they are “stupid” and “lazy.” Their stereotypes are not useful for a fantasy of an evil secret conspiracy which is dominating society. The racist image of the Jews can fit this threatening picture. The right has tried to use other groupings, such as the “secular humanists” or the “Illuminati,” but none quite replaces the image of the Jews.)

Is the U.S.A. Ready for Fascism?

There are forces which could coalesce into a fascist movement under the right circumstances. The Trump campaign has revealed the existence of such forces as an overripe piece of fruit, once cracked open, reveals its maggots. But it is not yet a cohered fascist party. Its leader, Trump, is happy to get support from the alt right. Their worked-out ideology is consistent with many of his prejudices, but he himself does not have an developed ideology. While he likes the adulation of the crowds, he does not have the organizing skills to pull together a real fascist party, nor does he have the interest.

Meanwhile the core of his followers, outside the alt right, while they accept most of his provocations, do not presently want the overturn of capitalist democracy. And certainly, the majority of Republicans who are voting for him because they are loyal to their party or hate Clinton do not want this. Conditions are bad in many ways, but not yet that bad.

Most important of all, the capitalist class, in almost all its sections, does not want to jettison democracy. Even the right wing, which has backed all sorts of far-rightists, has not supported Trump (of the leaders of the Fortune 100 leading corporations, not one has donated to Trump; neither have the Koch brothers). They are not ready to back a fascist movement, let alone a fascist takeover of the state. In any case, they do not want to put such an incompetent, ignorant, impulsive, and thin-skinned fool in charge of the U.S. state.

If the crisis get worse, if more rebellion boils up (which the bourgeoisie will want to be channeled into a pro-capitalist movement as opposed to revolutionary anti-capitalism), and if a more competent leader arises, then the capitalist class may decide differently.

I believe, and have argued previously, that overall things will get worse—despite temporary ups and shallow recoveries. The capitalist economy will continue to go downhill. Wars will continue to rage around the world, threatening a wider conflagration (and nuclear war). Climate warming is continuing at an increasing rate. And other evils of capitalism still appear, such as racist oppression.

But there are the beginnings of a massive upsurge of rebellion by working people and all oppressed. The Black Lives Matter movement has been especially exciting. The struggles of Latinos, citizens, residents, and immigrants, has been heroic. There is a growing environmental movement against climate change, including the struggles of Native Americans. Young women are refusing to accept misogyny. The fights for a $15 minimum wage and for organizing fast-food workers have had a great impact already. While I do not regard Bernie Sanders as a genuine socialist, it is nevertheless important that very large numbers of young people were inspired to support someone calling himself a “democratic socialist.”


As I see it, the job of anti-fascist radicals is not just to oppose Trump but to oppose Trumpism. That is, to oppose the elements of a movement which could, in the not so distant future, come together into a fascist movement. And the most important way to do that is to build up a radical alternative. The middle is coming apart in U.S. politics—and in the politics of many countries. The discontent with Clinton and her campaign shows that the status quo does not offer any solutions. Politics will polarize into the far left and the far right. Revolutionary anarchists are the farthest to the left, meaning those most in opposition to capitalism, the state, and all oppressions. Working together with other left groups where we can, we need to build up every element of opposition to this vicious, doomed, system.



For all Trumps obscenities no-ones suggested he ever voted for the " Supreme Crime" ( illegal, aggresive invasion) Hillary did nor did he ever order the spying on of the United Nations.
Then, Mark skips over the serious problem of LEFT fascism and all the CLASS WAR genocides since the CHEKA was established 99 years ago. Just by number of victims & means of (torturous) deaths alone, LEFT fascism has a track record far worse than any competitor - even the dreadful Holocaust! ( Sear " Holodomor")
So Mark hasn't really enlightened us much & in fact he appears to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Is Anarkismo still going?
Have they NO SHAME!?
( Sear Schmidt, Black Flame, etc)
What a disgraceful racket!
To hell with Platformism - its our LENINS CORPSE and it stinks ( Sear " Platform shoes" Black)
Yrs in post-left anarchism - pr.

Is this some sort of badly-written sarcasm? I wonder what is a "sear".

"Holodomor" neonazi propaganda posted here? But what about the Irish famine?

Or, hey... why not AIDS, or the endless slums and favelas of the global south caused by capitalism?

Oh and let's not talk about the dozens of millions of deaths caused not only by industrial capitalism, but more specifically German imperialism during TWO gigantic world wars, and to a lesser yet significant extent the Franco-Prussian war?

Rat indeed!

Wayne Price? Is that Platformist hack still writing? I've read better social critiques on the inside of a Bazooka Joe wrapper.

This is not the first time ANEWS has posted an article about Trump and Trumpism. The question I have is Why? There are plenty of Left journals and websites. ANEWS is or should be about what anarchists are doing. I thought Left-Anarchy died 20 years ago. I guess I was wrong.

wayne price is a known anarchist writer, who frequently writes for anarkismo and sometimes comments on this site. this text was submitted anonymously and pushed by the caretakers. as much as electoral politics suck, it is still relevant to anarchists and a text by an anarchist writer. i don't see why you wouldn't publish it, other than the fact that you may disagree with the author, which thankfully isn't a valid reason on a non-sectarian website like ANEWS.

-newspaper boxez in teh str33t

Three comments. Not one discusses the actual article. Professor Rat points out that Hillary is, as I mentioned, a supporter of the U.S. state and its wars of aggression. This shows that bourgeois democracies wage imperialist wars, which shows that they are bad and should be overthrown, but does not show that they are fascist. P.R. also raises the issue of Stalinist totalitarianism (state capitalism) which, in my opinion, has similarities and differences with classical fascism--an important topic, but one which I did not go into here. (He is criticizing me for not writing a different essay.)

TheHuntingOfTheSnark (a fellow admirer of Lewis Carrol) does not like my writings or me, but feels motivated enough to send a hostile comment. I wonder why? Well, you cannot please everyone.

H complains about ANEWS posting articles about Trumpism. H. does not understand how important this phenomenon is and how vital it is for anarchists to be clear about what it is (see Professor Rat's confusion).

TheHuntingOfTheSnark (a fellow admirer of Lewis Carrol) does not like my writings or me, but feels motivated enough to send a hostile comment. I wonder why?

Mostly because it amuses me. And because Platformism is about as relevant to 21st century conditions as phrenology is to the effort to map the inner workings of human brain. Hope that answers your question.

"To seek it with thimbles, to seek it with care;
To pursue it with forks and hope;
To threaten its life with a railway share;
To charm it with smiles and soap!

"For the Snark's a peculiar creature, that won't
Be caught in a commonplace way.
Do all that you know, and try all that you don't:
Not a chance must be wasted to-day!"

THTOTS writes that "Platformism is about as relevant to 21st century conditions as phrenology." I am not sure how Platformism comes into the discussion, since I do not raise it in the essay. But anyway, if The Hunting... wants to show that my thinking is irrelevant, he (?) had a great opportunity. Here I wrote about the upcoming elections, about the impact of Trump, and about the dangers of neo-fascism. (All highly relevant topics, I would think.) Surely he could show how my interpretation of these relevant topics is off the mark, distorted, and thus irrelevant to his own ("post-left"?) views. But he does not do it. He turns away with a sneer. Oh, if only he wanted to, how he could discredit my work and all Platformism! But he cannot be bothered....

Frankly, the discussion of whether the Trump campaign constitutes the rising tide of Fascism is not one in which I'm particularly interested in participating. I'm sure that a fairly compelling argument could be made for this being the case and, if this is the sole goal you've set for yourself in the above article, then you're probably well on your way to doing precisely that. If people want to engage in this discussion then, by all means, they can go ahead. As marginally useful as such a discussion might be in terms of addressing a particularly absurd saga in the history of the three-ring circus that is representational politics, any effort to place it within the context of a broader systemic critique of the state apparatus, global capital, and/or (post-)industrial civilization cannot be explained in left-anarchist terms.

The derision that you rightly perceived in my previous comments was directed at one sentence in the above article and one sentence only. It is as follows:

Revolutionary anarchists are the farthest to the left, meaning those most in opposition to capitalism, the state, and all oppressions.

To my mind (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the above sentence seems to be an attempt to define "anarchism" itself as an inherently "leftist" enterprise and, thus, exclude non-leftist discourses from anarchism by definition. To whatever extent this statement is not merely tangential to your central theme of the Trump campaign being indicative of a rising neo-fascism in the United States, it comes off more like the pious regurgitation of left-anarchist talking points by a Platformist ideologue than a genuine attempt to place this truly bizarre and uniquely American phenomenon in a broader global and historical context.

Fascism is a species of totalitarianism with a coherent political and economic ideology. Trump is an incoherent ignoramus, which are attributes that will send him back to Trump Tower come November.Anarchists certainly understand that the American state already has many of the characteristics of a fascist state and have been in place long before the Clown from Queens caught the electoral bug. Anarkismo is a class struggle,Left anarchist website. Most anarchists are post left and have been for twenty years. There are a lot of things that are of major concern among post left anarchists. Trumpism is not one of them.

"Most anarchists are post left and have been for twenty years."

I wish this was the case but on a continuum it seems most anarchists are still very much leftist. Simply compare ranarchism to rpostleft (reddit). I would even
say that the leftarded aspect of anarchism(pc pac n west bay area ect) outnumbers the post left sadly(again see ranarchism). Another generation might change things but as for right now post left discourse is still an emerging development. Hell post left discourse did not formally get going untill 99 in anarchy even though there was Black back in the early 80s and some proto stuff from Stirner types earlier. Stirner was of course OG.

"Fascism is a species of totalitarianism with a coherent political and economic ideology."

No. It never, ever had any common logical core, other than the support for State despotism, corporate State and the nation as an organic community. The fact you've got neofascist hippies or punks shows that even militarism wasn't a central character. Beyond that, its got different variants that are often in contradiction and keep neofascist groups from uniting.

International congresses of fascists have always failed to reach any ideological consensus, save perhaps the obscure one that happened in Barcelona in the '70s, on which there's little written about.

Umberto Eco's theory of "Ur Fascism" is the best depiction of neofascist tendencies.

Can be said for ANY ideology. It all becomes motley and muddy in the end. There is still some common founding definition that you have to pay attention to however(in this case Mussolini which Trump is not) He's a US Berlosconi

in nature, the 'situation' (the matrix of relational influences one is situated within) is the common actualizer, orchestrator and shaper of individual and collective behaviours.

in fascism, the 'intention' (desired future state of affairs) as formulated and delivered by a 'figurehead' sitting at the top of a pyramidal relational structure is given precedence over 'situational influence'.

the relational dynamics of the habitat [a transforming relational continuum] are common to all inhabitants but each inhabitant is uniquely, situationally included within the relational dynamic, so the inversion that puts 'group intention' into an unnatural precedence over 'relational situational influence' puts a bull like machine into the relational china shop, ignoring the situational influence that is uniquely experienced by each of us [since we are each uniquely situationally included in it].

contrary to popular belief, there is no 'power structure' in a fascist hierarchy, that is illusion. bully groups form from 'arse-licking' or 'suckholing' which is used to elevate a figurehead. if two or more suckholes lock on to the butthole of a figurehead, a machine-like bully group forms. the figurehead uses the psychological tool of language to call the shots on 'intention' that must be followed by all members of the arse-licking pyramid aka 'bully machine'.

the fascist pyramid structure is deconstructed by thomas mann in 'Mario and the Magician', a fictional story used to describe the rising fascism in 1920's Europe.

"The capacity for self-surrender, he said, for becoming a tool, for the most unconditional and utter self-abnegation, was but the reverse side of that other power to will and to command. Commanding and obeying formed together one single principle, one indissoluble unity; he who knew how to obey knew also how to command, and conversely; the one idea was comprehended in the other, as people and leader were comprehended in one another.” -- Thomas Mann, 'Mario and the Magician'

after a bully group forms with just one layer of suckholes elevating their figurehead, its machine-like logic shows its greater effectiveness in 'getting things done' over natural organizing [harmony and balance oriented organizing] which puts situational influence as experienced by individual sensory experients in precedence over one-size-fits-all intention-driven action, and this leads to natural mutual aid oriented individuals 'switching ethics' and 'joining bully groups', adding more layers of suckholes pinning themselves to the buttholes of the expanding pyramidal bully group. such a pyramid can grow exponentially with the upper layers of the pyramid evolving into administrative and regulatory agencies. the key to this type of organizing is 'language' [which substitutes being-based logical organizational structure for 'relational organizing activity'] since people are no longer being receptive to the pre-literate, full-sensory-experience of situational inclusion in an unfolding-in-the-now relational complex, ... but are instead following the directives of the arsehole-herd-elevated figurehead which ride roughshod over the situation-sourced signals that, in natural [pre-literate, pre-idealization] organizing activity mode, orchestrate and shape individual and collective behaviour.

of course, as is the general case with intention, it is logical proposition based and as such is inherently subjective and incomplete so that intention-driven actions of a bully group, while fulfilling logical-propositional objectives, are the source of 'externalities' since logical propositions do not comprehend and take into account the relational complexities involved in a physical intervention. these unanticipated/unaddressed 'externalities' are manifestations of the physical reality of our actual experience which departs radically from the 'logical models' of noun-and-verb thought-and-language; i.e. we experience/'feel' the externalities, we don't experience/'feel' 'fulfilled logical propositions' such as 'Saddam's regime has been eliminated, as was our intention, ... therefore, 'logical mission accomplished''. what we experience/'feel' are the 'externalities' associated with the bully machine intervention.

the illusion that fascist pyramids are 'power structures', depicts the individual calling the shots [deciding on the 'intention' and issuing directives that must be followed for the bully gang structure to work (the following of directives must be 'policed') as the powerful 'fountainhead' that is responsible for the actions of the bully machine. however, letting the figurehead at the top call the shots is what makes this machine structure work [it bypasses the need to listen to what individuals in the group are experiencing in their particular 'situations', and trying to finalize agreement within the group on that basis (this would require 'learning circles' where everyone could share their experience)].

so long as the bully machinery is having its way by succeeding in having its intention-directed actions bulldoze their way through the ambient unfolding-in-the-now relational situations, the figurehead on the top is recognized as the powerful source of its success [i.e. the upper level arselickers are getting what they want]. of course, the arselicker collective will quickly get rid of the figurehead [e.g. mussolini] if his driving of the machine is such that it puts it off the road in the ditch or smashes it into some other object or machinery too big for it to push over.

top-down power is an illusion, bottom-up arselicking is the physical animating influence. the central 'eye' of a storm-cell is an empty point of symmetry that can serve as figurehead while the animating influence is all the sucking up to it that is going on in the periphery [and not issuing from the centre of symmetry].

the belief in 'power' and thus in an 'inequitable allocation of power' is the problem with feminism. it is the problem of getting one's suckholes tied to one's butthole; i.e. the assumption that 'power is a real substance' leads to the following illusion cited in linear philosophical analyses;

"power is “a kind of stuff that can be possessed by individuals in greater or lesser amounts” and “a resource that is unequally and unjustly distributed between men and women; hence, one of the goals of feminism would be to redistribute this resource in more equitable ways.”"

now, it is a bit unfair to label all of those enslaved within a master-slave hierarchy 'arselickers' and 'suckholes', but it may be 'realistic do use such labels' because, for example, what are slave parents trying to feed their starving children going to submit to in order to keep their children nurtured and cared for? answer: whatever their "powerful" masters want them to do.

something is missing here, and inquiry into what is missing takes one into the philosophical underpinnings of 'logic' and the difference between the logic of the excluded third versus the logic of the included third (so-called 'quantum logic'). the former logic is 'dualist' while the latter logic is 'non-dualist'.

that is, a human is a relational activity involving a circular flow of nurturance from the habitat through the inhabitant back into the habitat in a non-dual inhabitant-habitat relation. this relational activity called 'a human' cannot be sustained without this connective circular relationship with the essential flow of nurturant resources of the land/habitat. noun-and-verb language-and-grammar, because it reduces relational activity to the pragmatic idealized terms of 'independently-existing beings' and 'what these being do', engineers the DISAPPEARANCE OF THE CIRCULAR RELATIONAL DYNAMIC THAT SUSTAINS THE ACTIVITY OF RELATIONAL FORMS SUCH AS HUMANS.

the monopolized control over access to the essential nurturant resources of the land, ... and thus the ability to selectively 'close down' or 'open up' the circular flow of nurturance, is the source of the division into 'master class' and 'slave class'. this monopolization and the extortion-influence it furnishes are depicted in the idealized terms of the superior 'powers' and competencies of the masters and the inferior 'powers' and competencies of the slaves.

modeling social dynamics in terms of 'independent beings' and 'what independent beings do' shows no trace of the third element that connects inhabitants and habitat, self and other, this third element being the energy-charged [nurturance-charged] plenum that includes both of the first and second elements [subject-and-object, self-and-other]. why are more slaves than slave masters convicted of crimes and incarcerated? is it some evil powers in their interior, or is it their pushback against the suffocation and extortion associated with the monopolization of access to essential nurturances? the point is that 'arselicking' (more generally, 'prostitution') is more often induced by monopolizing of property and manipulation of access to essential resources than by people wanting to make a career out of arselicking [Thomas Mann has profiled why some people do want to make a career out of it]. Western society's unlimited property ownership 'right' is the source of 'wage-labour' that sets up a system of extortion through 'employment' (unemployment = strangulation so that 'employment' is 'strangulation-avoidance' in the modern relational social dynamic where intentionism has been elevated to dominance over situationism)

so, arselicking is more often an extorted behaviour, although it can be used deliberately to elevate figureheads as in the construction of bully gangs [whether the arselicking is deliberate or extorted, the construction of bully gangs by having arselickers elevate figureheads has become the Western society norm] .

of course, "top-down" and/or "bottom-up" views of relational structure are 'two-dimensional' and the physical reality of our actual experience needs sufficient dimensionality to address 'inclusion' in a relational-spatial sense so as to take into account the variable receptivity and transmissivity of the physical space of our actual experience [the waterholes and orchards of the common living space inductively actualize, orchestrate and shape the individual and collective behaviour of the inhabitants and their becoming filled with inhabitants relationally transforms the inductive actualizing influences]. topologies such as convergence and divergence associated with receptivity and transmissivity, are experienced in a non-dual form in the physical reality of our actual experience. there are no such things as 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' except in the idealized logic of the excluded third, which is based on the 'existence' of two separate and opposite things; i.e. it is 'linear thinking' which cannot be found in the physical reality of our actual experience.

because transmissivity and receptivity are in a non-dual relation [Mach's principle], circularity is implicit, in the manner that convergence [sink, reception] and divergence [source, transmission] as a non-duality constitutes a convection cell or storm-cell, giving the illusion of a local thing-in-itself even though 'the cell-thing' we are looking at is a purely relational circular dynamic and there is nothing 'local' there. that is, purely relational influences such as 'field' [gravity, eletromagnetic/thermal] are non-local, non-visible and non-material. in nature, there is a reciprocal complementarity between 'source' and 'receiver' termed 'source-receiver reciprocity'. this makes itself apparent in 'quantum physics compliant' communications [Gabor, 'Theory of Communications'] wherein 'transmission' and 'reception' become a non-duality and must be handled mathematically using 'complex numbers'.

Complex numbers [implying wave dynamics] are not like 'being-based numbers' in that they have 'phase' which implies 'circular, harmonic motion'. So, instead of a stream of true or false binary bits, we understand communications in terms of source-receiver non-duality [transmitting-receiving non-duality] which implies the logic of the included third; i.e. transmitter and receiver are included in an energy-charged medium ['field'] that is relational transforming in the manner of the atmospheric flow 'habitat' with the action of the storm-cell 'inhabitant' as an inhabitant-habitat non-duality. i.e. in Gabor communications, receptivity and transmissivity are a non-duality that is the relationally transforming communications medium [the medium is the message]. this understanding 'works' physically and is the basis of holography wherein dynamics are purely relational and relational forms are 'appearances' [purely relational activities] which have no basis in local 'being' and no real 'interiors' since they are purely relational features.

this 'review' of the geometry/topology of fascism, while it seems in order to share it here, is not acceptable to mainstream thinking because mainstream thinking uses as its foundation, the notion of local material being/s that are the jumpstart source cause-and-result actions responsible for the unfolding 'reality' that we discuss in the media and in our popular everyday discourse. meanwhile, this assumed 'reality' is an idealized 'semantic reality' constructed from idealizing relational forms in the transforming relational continuum as 'local material beings', so what we post-literate users of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar employ as 'reality', psychologically, is nothing like the physical reality of our actual experience. once we have grown accustomed to using our psychological 'semantic reality' as our 'operative reality' as is the standard in Western society, it is difficult to wean ourselves of this habit and restore situational influence to its natural precedence over our logical proposition based intention, as the driver and director of our individual and collective actions.

in blunter terms, after so many generations of master-slave 'linear thinking', arselicking to elevate figureheads has become the Western norm for cultivating organizing activity. the noun-and-verb language-and-grammar system that we use to give RE-presentation to the arselicking-to-elevate-the-figurehead form of organizing inverts the view so that the figurehead is RE-cast as the fountainhead of power. this illusion is 'made good' by the arselicker collective who will police and enforce whatever the figurehead commands the bully group to do. as already mentioned, the arselicker collective will get rid of the figureheads that keep putting the bully machine off the road and trying to bite off more than the machinery can chew [e.g. too many foreign wars than the machinery piloted by Hitler and/or Mussolini could bull their way through.]

arselicker supported bully machinery was consolidated in the well-known structures termed 'sovereign states' and 'corporations' [the latter established as arselicker supporters for the former, although the tables are now turned because of the unleashing of corporations so as to authorize their global reach with which to globally consolidate their monopolization of essential resources used to extort arselicker services from the global public and, as in recent developments, to play one sovereign state off against another.

obviously, this 'relational' view is too radical to currently find favour even in forums that claim to be open to considering radical views. as nietzsche points out, reason has found its way into an unnatural precedence over intuition, and people are used to using 'reason' as their means of determining the truth about 'what is real'. that's what 'science' is all about [i'm not saying that 'science' can't climb up on its own shoulders and pull on itself to get it to transcend itself', but that is precisely what 'logic' cannot do, and that limitation of logic is what is expressed in Goedel's theorem. since 'logic' is the default tool for upgrading our understanding in the Western world, we are fucked until/unless we can restore our full intuitive mode of understanding of our pre-literate experience and that means liberating ourselves from our captivity by 'reason'.

"Most anarchists are post left and have been for twenty years."

agree with ziggy. that is a rather uninformed statement. at least it does not jibe with my own experience over the past 20 years on both coasts and in between. of course, i would never claim what "most" anarchists are, because i have not met most anarchists. but i have met many, many over the years, and by far most of them are NOT post left.

For anyone who disagrees with H. that "[Trumpism is not] of major concern among post-left anarchists," and who live in or around NYC, I am leading a discussion about the elections from anarchist viewpoints. It is on Oct. 25, Wed., at 7:00 at Bluestockings Bookstore, 172 Allen St., NY, NY.

I agree with SirEinzige on this much at least: it is absurd to say (as H. does) that "most anarchists are post-left." Has someone taken a census of anarchists? Anyway, you may ignore Trumpism but Trumpism will not ignore you--that is, a right wing semi-fascist movement cannot be ignored by people in real life.

Thing is, Wayne... that neofascists running the US government and its prison/police system have been after us for years already. And even liberal Left people like Naomi Klein have been shouting out loud that the US has fallen into fascism. The Obama administration was characterized by an unleashing of DHS orks everywhere in public transportation, paramilitary police spooking people in the streets with military-grade arsenal and armored vehicles, orwellian media all over the place, everybody being Facesnitched, NDAA, the SPP and the tar sands pipeline being pushed HARDCORE by Democrats, through the force of guns and political usurpation... then you're just telling us that all this was just some "liberal democracy".




Then suddenly just because some billionaire improvising himself as a politiclown is starting to become a (laughable) potential for POTUS, you're getting all scare about fascism in US politics. Where have you been since the '90s? You should know better about capitalist State politics.

in nature, a certain sort of 'organized swirling' can form in the manner of bull elks coming out of the forest into a central clearing, attracted by the bugling sounds that bull elks make before they make out with another bull's cows.

if a human is making the bugling sounds [with an elk horn], the bull elks still come swirling in towards the eye of the storm they are co-forming.

should we credit the noise-maker in the centre for producing this 'organizing activity' or should we credit something non-local, ... an epigenetic inductive influence, ... for actualizing the assertive actions of the gathering bulls. the bugling may have been a poor imitation of what normally alarms and attracts the gathering bulls, but since they usually hear nothing that comes anywhere near to the real thing other than the real thing, something that sounds different, that they don't recognize as 'the usual innocuous sounds', may pull them in.

that is, an excitable collective with strong needs may answer a call that is really very blurry and not much more than a burst of noise. and if this happens and a large number answer the call, should we assume that this is because the attractive power lies in the content of the centrally issued call?

maybe the attractive power lies in the answering collective that is excitable, has strong needs, and will head for any port in a storm; i.e. maybe any old noise coming from the centre which is unlike the usually identifiable forest noises and could be associated with 'worst fears' or 'best hopes' [the arrival of a terminator-bull or an angel-cow] commands interest and checking out on the grounds that it cannot be identified and dismissed as the usual innocuous noises.

of course, if one credits the trumpeting with being the source of the attraction, this opens the way to all kinds of analyses of the contents of the trumpeting to isolate the exotic essences that have such amazing pulling power. some may theorize that there is something within the trumpeting, some new and 'secret recipe' or theory concocted by some genius, like a Colonel Sanders, that will continue to pull in more adherents and engender a massive following.

on the other hand, the gathering influence could be coming from the periphery to the centre rather than from centre to the periphery, the message from the centre being a mere figurehead for the gathering swarm, rather than the fountainhead of the swarm.

in this case, there is no point in inquiring into the 'internal source of pulling power alleged as deriving from the centre-to-periphery trumpeting', ... any old load of crap can induce a periphery-to-centre swarming of flies that need some rotting host or other for planting their eggs to grow a healthy future.

"He appointed a notorious anti-semite and racist as a top official (“C.E.O”) in his campaign (Bannon, formerly the main person of Brietbart News)."

Breitbart isn't anti-semetic, or at least it is certainly not anti-Israel. If you write a comment on Breitbart criticizing Israeli policies, it will be removed, or if not outright removed, you will be swarmed by pro-Israeli attack trolls. Don't take my word for it, you can test this out yourself.

"Under fascism and other undemocratic capitalist governments, there were no elections, no alternate political parties, no unions, no strikes, no radical political organizations, no opposition press, no right to assemble."

Sounds eerily familiar to now, only that elections are rigged and all the political parties are the create the illusion of a democracy.

"The right has tried to use other groupings, such as the “secular humanists” or the “Illuminati,” but none quite replaces the image of the Jews."

Don't forget the latest one...Cultural Marxism.

"This may be expressed in terms of local democracy or a wacky interpretation of the Constitution, but what is implied is the armed overthrow of the elected government. That is an element, at least, of fascism." IS government. Overthrowing government would be an element of anarchy.

Thanks for a thoughtful article Wayne. It seems like you are most concerned with a "fascism from below" - a situation where a (sufficiently) mass movement is supported by the capitalist class to seize certain levers of state power.

Prof rat's point about left fascism is worth thinking a little about -- the stalinist soviet state meets many definitions of fascism (admittedly those that de-emphasize capitalism and rather look at the relationship between the state, production, and the organization of work in the place of a specific economic system). To me, it seems like this was a 'fascism from above', a situation where the state itself provided the organizational means, rather than a leader who organizes from a mass base (as you point out trump has failed to do).

Assadist or Nasserist fascisms (where the army or security aparatus provides the organized base) are another example of fascism from above -- not quite a military dictatorship, but where the mass participation of society in the military produces, mobilized against internat and external foes, provides an organized authoritarian element. This is a possible direction for US fascism, a state of emergency of some kind where the military is deployed domestically and top generals gain sweeping power over daily life.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this if you haven't been chased off by the trolls

Around the recent coup in turkey, maybe radicals wrote about why they preferred an authoritarian shitbag like erdogan over a military dictatorship, which maybe refutes some of my thoughts about military-rooted fascism, on reflection

The context of Nasser and Assad's regimes, at least at ther inception, was full pro-Nazi popular Islamic fascism movements, so it wasn't just a top-down thing, but something similar to Germany and Italy. With the differences that they were also using a strong anti-imperialistic paradigm/rhetoric, and in the case of Nasser, became more of a Left authoritarian regime.

I'm not certain if any of those socialist regimes with asserted military domination of politics should be seen as Left fascism tho... Castro's regime? Tito? I'm over the fence about that, as these regimes were also very inclusive and quite anti-capitalist, and also had their own forms of democratic system. They weren't exactly militarized regimes, even if run by a "revolutionary" military chain of command.

Mussolini said "fascism should really be called corporatisim." At its root was the merger of corporations with oneanother and with the state. Sound familiar. Both wings of the US ruling party are fascist in this sense, but Trump takes it to another level. First there is his status as a billionaire CEO type. Then there is the police state aspect generally associated with fascism too. His blunt threat to arrest and imprison his main electoral opponent is extremely unusual in mainstream US politics-and also implies a direct threat to his other opponents.

Like Erogden in Turkey, he will probably launch a blizzard of police raids and other crackdowns on his political enemies if he gets into the White House. Already he has tried without success to claim the sidewalk around Trump Hotel as his private property and ban protests there. Contingency plans for the worst are a good idea.

That greasy sex scandal will hopefully have the legs to run to November and keep Chump out of the White House, but suppose a big scandal about Hillery (lots of skeletons in her closet no doubt) puts him back on top in two weeks? Everyone needs to give serious thought to how they plan to resist outright fascism, and probably to defense if what happened in Turkey is any precedent.

And that's not corporatism either. Corporatism, broadly speaking is the marriage of industrial labor to finance capital. Sydicalism, councils ect in a harmonious marriage with corporations at the top. It does not mean conglomerate marriages of corporations. That's just the outcome of monopoly.

"Mussolini said "fascism should really be called corporatisim."

Funny quote, especially given that those who have been force-pushing the FUCKING TPP, the most anti-democratic, authoritarian corporatist plan in decades (well, you know... since Euro fascism) were (not Trump), but the Democrats, espeically Miss Globalization in person, Hilary Clingon.

That poster never said Shillery was NOT a fascist, only that Trump is a fascist in spades. In fact, s/he said "sound familiar" indicating that fascism in the US has been growing for quite some time. Trump would be Il Duce, while Hillery would be a sock puppet for the junta standing behind her.

You're rendering the term meaningless, NEITHER one of them is a fascist. An authoritarian statist diagnosis will suffice.

sorry, dad

My theory still goes like "Trump = Berlusconi, Hillary=Tatcher" The growing presence of KKK among cops is worrying, but it's still not really as bad as Italy a 100 years back. Trump would need to have the support of most of the tech and energy industry for this (which he is light years away from having, as of now). THEN you would have some really scary techno-fascist treat.

But it's way more likely you'll have the wolf in sheep's clothing Clinton, with Google and Fedbook sitting in a corner of the oval office. They've been doing that already... go ask Assange.

I meant "techno-fascist THREAT" not "treat". Now that's some really scary typo!

...and that was a reply to 10/11/2016 - 21:50 !!!

Now there are some serious comments. To Verified: (1) It has been reported that Steve Bannon wrote to his ex-wife that she should not put their daughter in a school with many Jews because of their bad influence. That is anti-semitism. It is possible to be anti-semitic but pro-Israel, anyway.
(2) Verified does not agree with me that there is a qualitative difference--politically--between fascist totalitarianism and bourgeois democracy. He or she writes that in our society, after all, " elections are rigged and all the political parties are the create the illusion of a democracy." No, this is what bourgeois democracy really is. It creates the illusion that the people control the government, but there really is a degree of openness which does not exist under fascist (or Stalinist) totalitarianism. For example, Anarchistnews is legal and open. Of course, the whole point of bourgeois democracy is to serve the rule of the capitalist minority, but that does not make it indistinguishable from fascism.
(3) He misses my point about militia groups or the Bundys. I did not mean that they were against all government. They want to overthrow the *existing* bourgeois-democratic government, in order to establish some other government more to their liking (a subject on which they are quite vague). This is fascistic.

To Anonymous Thanks for a Thoughtful: Fascism in its purest form (Italy and Germany) was both from below and from above. Mass discontent (middle class and upper working class) was organized and stirred up by a few leaders, who were eventually able to sell their movement to the capitalists, who let them seize state power. Totalitarianism in the Soviet Union had a different class basis, in that the revolution of the workers and peasants had destroyed the (weak) former bourgeoisie (but the workers and peasants were too weak to hold onto power). Lenin and Trotsky prepared the way for Stalin's rule, but it was the rise of an enormous bureaucracy which led to a new form of totalitarian state. It was still capitalist, in that the workers were exploited in a capitalist manner, commodities were produced, and the state became the center of capital accumulation. But there was no traditional stockholding bourgeoisie.
Abroad it appealed (dishonestly) to the working class, unlike fascism as a movement. This is just the beginning of a discussion, you understand.

To Not making my n...: Just how authoritarian Trump would be is hard to know (and I hope we never find out). Certainly he would be worse than Nixon. But I doubt he would outlaw the two-party system, cancel elections, shut down newspapers, and do other things to close off all the cracks in the system within which anarchists and radical organize. If nothing else, his lack of support among at least half the population and among most of the capitalist class would keep him from establishing a dictatorship. So, while Trump and his movement certainly have elements of fascism, they are not yet ready to establish fascism (which was the point of my essay).

"To Verified: (1) It has been reported that Steve Bannon wrote to his ex-wife that she should not put their daughter in a school with many Jews because of their bad influence. That is anti-semitism. It is possible to be anti-semitic but pro-Israel, anyway."

It's possible to hold any number of contradictory views. That doesn't make them any less contradictory. I think I just misunderstood the nature of what you said. After further research, it seems Andrew Breitbart (a Jew) started Breitbart News, and Steve Bannon (a non-Jew) became Chairman of Breitbart News. So it's possible Bannon harbored latent anti-semitic views while serving as Chairman on a Zionist-leaning news site, while most people were unaware of his views (Bannon may not have publicly expressed them before his divorce became public).

"(2) Verified does not agree with me that there is a qualitative difference--politically--between fascist totalitarianism and bourgeois democracy. He or she writes that in our society, after all, " elections are rigged and all the political parties are the create the illusion of a democracy." No, this is what bourgeois democracy really is. It creates the illusion that the people control the government, but there really is a degree of openness which does not exist under fascist (or Stalinist) totalitarianism. For example, Anarchistnews is legal and open. Of course, the whole point of bourgeois democracy is to serve the rule of the capitalist minority, but that does not make it indistinguishable from fascism."

There may be a difference-politically-between fascist totalitarianism and bourgeoise democracy, but it's not a difference that makes any difference. If we assume Nazi Germany was a prime exemplar of fascist totalitarianism, then a serious reading of history reveals that most people were relatively free in most respects under National Socialism. If you were not a communist, a homosexual, mentally or physically handicapped, a visible minority, or of course, a Jew, you basically had nothing to worry about in Germany. During the war there were more restrictions (i.e. banning of foreign news media, curfews, etc). But most people went about their daily business without much hassle from authority, just as they do today in western democratic bourgeoise countries. One could argue that western democratic bourgeoise countries today are under even more totalitarian measures than Hitler or Stalin could ever dream of. Think of all the totalitarian surveillance now that Hitler and Stalin never had. Think of the mass infiltration and militarization of police that Germany and the Soviet Union never had, even at the height of the East German Stasi. Think of the mass incarceration in the US, comprising 25% of all the world's prisoners. Even the Gulags didn't cage as a many people as the US does now.

Any differences between fascist totalitarian states and bourgeoise democracies have now become very minor, almost moot.

"(3) He misses my point about militia groups or the Bundys. I did not mean that they were against all government. They want to overthrow the *existing* bourgeois-democratic government, in order to establish some other government more to their liking (a subject on which they are quite vague). This is fascistic."

Point taken, and conceded. I misread the context of that passage.

" They want to overthrow the *existing* bourgeois-democratic government, in order to establish some other government more to their liking (a subject on which they are quite vague). This is fascistic."

fuck government in every form, but how exactly is wanting to change the type of government fascistic? unless that is explicitly the type of government they want to establish.

Thanks but no thanks for yet another useless, desperately statist drivel about Bogeyman Trump from people with a high-school level understanding of capitalist politics.

But here’s the party-crasher: Trump is politically impracticable, and hardly electable as well.

This clown has got even less power base in the establishment than Sanders had. Some parts of the prison industry and cops, yes, but that’s it.

Today’s Politics for Dummies: even if you get elected it doesn’t give you much power. Political power is depending on a networking of resources and support base. Example: Allende’s government -who yet had a huge power base in the unions and other civil institutions- got so easily wiped out for his lack of control over the military and secret service. So while he had a strong network, it wasn’t enough diversified and didn’t include the base component of any State power, which is the military. Just like with Trump, it was an idealistic regime.

Have you seen any Silicon Valley or Wall Street or even big oil industry being run by rabid, White supremacist Christian fanatics angered about Hilary lately? Not. These are the crackers, who got little power aside than in their police departments/parishes. These are the Infowars wingnuts who at best are gonna be small business owners or landlords.

So the question I’m asking the jerks here without proper understanding of US politics: what would you prefer between an insidiously fascist corporate zealot with a long track record of devastating US imperialism AND a huge power base; or some powerless idiot supported mostly by Infowars idiots who keeps barking about doing slightly more fascist stuff he’s got no means to achieve whatsoever?

Trump will require something like two mandates to build up and consolidate the power Hilary currently has over the establishment. He’d require a vast restructuring and hiring of new personnel, and taking control of Silicon Valley and the rest of the tech industry, which are massively pitted against him.... It’s not even worth explaining further, I just can’t think of it without laughing at how ridiculous the prospect is.

Just as I am laughing at anyone taking this clown for a scarecrow. He’s just being, indeed, a useful scarecrow, so that Clinton becomes the last resort solution to save the widely-liberal US establishment.

(this was a comment on the article, but it is inclusive to Wayne's comments)

your comment raises the general question as to whether actual relations that network influence are the 'real' actualizing powers that we attribute to local 'identities' with our subject and verb constructs; e.g. we use the 'identity' called 'Poland' as the subject for 'Polands Changing Borders' but what the hell is Poland, and what the hell is 'Trump' and 'Trumpism' and what the hell is a 'fascist movement' or 'anarchist movement', for that matter.

the networks you speak of could be made manifest by the endorsers/supporters of a state, movement or political figure leaving their resident/office lights on overnight so that the matrix could be captured from a satellite camera. the 'tiger woods' endorsers or bill cosby endorsers or donald trump endorsers will show up like a strong, then ailing then recovering rhizome, patches of light going dark with each day's evening news, or patches of darkness lighting up with each day's evening news.

the same applies to so-called 'movements' such as 'fascist movements' or 'Trumpists'. what is Poland? what is 'fascism'? the lights may stay on overnight for years in a small 'vanguard' group but one is dreaming to think that 'theory' underlies a general social 'movement' such as a 'fascist' or other political 'movement', and so depicting it as a fetus-thing-in-itself that is going to fatten like a calf within the body of the social collective.

this is the problem with giving 'identity' and 'subjecthood' to the nouns we make up, like 'Trumpists', there is nothing 'real' in an 'identity', just watch the lighted rhizome of endorsements going dark here and lighting up over there, manifesting simultaneous 'creation' and 'destruction' if you are into binary dualism, or transforming relations if you acknowledge the natural primacy of relations over things along with Schroedinger, Mach, Bohm, Nietzsche et al.

sure the US is 'independent' and sure Russia is 'independent' [or are they? ... take a look at those light networks again and listen to Bart Kosko's dissertations on 'fuzzy logic']. things are independent, according to logic, so long as the "principle of the excluded third" ( principium tertii exclusi) applies which says that in order for A and B to be independent, there can be no C such that A is included in C and B is included in C so that A and B are included in one another. if the US is independent of Russia, it can strike Russia without hurting itself, and likewise Russia can strike the US without hurting itself.

of course, if Mach's inhabitant-habitat non-duality principle is taken into account [non-dualism requires the logic of the included third], ... "the dynamics of the inhabitants [the US and Russia and all others] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants [including both Russia and the US]". This principle of inhabitant-habitat non-duality says that the US could poison itself with radioactive toxins from its nuclear strike on Russia and vice versa [i.e. the US and Russia are INTERdependent].

As it turns out, the subject-verb-predicate constructs of our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar imply 'empty space' as the operating theatre for the notional independent things that are the pragmatic idealizations we fabricate with our dualist noun-and-verb language [dualism as where material entities and space are mutually exclusive] and while that is a convenient simplification or 'pragmatic idealization' that facilitate easy discourse, it shouldn't be confused for 'reality'.

"We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach"

capitalism is 'vanguardist' but it is not just the vanguard party members whose residence lights endorsements will stay on all night and all year signalling their endorsement of capitalist politics, it is the lights of all the sovereign-state military facilities in the world, facilities whose resources are drawn from a general public whose lighting of the capitalist endorsement-rhizome increasingly manifests the pock-marked darkening of withdrawing endorsement.

as you point out, analysts such as wayne who use noun-subjects such as 'Trumpism' and 'movements' so freely and glibly, are using their personally constructed logic-based 'semantic realities' to wallpaper over relational social networks that are the semantically-obscured primary physical reality.

p.s. (edited in)

it's worth noting, in regarding to the lit-up rhizome/network of endorsers as seen from a satellite looking in on the night-time earth surface;

1. the absence of presence is 'not nothing'.

2. the 'body' of endorsers may appear to be a persisting thing, but as with Emerson's comparison of 'things' with cataracts, what appears to be a persisting 'form' is a lot of comings and goings.

3. the form of a support 'movement' is not 'a thing that changes or grows or shrinks' and can itself be 'measured'; i.e. there is no 'thing' there, there is only the transforming plenum and it is our subjective focus on the limited aspects that we can see (the points of light) that give us the sense of there being a 'form-thing-in-itself' that 'is changing over time' [over our succession of observations]. the physical reality is the billboard-plenum with all the light-bulb-pixels in it, not the patterns made of lighted pixels. [who knows what relational complexity is churning away beneath the limited surface views we get of it? Did George W Bush see into the churning relational matrices beneath the cover of the Saddam regime?]. we see the top bit of the 'continent' that is undergoing meltdown at the same time as it is undergoing accretion of new material; i.e. it is not a thing-in-itself that is changing, it is an 'appearance' or 'apparition' in the mind of the visual observer that associates with relational forms in the transforming relational continuum, that we psychologically endow with 'being' and 'fixed identity'. these forms are not separated by 'empty space', they derive from the energy-charged space [transforming relational continuum] in which they are inclusional features.

the popular habit in our culture is to make up words such as 'Trumpets' and 'movements', use them as subjects that depict them as things-in-themselves and impute powers to them. these constructed 'semantic realities' are nothing like the physical reality of our actual experience.

First of all,apologies all around for assuming that most anarchists are post-left.I should have said that the anarchists I agree with are post-left or anti-left-Zerzan,Bob Black,Gelderloos, Uri Gordon,etc.That said,let me get to my main point.After reading the article "Is Trumpism Fascism " for a second time, I could not help thinking that this piece could have been written by Noam Chomsky, who is not an anarchist.The author of this piece writes that the "capitalist system as a whole is in decline." Where is the evidence for this? I see problems,challenges, but not decline.The writer mentions BLM, environmental activism,the "fight for 15" and other "independent mass movements" that are or could be "radical alternatives" to capitalist democracy. He describes this radical alternative as revolutionary anarchy. But where is the anarchy? I don't see it. The writer says that fascism means "dictatorial rule". We are living under a dictatorship of a different sort.It is called the dictatorship of Capital as Technology. This is, in my estimation, an issue that trumps Trumpism. You cannot abolish capitalism by calling it by another name or by transfering its control from one class or institution to another.I don't mean to minimize the obvious dangers of a Trump like figure who is intelligent,clever and charismatic. Anti-Fa actions should be supported by anarchists. I believe in nipping these things in the bud before they metastasized. That still leaves the much larger danger- global techno-capitalism.

A few remarks: (1) Several of my critics insist that Trumpism is not important, since he is going to be defeated, and other reasons. But 40% of so of the U.S. population supports an anti-immigrant, anti-Latino, anti-Black, anti-woman, and ultra-authoritarian politics. Faced with un- and under- employment, economic stagnation, and increased inequality, these suffering people chose to blame other oppressed people rather than (what we want them to blame) their real oppressors, the ruling class. This may not worry those of you who live in sectarian ivory towers, but it worries the hell out of me since I live in the real world!

(2) A number of readers still reject my argument about the difference between fascism and bourgeois democracy. They exclaim, Look how bad this society already is! One reader even cites the fact that liberals think we are in or approaching fascism--which is my point that this is a liberal perspective, with liberal illusions about what democracy can be under capitalism. Look, fascism and bourgeois democracy are both forms of capitalist state rule. They both serve the ruling class, by ideological and repressive means. Even the bourgeois democracy jails people, shots People of Color, has an unfair "justice" system, and wages unjust wars. At the same time, there are differences. Under bourgeois democracy, we can hold this discussion. Under fascism we would be rounded up and shot. I do not mean some of us but all of us anarchists, socialists, communists, radical pacifists, Black activists, union organizers, eco-socialists and environmentalists, liberals, and feminists. See?

(3) I am not discussing Leftism and non-Leftism. But historically, from Proudhon to Kropotkin to Goldman to Makhno to Durruti (and to the large movements which these names stand for), anarchism has rejected state socialism and liberalism (that is, most of what has passed for "the Left.") But also, the mainstream of historical anarchism has opposed capitalism and the state and all oppressions, and supported libertarian socialism, workers' emancipation, liberation of all the oppressed, and an ecologically balanced society (in the tradition of Kropotkin and Reclus). These are Left goals, anarchism being the left of the left, the most oppositional. While I do not claim to be an "orthodox anarchist" (whatever that would be) this is the tradition I identify with.

But also, the mainstream of historical anarchism has opposed capitalism and the state and all oppressions, and supported libertarian socialism, workers' emancipation, liberation of all the oppressed, and an ecologically balanced society (in the tradition of Kropotkin and Reclus). These are Left goals, anarchism being the left of the left, the most oppositional.

I fundamentally disagree. First of all, it strikes me as a little odd that anyone who professes to ascribe to such an uncompromisingly rebellious and iconoclastic worldview as anarchism would be so concerned with maintaining piety to what a so-called "mainstream" is either doing or not doing. Second, the notion that there cannot be a non-leftist critique of capitalism, the state, and all oppression is more indicative of your lack of creative thinking than any actually existent leftist monopoly on these priorities. Third (and this point leads in from the second), the Left, even in its most "extreme" guises, has only ever been the left wing of capital. The notion that left-anarchism is "the most oppositional" is therefore a delusion. Like the yin to global capital's yang, the merely apparent opposition of the Left to capitalism is merely a gloss that obscures the underlying affinity between the two. The false opposition consists of both sides taking at face value the capitalist claim of being "individualistic" in nature and then adopting either a positive or negative valuation of this mistaken premise. Even the slightest closer look at the capitalist notion of "the Individual" reveals this to be a ruse, as "the Individual" in the capitalist formulation is not a qualitatively unique personality with wide-ranging and highly mutable desires, preferences, and goals, but an abstract numerical unit or "rational agent" that, from the vantage point of the marketplace, possesses only instrumental value in terms of its capacity to work and consume, thus keeping the machinery of global capital up and running. It ultimately makes no difference whether you're elevating "the Individual" or "the Collective" to the status of an abstract ideal. It's like running in opposite directions around a circle and arriving back at the same point where you both started: to strip living, breathing individuals of their specificity and reduce them to "empty vessels" that can be "filled up" with commodities. If you're wondering what a non-leftist critique of capitalism looks like, that's a pretty good place to start.

"At the same time, there are differences. Under bourgeois democracy, we can hold this discussion. Under fascism we would be rounded up and shot. I do not mean some of us but all of us anarchists, socialists, communists, radical pacifists, Black activists, union organizers, eco-socialists and environmentalists, liberals, and feminists. See?"

Not true. Under totalitarian fascism people also held these type of discussions. They simply held them privately and in small face-to-face groups. They used coded language and most people figured out ways of avoiding arrest. Not every last single communist (or union organizer, or Jew, or homosexual, or critic of Hitler or Stalin) was killed under Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini, that's absurd. So there is no reason to believe that any totalitarian regime today would round "all of us" up and "shoot us". There were many protests in Nazi Germany, and many resistance groups., most of whom were not wiped out. But these groups were small and isolated and were not coordinated (kind of like anarchists today), as the vast majority of the German population supported National Socialism. In the Soviet Union, Stalin arguably enjoyed less open support by his poulation than Hitler did, but again, not every dissident was rounded up and shot. Many who were caught were sent to the Gulags, others escaped the clutches and scattered. It was a big country with lots of places to hide, and the tracking technology was primitive.

It's impractical to round up every last single "enemy of the state" and shoot them, whether in fascist totalitarian regimes or western bouregois democracies. The logistics are nearly impossible. The next best thing is totalitarian surveillance, which we, in western bourgeois democracies, have now. The ability to lock down an entire large city like Boston (during the Boston Bombing) would have been unthinkable and undoable in any city in the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, except perhaps during the war.

Wayne's too nice and eloquent to say this, but I'm not: if you think Hillary is a fascist then you're just fucking straight-up too dumb to be having this conversation. I know you think it proves you're edgy, intelligent and passionate, but what it really tells people is that you don't have the faintest idea what any of these words actually mean.

Who the fuck are you talking to? Me? I never said Hillary is a fascist.

It was supposed to be a general reply but musta been swept up by the everpresent threading problems. Not directed at you, verified.

a Fascist, albeit In-the making. His movement also is incipient in the same regard.
A definite threat.

It is nice to see a couple of people agreeing with me. Of the others, the most interesting, and yet unreal, are those by Verified. V. writes, "There may be a difference-politically-between fascist totalitarianism and bourgeoise democracy, but it's not a difference that makes any difference....One could argue that western democratic bourgeoise countries today are under even more totalitarian measures than Hitler or Stalin could ever dream of." And "So there is no reason to believe that any totalitarian regime today would round "all of us" up and "shoot us". There were many protests in Nazi Germany, and many resistance groups."

This is a reference to two totalitarian states (Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia) which each murdered many millions of their subjects. Even the better off workers ("Aryan" workers in Germany, Stakhanovites in the USSR) were unable to negotiate with their bosses, were bound to their jobs, had to carry passports, could not form independent unions or legally strike, etc. Opposition groupings were not just allowed to be peacefully isolated but were rounded up and shot. Nor was the daily life of ordinary people free of anxiety and fear of the secret police. See Richard Evans' books on Nazi Germany. To compare this with capitalist democracy is absurd. Of course bourgeois representative democracy is repressive, has vast prisons, is racist and misogynist, imperialist, and is destroying the climate. It is a form of the capitalist state.

But to be unable to see the difference is to disarm ourselves and the people when there is a fascist threat--or a potential fascist threat in the Trump movement.. Don't worry, you say, because a fascist replacement of bourgeois democracy is really no big deal. There is no need to organize a fight against fascism, it won't be much worse that capitalist democracy. This is terrible strategic thinking! I refer you to the resistance of the Italian anarchists to the coming of fascism.

We are talking about degrees of authoritarian rule. I never said there was zero difference, I said the differences are minor and don't amount to a lot.

Let me repeat, if you were not one of the persecuted minorities in Nazi Germany, you didn't have much to worry about. Most Germans went about their daily business without fearing being shot or thrown in prison. They did not live in a state of fear and terror. The only place that came anywhere close to that stereotype was in East Germany in the 1960s, and then only for a decade or so.

Richard Evans is a class war Marxist crackpot. See the works of Richard Gellately, Eric Johnson, Daniel Goldhagen, and to a lesser extent, Peter Fritzsche, instead.

"Of course bourgeois representative democracy is repressive, has vast prisons, is racist and misogynist, imperialist, and is destroying the climate. It is a form of the capitalist state."

Right, just like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were, only they were more repressive, oppressive, racist, and imperialist to a worse degree in some respects. Is this an important difference? Not if you're one of the ones being persecuted. Look at all the leftist or opposition groups and union leaders in the 1930s, 1960s-1970s who were killed by the government in bourgeois democracies. Are their deaths any less fascistic or repressive?

Of course not, and the government didn't shoot everyone, not in Nazi Germany, not in the Soviet Union, not in Italy, not in bourgeois western democracies. They don't have to, and don't try to (unless they really have an obsessive hate on for a specific group, like the Jews).

What I object to is this constant rhetoric about what's coming...the bogeyman just around the corner, the 'thing-we-must-guard-against', the specter of something worse that's about to be unleashed. There is always the presence of evil lying just ahead, that 'shit's about to happen'. What all these have in common is a forward looking paranoia, worrying about the next big bad thing lurking in the near future. It misses completely the actual fascism that exists in the here and now. "Yeah, but this is not technically fascism, real fascism is much worse". Who fucking cares? Who's doing the measuring? I don't want to live under either. Why should we be only worried about 'the coming real fascism'?

I never said, and didn't imply, that "There is no need to organize a fight against fascism, it won't be much worse that capitalist democracy.". In fact, if anything, I was implying the opposite, that we should be fighting THIS current nightmare with all our guts, and not get hung up over distinctions between Nazi/Soviet style fascism vs bourgeois democratic fascism, as the differences are minor and a matter of degree.

Do you really believe that the differences between liberal democracies and Hitler's reign is "minor"? Really?

I know it's not cool to admit shit like this around self-professed radicals, but those of us in first-world liberal democracies have it pretty good, all things considered. It could be a hell of a lot worse. Yes, we have more surveillance technologies lording over us, but we also have unparalleled access to communication and transportation technologies. We enjoy a standard of living beyond what most people living around the world or throughout history could barely imagine and kinds of rights which nobody would have thought possible. Even compared to other "democracies" around the world (Columbia, etc) or our own governments throughout history (Palmer raids, McCarthyism etc), we enjoy a fair number of civil liberties.

Not saying this to be an apologist for liberalism. Liberal regimes still practice imperialism, they still destroy the environment, they still force people into wage-slavery and they still jail and murder a fair number of their people. In a lot of ways they're far more effective at these things than any kind of totalitarianism. That's the real danger inherent in liberalism - it's ability to control people without direct repression. Attempting to resist a government like this the same way one would tackle a fascist regime is just not gonna work, and in a lot of ways likely to make things far worse (look at the "libertarians"...).

If you can't imagine how things could be worse than life in contemporary America that says a lot more about you than it does about America. To be specific, what it says is "spoiled child".

I for one agree with your overall position.
I say that because I believe that the amelioration of any kind of suffering
is the right and good thing to do. That of course does also require me to speak up and expose the overall
hypocrisy of all Systems of Power. Tactically we should always find "soft" and hard points of the System so as to undermine them as opportunities arise. re-form and re-create > both , and…I do not believe in hard and fast Strategies. I do believe in tactical will-to-power distinction and implementation whenever an opportunity arises. This will forever be necessary, and that's perfectly fine with me. the means and hopes and dreams are always more important than the potential "Results", the ends(read the End).We don't need more Answers,
we need more questions, more problems exposed, and indications of how we can live our lives in more fulfilling and satisfying "ways".The Journey is crucial and expresses the Beauty of our lives.. Beware (as in be-aware) of the Destination.

Being drawn into better and worse is to be drawn into objectifying barameters of existence. There have been various democracies that have been similar to fascist Germany/Italy. For pursecuted minorities there is really no difference.

For once I agree with you ziggy. Fuck I better mark this day down in my calendar.

Tell that to the Holocaust victims.

Within historical democratic governments. German Nazi victims do not stand alone in history AZ.

Tell that to the Native American holocaust victims.

Did you even read my post?

Then why did you write:

"I know it's not cool to admit shit like this around self-professed radicals, but those of us in first-world liberal democracies have it pretty good, all things considered."

And so did the majority of German citizens during the Weimar Republic and National Socialism. They also enjoyed civil liberties, and their daily life was relatively terror free. I said (which you conveniently ignored) that if you weren't part of one of the persecuted groups in Germany, you had little to worry about.

However, if you were unfortunate enough to be persecuted, then your life was hell. You could also be killed. But what's the qualitative difference between being shot by an SS officer and being shot by a BATF agent? What's the qualitative diffference between having to watch what you say and write under the East German Stasi, and under the NSA's PRISM program?

Yeah. I read it. Just didn't consider it worth engaging with specific points given how ridiculous the post was as a whole.

Classic cop out, because you can't rebut those specific points.

basically, it is only 'detail' in the geometry of oppression that differs between fascism and democracy. in both cases, the organizational model is 'the machine', making organization radically unlike the ecosystemic organizing activity generally found in nature.

machine-type organizing is 'intention-driven' and requires that all of the part[icipant]s in a collective contribute their energies to a 'common purpose'. in the Western culture this is suggested by noun-and-verb-language-and-grammar where we treat a 'state' as an 'independent machine-like thing' and a 'corporation' like an 'independent machine-like thing'. this view of the world in terms of 'independent machine-like things' is anthropomorphism since that is Western society's 'ego' view of the 'self'.

as azano has suggested, as individuals and as collectives we have a choice between an 'in-the-now' voyage-oriented orientation (our actions are actualized by our sensitivity to the unfolding situation in that we move so as to reduce harm/dissonance and cultivate balance and harmony), ... or a desired-future orientation (destination-oriented actualization) wherein our behaviours are actualized by the goals and objectives we have committed to achieve [or that have been laid out for us]. both fascism and democracy are exemplars of the latter, desired-future oriented (intention-driven) behaviour-actualizing mode.

the geometry of repression differs between the fascist machine and the democratic machine. in the fascist machine the 'common purpose/program' is imposed from an elite-who-know-best at the very top as in 'vanguardism' whereas in the democratic machine, the 'common purpose/program' is developed through political debate with input from the ground-floor as in 'platformism'. the 'common purpose/program' so developed is then imposed via 'legislation' and backed up by regulatory and enforcement agencies.

both of these machine approaches to 'organizing' are 'intellectual program' based; i.e. all part[icipant]s in the state or corporate machine must obey the intellectually transmitted 'common program' and are rewarded and punished on the basis of how their actions are seen as contributing to it.

in the fascist approach, the word of the leader must be obeyed and 'der Fuehrerprinzip was encouraged throughout the society, spawning many little local Fuehrers or mini-mi's;

"The Führerprinzip (German for "leader principle") prescribed the fundamental basis of political authority in the governmental structures of the Third Reich. This principle can be most succinctly understood to mean that "the Führer's word is above all written law" and that governmental policies, decisions, and offices ought to work toward the realization of this end. In actual political usage, it refers mainly to the practice of dictatorship within the ranks of a political party itself, and as such, it has become an earmark of political Fascism." -- wikipedia

various groups within the fascist regime were encouraged to form their own dictatorial regimes, forming a nested proliferation of mini-dictatorships which were not in a linear hierarchy but plugged directly into the 'cloud' of the Fuehrer's will. within a mini-mi Fuehrer cell, the only appeal was to the mini-mi Fuehrer so repression could strike anywhere, and the oppressed would find themselves without appeal to 'a higher authority'.

The repression is delivered through 'the tyranny of the majority' in a democracy propagated by a matrix of mini-mi's but in this case there is appeal, sort of, to legal process, which, although it didn't stop the repression (genocide?) of indigenous peoples or blacks, has lifted the lid somewhat for a small minority of repressed individuals.

There is a fundamental repression-sourcing problem in machine organization which manifests in both fascist and democratic organizing. that is;

Both fascism and democracy are 'intentionist', intellectual REASON-driven, 'destinationist' organizing approaches, as contrasted with the 'situationist' relational EXPERIENCE actualized 'voyagist' organizing approaches.

'reason' is inherently subjective and incomplete and bypasses the natural relational complexity in the physical reality of our actual experience. for example, 'reason' comes up with formulations like 'Saddam is a trouble-maker we need to eliminate. our military science and technology can be deployed to eliminate him'. logical propositions such as these are used to construct a 'semantic reality' in the free-range of the mind, that bears little resemblance to the physical reality of our actual experience of inclusion in an unfathomable relational complex. our intervention to 'eliminate Saddam' is 'successful' in the sense that our logical propositions have been proved true, but the physical reality is that we intervened in a transforming relational complexity that was beyond our superficial reason-based understanding, engendering 'externalities' that were unaddressed in our logical propositions, and sourced unanticipated harm for many in unanticipated ways.

intellectually driven organizing is always subject to the disconnect between the subjectivity and incompleteness of reason-directed actions and the 'real life' relational complexity of such interventions which inevitably leads to the engendering of 'externalities' where someone gets hurt, crushed, marginalized.

Machinist organizations will not back off using reason in precedence over experience-based intuition so that unanticipated problems arising from the over-simplicity of reason, continue to be addressed with reason. Situationist organizing grounds its actions in the actual physical experience of the participants in the organizing; i.e. the actions of members of the group are grounded in what the members of the group are experiencing, not in what the most vocal and articulate 'are thinking'.

The point is that fascism and democracy have the same flaw that delivers oppression in different ways and because it is reason-driven, is insensitive to the mismatch between the simplistic logical propositions and semantic realities of 'reason' and the relational complexity of the 'real world' of its physical interventions.

"However, if you were unfortunate enough to be persecuted, then your life was hell. You could also be killed. But what's the qualitative difference between being shot by an SS officer and being shot by a BATF agent?

verified's comment shifts the 'grounding' from the intellectual rationale to the experient. this is what situationist organizing does that separates it from machine type organizing schemes such as fascism and democracy

TheHunting....writes, "the Left, even in its most "extreme" guises, has only ever been the left wing of capital." To which I respond (1) Millions of workers, peasants, intellectuals, and others have rebelled against capitalism and its state, under the banner of various leftist groups. It is also true that the leaderships of these groups, their programs, ideologies, and types of organizations, have (so far) served as the "left wing of capital." So there has been two sides to "the left," and it is limited to see it as *only* the "left wing of capital."

(2) Just about all the crimes and failures we can attribute to the left, are really applicable to the *statist* left, that is social democracy and state communism and variants thereof. Anarchism has always rejected state socialism and projected itself as the anti-state, anti-hierarchy, anti-centralist part of the left. "Post-Leftists" (really anti-leftists) mix up socialist-anarchism with the statist left. (I am not denying that anarchism, in all its forms, has weaknesses and historical failures, but nothing like that of social democracy and Stalinism.)

(3) What is your point about individualism? Socialist anarchists reject both an abstract "individualism" and an abstract "society." We believe in a community in which human potentials are developed to their fullest, as the individuality of each participant in the open direct democracy.

As much as I admire the resilience of those attempting to reason this typical Leftist dolt Wayne, they should also consider that we're dealing with the same old Chomskyist idiot with an 80 years old derelict revolutionary paradigm that is pretty much a form of LARPing in itself.

If one can't read through the final chapter of his much-lauded Spanish Civil War, and how the radical communists and the anarchists were screwed not only by the Left and Far-Right sides of capital, but also by inhrerent delusions about a colllective "We" reified through revolutionary regalia and spectacle then you can expect just about any denial of views not already comprised in his own prefab system of linear "thought".

But that ain't just about Wayne, of course.

I have never met a leftist who did anything more than pay lip service to the desires of "the Individual." If it isn't one abstract collectivity being fetishized, it's another: if it isn't "Society," it's "the People;" if it isn't "the People," it's "the Masses;" if it isn't "the Masses," it's "the Working Class," etc. You can sit there and tell me that I'm confusing state socialism with libertarian socialism if you want to, but the fact still stands that there are other collective abstractions aside from "the State" that are no less hierarchical merely because they are "decentralized." Besides, if "rebelling" against capitalism was enough to get rid of it (let alone escape recuperation back into capitalism's own discourse), then it would have been eradicated ages ago. Capitalism in the 21st century is a whole different beast than it was in the days of Marx and Bakunin and, as such, cannot be effectively resisted in the same ways. Capitalism has an uncanny resilience when it comes to using its own instability to it's advantage and, thus, using acts of resistance as a tool for its own reproduction. Unlike the capitalism of yesteryear, the current incarnation has long since overshot the boundaries of the purely "economic" arena and bled into all aspects of social and cultural life. This new "rhizomatic" capitalism (to use Deleuze and Guattari's term) is far too fluid and adaptable for any so-called "Mass Movement" to pose a substantial threat.

And guess what?! We can use D and G-s concept of the rhizomatic ourselves for our
own tacts of liberation. They include flexibility, stealth; open struggles, symbolic manifestations,
artistic, literary and musical re-com-positiong. one-on one conversations as was well as one and the many -against the "They" out there. Rhizomatics, Differential Capabilities and Geo-philosophical re-positioning.
Basically , opening up more zones of autonomy in our daily lives as well as in theaters of contestation.
Developing new and more manners, new methods of inquiry and experimentation.
This site is one of those new beginnings and" new worlds" that D and G talked about .And I am happy and proud to be a-part of it .Part of a "new peoples" that they envisioned.

I have reached the end of my commenting and counter-commenting to this thread. I just don't know what to say to someone who seriously claims that the differences between capitalist democracy and fascist totalitarianism are only "minor." While the writer claims that her or she does not want us to be deflected from fighting current evils, he or she ignores the fact that the threat of fascism is one of the worst of the current evils. Fighting the threat of fascism is part of fighting liberalism. Fighting liberalism is part of fighting fascism.

Nor do I know how to respond to someone who writes, "Capitalism in the 21st century is a whole different beast than it was in the days of Marx and Bakunin" and therefore "This new "rhizomatic" capitalism ... is far too fluid and adaptable for any so-called "Mass Movement" to pose a substantial threat." It seems to me that capitalism still lives by exploiting millions of workers, is still competitive, still maintains the state, is still intertwined with all sorts of oppressions, and still is destroying the planet. But the writer is giving up on the mass of people rebelling against capitalism, giving up on the possibilities of a mass movement, and withdrawing into his or her "self". But some of us have not given up. We still believe in a revolution of the working class and all oppressed.

Nor do I know how to respond to...

Clearly you don't. If you did, your response wouldn't make you sound like such a rank amateur when it comes to theoretical critique.

It seems to me that capitalism still lives by exploiting millions of workers, is still competitive, still maintains the state, is still intertwined with all sorts of oppressions, and still is destroying the planet.

I never denied any of that. But, in addition to all of those things still being the case, my point about capitalism not being the same thing today as it was in the days of Marx and Bakunin still stands.

But the writer is giving up on the mass of people rebelling against capitalism, giving up on the possibilities of a mass movement, and withdrawing into his or her "self".

Rejecting the idea of mass movements does not imply "withdrawing into his or her 'self,'" as you put it. It simply implies seeking out relationships of affinity on an individual basis rather than on the basis of a presupposed collective identity.

But some of us have not given up. We still believe in a revolution of the working class and all oppressed.

No real surprise there. Religious zealots have a strange tendency to cling to their sacred cows regardless of how archaic and delusional they might be.

Wayne ... This is Snark, a shithead troll incapable good faith discussion. This person's sole motivation is to feel clever by their own arbitrary standard. You wasted your time unfortunately.

Yep... that was totally me. All shall kneel in reverent obeisance before my unmitigated genius.

Why stop with Snark? Every time Wayne shows up I feel like apologizing for the whole damn site.

Especially Snark tho.

If Wayne ever learns how to do anything other than parrot rehearsed platitudes, then I'll be happy to engage with him in a more subdued manner. Until that time, I'm not gonna treat him with kid gloves just because his doting fanboys think I should.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice. You seem quite good at parroting rehearsed platitudes yourself. There is a time and a place for most things, be that formal or informal organization or whatever you want to call it. I agree that the traditional left (if there is such a thing) is in many ways outdated. But Wayne does not seem to be oblivious to the fact. You just keep hammering on with your same old line, which makes you come across like any good old tankie. Not much more to it than an incredible intellectual rigidity and uncertainty.

There is no place for anarchy.

Sorry, but that makes little sense other than as a catchy phrase. It might not be my preference to organize formally, but I am not so one sided that I cannot admit that it serves a purpose. I can understand a critique of an obsession on form and not the content, but I do not see that formal/informal organizing are mutually exclusive. As I said, there is a place and time for everything. Is it more clear if I say that a formal organizing might serve a means and not an end?

Anarchy is about spontaneous organizing, not something to be found in formal organization. If you have to use formal organization for a particular purpose then fine but it is not condusive to anarchy.

situational organizing = einzige's 'spontaneous organizing'
intentional organization = einzige's 'formal organization'

the difference between 'organizing' and 'organization' pivots from whether one puts situational influence in precedence over intentional action. if intention is put first, then the action bulldozes through the situation. if situational influence is put first, it inductively actualizes assertive action, after which, we can nevertheless 'talk about it' as if we are the full and sole authors of our own action; i.e. we can 'fob it off' as 'intentional organization'.

the talked-about 'semantic reality' is not the physical reality of our actual experience.

'semantic reality' is a lie that has earned Western people their 'forked tongue' reputation.

if i travel from naples to rome on a bicycle, i may be dodging cars and trucks all the way [situational influence is inductively actualizing, orchestrating and shaping my assertive actions]. if i travel in a tank, not so much. using noun-and-verb language, i can say that i went directly to Cassino, then to Frisosone, and then on to Rome. i can show time-stamped pictures of my arrival in those places to prove the truth of this logic-based 'semantic reality'. of course, the bloody pieces of crushed bodies caught in my tanktreads suggest there is something more to the story than the subjective and incomplete representation i have put together.

the truth is that noun-and-verb, language-and-grammar constructs of the form 'I did this' and 'I did that' which imply an operating theatre absolutely devoid of inductive influence that is actualizing, orchestrating and shaping our behaviour is a kind of 'limiting value' that is not attainable in the real world of our actual experience.

there are two realities here and 'semantic reality' is a simplified intellectual reality fabricated by assuming the absence of situational inductive influence. for people who believe this, the only possible form of 'organization' is intention-driven organization.

for a community with an ethic of mutual aid, the relational dynamics of the valley inductively actualize, orchestrate and shape their individual and collective behaviours and their sensitivity to social-relational/situational inductive influence is the animating source of their organizing activity. this is 'spontaneous organizing' and it comes with our physically real experiencing.

'formal organizing' is something that is fabricated in the mind. it is logical and not physically real. it is DEPICTED NOT EXPERIENCED and the depictions make use of notional intention-driven actions without mention of situationally induced actualizing, orchestrating and shaping of actions. it is an intellectual tool, it is NOT physical reality.

yes, we can use 'formal organization' as a convenient 'mind-game' but spontaneous organizing is organizing that we actually experience.

I'm uncertain as to how you use 'formal' in this specific case. If you use it as it is commonly used, then I find your statement to be absurd. And instead of, as is so very popular on these pages, just going on with the abstractions and / or pure philosophy - let's get practical.

I'm part of a seed savers group. It is formally organized, members, secretary, guidelines for the organization etc. Now this a horizontal structure, it is based on free exchange etc, and free education. Groups like this aid me in my work on my small piece of land, it helps me in my day to day realization of anarchy. In fact it furthers it from my isolated little field, it puts me in contact with like minded others, and gives a frame of reference to a mode of organizing other than the capitalistic one. My actual day is, I would say, one of anarchy ( to the extent that is possible), it is not only something left for tomorrow. I work within an affinity group, organized horizontally. Most of what we do is of the informal kind, but when the need arises we will organize more formally for example when working with larger groups of people etc.

The same could also by said for instance about the prison strike. It might not be anarchic in nature, but it uses anarchy as a framework for organizing, letting the inmates realize (to whichever degree it is possible) the possibility of anarchy: Mutual-aid and free association. Thus both examples are by definition CONDUCIVE to anarchy.

Spontaneous organizing is all fine and dandy, but when you are doing something which involves more than three people it can be of great use to have a more formal structure to operate in. That does not equate to a negation of spontaneity within this formal structure. It is simply a way to organize a specific work when for instance geographical distances or a complexity of the task makes an informal approach cumbersome.

no-one said that ‘you are not an anarchist if you use intention-driven (formal) organization’ or that 'anarchists should never use intention-driven (formal) organization' [it is a subjective and incomplete logic-based thinking tool, not physically real organization].

the point in my comment is to ground one's actions in situation-induced experience rather than in reason-based 'semantic reality' that is inherently subjective and incomplete.

seed-saving sounds great, but keep on the lookout for 'externalities' engendered by the disconnect between intention-driven organization and our relationally complex physical reality; e.g;

“kudzu was introduced by the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876, where it was extolled as a hardy, fast-growing ground cover that could help inhibit soil erosion. The first two attributes proved only too true as within 50 years kudzu had earned new nicknames: “the vine that ate the South” and The Green Menace.”

their seed sharing operation was a logical success and fulfilled its goals, but evidently 'we shared seeds' was logically correct but gross oversimplification that failed to address real world relational complexity.

No, there are no strawman going around here.

First quote Ziggy: Where there is place for formal organization there are no space for anarchy.

Second quote Ziggy: If you have to use formal organization for a particular purpose then fine but it is not condusive to anarchy.

Hence why I were pedantic, since formal organization can be conducive to anarchy. To suggest, as Ziggy does, that there exist a principle of exclusion in regards to the form of organization amount to little else than catchphrases. I understand the wish to break with the more 'traditional' thought and approaches of anarchism, or at least that which is ascribed to it. What I do not see the point of is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to create a divide which in effect is non-existent. No point complicating matters more than necessary, nor do we need to reinvent the wheel. As Aesop Rock said: Shut the fuck up and realize that what you're holding ain't really broken

Uhn, seed-savers? Not good enough!! Need some planet-savers dudo!

your actual day of anarchy on your small piece of land …
can i cum too ?

civil form is enforced by rational division of activity / the state pretends institutional administration of teh flowing cosmic organ.

As I already explained in a previous post, my reason for being so harshly critical of Wayne was not simply because he refuses to acknowledge that the left is outdated, but because he actively seeks to exclude non-leftist interpretations from anarchism by definition. Had he come at it from an angle of "I realize that not all anarchists will agree with me, but I think that the left or some aspect of is worth preserving and I'd like to discuss this further," then I wouldn't have responded to him in the way that I did. However, instead of taking this angle, he decided to argue that non-left anarchists simply aren't anarchists and I accordingly decided to take him to task on this in no uncertain terms. Being a former left-anarchist myself, I understand the appeal of such clear-cut doctrines but, after years of witnessing how collectivist groupthink and prefabricated ideological programs usually play themselves out in practise within anarchist circles, I have long since lost patience with this sort of mentality. The fact that Wayne would resort to such a simplistic caricature of the egoist perspective as "withdrawing into oneself" seems like either a deliberate mischaracterization or a fundamental lack of comprehension.

Ok, so that made it more clear. I for one appreciate the egoistic perspective. If not along the post-left lines I think anarchism would do well to reconsider its tactics and approaches. That said, I think Malatesta was on point in his article "Communism and Individualism": I would place myself in the former category, but do not do so with the exclusion of the latter. It would be interesting to see what kind of ideas and practices would evolve if, what seems to me, this pedantic style of discourse were to be abandoned. Which I say without pointing fingers.

I suppose that's as satisfactory a response as I could hope for, given the nature of the discussion. It's been a long time since I've read any Malatesta and, when I did, I'm not sure if that particular article was among them. However, I seem to recall that, among the "Classical Anarchists" (such categorizations always being a little problematic) he was one of the more appealing ones.

Regarding what is often dismissed as "pedantic" language within anarchist discourse, there are times when I suspect that this is an accurate description and others when the person presenting the criticism just doesn't know good writing when they see it. In any case, this is a minor quibble.

I'm certain that all culture is fascism since it re-constructs traditional authoritarian events of the past as if they are stepping stones to a progressive totality. Every true anarch loaths the idea of having to wake up in the morning and go through a whole ritualized act of saying good morning to ones partner and relatives or having to ask permission from one of them to borrow their car, so damn fascist and authoritarian of them to be so stingy! May they die of boredom in their insulated cultural coccoons.

Whenever someone uses the phrase "true anarchist" in anything other than an ironic way, I automatically discount that person as a crass ideologue.

Yes it was ironically used. Whoever wakes up immersed within a culture, observing the dialectic protocols and other rules, attends church or the local activist club, takes history seriously, has a trivial opinion etc.

The the thing is, there's not one person on the planet who doesn't wake up immersed in culture. Culture is merely the social organization of perception into narrative form through symbol and myth. Granted, you can approach this reality with varying degrees of critical awareness or the lack thereof, but there's no sidestepping it entirely. Even "anarchism" itself is an expression of culture.

That's why I'm distancing myself from anarchism. I'm sick of it, I'm heading back into my own immediate pre-indoctrinated self, also going to become pompous and aristocratic, I've earned it, all my knowledge and superior ideas. That's all, I'm not going to interfere with anyone elses reality, they better not interfere with mine.

Can't really say I blame you. I've been on a similar path myself but do my best to remain open to perspectives that are critical of my own so long as, in both form and content, I can glean something useful from them. Unfortunately, the opportunities for this sort of constructive critical engagement within the anarchist milieu are becoming fewer and further between.

Ignore the sarcastic troll who interupted, but getting back to constructive developement I'm glad there will always be philosophical content, it gets me through the banal dullness of the Western existent, also my young infant relatives bursting with potential energy, reminding me that with every generation there are at least creative non-corrupted pre-identity thinkers with their pure amoral emotional take on phenomena. Growing vegetables should be the new inverted rocket-science of the 21st century, drones should be scattering seeds of drought resistant bread fruit all over this rapidly desertifying planet and hammering and beating missiles into iPods and solar panels.

You mean you're folding back to a more maintream, massive form of indoctrination... Ok well feel free. It's just that the milieu you associate with "anarchism" is not "anarchism". Just a clique or network of post-Christian victorian moralists. They could be as well the RCP, ISO (oh wait...), Scientologists, Climate Change activists, local freemason lodge, etc. There's people, there's institutions and there's ideas. They are all different things.

Just tell us more about the superiority of your authoritarian ideas and how your Next-Level Macho perspective has changed your life for the better.

Alan Watts once said "work is what you do to survive, play is everything else." I would structure that analogy to the necessity of org as a means to keep an anarchic relation going. Still, as you don't conflate work with play, you don't conflate org with anarchy. At most you could say there is indirect conduciveness. Still the sustained function of org is to build apparatuses not create anarchy.

i suspect that Ziggy’s intuitive understanding and my understanding ‘boil down’ to the same thing, however, my response to you is in regard to my understanding of your and my difference of views.

i have tried to be clear that ‘formal organization’ aka ‘intention-driven organization’ is pragmatic logical idealization which is not only inherently subjective and incomplete, but ‘disconnects’ us from the physical reality of our actual experience which is relational-situational.

we know that an intention-driven undertaking that we are singularly focused on, is at the same time (relationally) transforming the common living space which others (everyone) depend on [e.g. depleting the water supply that others (we all) depend on and/or or contaminating it etc. etc.], so that our intention-driven organization may achieve its logical goals without consideration of how it is, at the same time, transforming the terrain it is operating in in a manner that may be causing others harm.

the intention-driven organization (coalition of the willing, joint military command etc.) to get rid of Saddam engendered many ‘externalities’ aka ‘side-effects’ aka ‘collateral damage’ that continue to harm a lot of people. none of these 'externalities' were anticipated/addressed in the logical ‘semantic reality’ that became the ‘operative reality’ for the ‘intention-driven’ organization termed ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’.

i think you may agree that the world is far more relationally complex than the logical semantic realities we construct in ‘our thoughts’ using the tools of noun-and-verb language and grammar. in our thoughts, for convenience and 'economy of thought', we may reduce unfathomable relational complexity to a simple hero-and-villain narrative, furnishing mental screenplay for the intention-driven actions of the courageous good-guy organization whose intention is to construct a desired future state. meanwhile, our actual intervention does not transpire according to our inherently subjective and incomplete logical mental screenplay, it transpires within a transforming relational medium [“the transforming of the relational medium is the message”].

the bourgeoisie or slave-master class [limitations of language force me use this being-based cause-effect-speak] employ reasoned/logical intention-driven organization which follows their scripted screenplay or ‘semantic reality’ which, in being employed as the ‘operative reality’ leads to interventions in the physically real, relationally complex space of our actual experience, ... such interventions which follow the logical unfolding in the screenplay are at the same time transforming relations and engendering ‘externalities’ in the physical reality of our actual experience.

we find ourselves in a radically yet unintentionally transformed, continually unfolding situation. it is the ‘situation’ that we actual experience that is ‘real’. starvation is real. being bombed is real. the scripts and screenplays that architect intention-driven organization written by politicians sitting in political headquarters are ‘idealizations’ that do not and cannot possibly capture the relational complexity and unintentionally engendered externalities in the physical operating theatre in which the intention-driven organization is fielded.

why would we not ground our actions in our actually unfolding situational experience rather than ground them in our copy of the screenplay for intention-driven organization that we and/or our politicians are handing out?

Because, Western civilization has put reason-based intention-driven organization into an unnatural precedence over situation-induced actualizing of creative actions (spontaneous organizing).

for some of us, and certainly for indigenous anarchists, it is natural to let the unfolding-in-the-now relational situation we find ourselves in, inductively actualize our creative action potentials. not that we cannot hold in our hand for a rough secondary guide, at the same time, the screenplay which has a role-play and script for us, written by some or other intention-driven organization such as the self-declared 'independent sovereign state'.

if we are, as hunter s. thompson describes the common Western man, ‘a celebrity-worshipping flag-sucker’, we may do more than use the screenplay as a 'rough secondary guide'; i.e. we may shut out the sounds of starving children crying as they are put to bed hungry and desist from stealing a loaf of bread from the bourgeois boulanger, and instead consult our copy of the script and get on with our role-play that, as it says in the screenplay forward, is the best way to contribute to the good of all.

let’s be clear. i am not talking ‘either/or’ here; i.e. i am NOT pitting ‘situation-induced organizing’ against ‘intention-driven organization’. i am saying that situation-induced organizing derives from our actual experience while intention-driven organization derives from thought and language constructs in our heads when our actions are driven by a script in our heads which we put in precedence over our unfolding-in-the-now situational experience. the script may say; by dropping this napalm on these Vietnamese villagers, i am contributing to the achievement of an intention-driven desired future state and thus i am contributing to the greater good of all and the elimination of evil in the world. also, i am thankful for the work of the organizational chiefs in writing this screenplay and giving us all roles and scripts, without which we would never be able to assemble this powerful coordinated action which is allowing us to achieve our intention-driven desired future state.

the neighbourhood policeman is becoming the new napalm bomb dropper as the ‘war is peace’ screenplay continues to rise into precedence over situation-induced actualizing of assertive actions.

this says something about the subjectivity and incompleteness of ‘reason’ and logical propositions which are the basis for intention-driven organization. nietzsche has said it before, but it bears repeating; i.e. ‘intention’ is not the ‘cause’ of actions and results because ‘intention’ or ‘will’ is ‘only a word’. it is a word that script-writers use to animate the notionally 'independent' ‘beings’ or ‘characters’ they invent. it is part of the 'bewitchment of understanding by language' [Wittgenstein].

“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

the abstract ingredients of ‘being’ and ‘intention’ provide the recipe and foundational grounding for semantic scripts and screenplays that attribute powers of jumpstart creation of ‘actions’ to the being. this takes us far away from the ‘Method of Nature’ of Emerson, Nietzsche and Mach wherein the organism is a relational form that transmits influence from the non-local to the local and is not only ‘inhabited’ by the transforming relational flux, is created by it [in the manner of a storm-cell in a flow-continuum].

‘Beings’, whether ‘human beings’ or ‘organizations’ that are semantically endowed with ‘being’ by 'semantic reality scripts’ are ‘spooks’ with semantically endowed God-like powers of jumpstart constructive/creative action.

the ‘economy of thought’ that comes with ‘being’ and ‘intention’ based modeling is that it establishes solid attribution of causal responsibility; i.e. a means of assigning values to individuals and their behaviours and thus a system of rewards and punishments to promote the amplification of good and the attenuation of evil. it is essentially language-based superstition that is not grounded in the physical reality of our actual experience. its origins lie in Western religions and the basic premises of 'independent being' and 'internal force of purpose' have been retained in mainstream Western science;

“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts. .. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” – Vatican Archives, The Catholic Catechism

forensic science uses 'being' and 'intention' within the formal organization of moral judgement based Western retributive justice to achieve its intention-driven desired future state in which evil has been eliminated while that which is good has been secured and protected.

man as a ‘being’ whose ‘intention’ is seen as the full and sole source of his actions is a far cry from Emerson’s man as a vent that transmits influence from the non-local to the local. but never mind, as this is soon resolved if we reground ourselves in our experience-based intuition.

when a group of people go into action as an intention-driven organization, using some ‘semantic reality’ screenplay or other as their common ‘operative reality’, their actions are concordant with their own free ranging [but scripted] rational thoughts but they are by no means concordant with the physical reality of their actual situational experience. their organized 'construction' actions are akin to a ‘rape’ of the valley; i.e. it is impossible to construct a factory in a valley without destroying some valley. a ‘construction company’ is an intention-driven organization whose employees are given a common screenplay in which they each have a scripted role. as McLuhan says, what is really going on is a transforming of relations with one another and the common living space. It matters little whether the intention is to produce Cornflakes or Cadillacs, even if it is the 'desired future result' that gives meaning to the screenplay and its scripted roles.

The valley ecosystems didn’t get to where they are today by being intention-driven, ... they got to where they are today by letting the inductive influence of the unfolding relational situation actualize, orchestrate and shape their creative actions; i.e. by way of physical experience based, situation-induced (spontaneous) organizing.

‘intention-driven organization’ exists only in our heads; i.e. we superimpose it over what we are looking out at. it is unrealistic to put our intention-driven organized actions in meaning-giving precedence over the unfolding relational complexity of nature, that we are each uniquely, situationally included in. the factory has been constructed as planned but not without, at the same time, transforming the valley dynamic. the valley dynamic is transformed by the violent intervention of the construction gang [who focus on their scripted roles so as not to let themselves 'feel the valley's pain'] and we physically experience this transformation because we live within the valley dynamic.

construction and destruction are conjugate aspects of one dynamic; i.e. (relational) ‘transformation’.

“By the principle of Occam’s razor, physicists and philosophers prefer ideas that can explain the same phenomena with the fewest assumptions. In this case you can construct a perfectly valid theory by positing the existence of certain relations without additionally assuming individual things. So proponents of ontic structural realism say we might as well dispense with things and assume that the world is made of [relational] structures, or nets of relations.” – Meinard Kuhlmann, ‘What is Real’, Scientific American, August 2013

‘construction’ does not exist ‘on its own’. intention-driven construction organizations are intent on constructing a factory in the valley. ok, we can all see the construction workers out there in the valley, but could we not also say that their scripted intervention is raping and wrecking the valley? this is like the story of the colonizers and the colonized; i.e. the former claim that they are constructing a wonderful new world in America and the latter claim that they are raping and wrecking a wonderful established world on Turtle Island.

which one of these claims is MOST REAL? BOTH CAN BE PROVEN TRUE IN A LOGICAL SENSE BUT NEITHER ARE REAL since the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum, which, as Emerson observes, not only inhabits the organism but creates it. men are not ‘supreme beings’; i.e. men are not Gods with their own powers of construction/creation and/or destruction/annihilation, they are relational forms in the transforming relational continuum.

if you see the ‘construction gangs’ out there in the valley you share inclusion in, you can rightfully claim that they are raping and wrecking the valley and you can rightfully claim that they are constructing an impressive new factory facility. but the habitat, if it could speak, would speak for all of its inhabitants including the construction gang members and allow that it was undergoing a relational transformation.

Western culture is ‘destinationist’ and puts ‘logic-based intention-driven action’ into an unnatural primacy over ‘situational experience-induced action’. [it is a control oriented culture]

Indigenous anarchist culture is ‘voyagist’ and keeps ‘situational experience-induced action’ in its natural primacy over ‘logic-based intention-driven action’. [it is a relational balance and harmony oriented culture]

personally, i can’t imagine NOT occasional employing ‘intention-driven organization’, as in organizing and directing my sons in constructing a house, however, i have no problem understanding that the deeper meaning of these actions is ‘transformation’ and intuit this from my actual experiencing of the transforming of the relational complex i am included in which ‘trumps’ the meaning conveyed in the semantics of intention-driven organization.

GWB’s ‘Mission Accomplished’ appropriately signalled the successful attainment of a desired future state [world without Saddam] that was the raison d’être of an intention-driven organization; i.e. the scripted screenplay (‘semantic reality’) with the title ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was successfully produced and directed (the scripted semantic reality worked up by boys in the back room and promoted on television was employed as the operative reality). the transforming relational situation induced by the associated actual physical intervention, and directly and painfully experienced by so many people via the externalities it engendered, was ‘something else’ lying well beyond the inherent subjectivity and incompleteness of the reasoned, logical propositions used to construct ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’.

As Frédéric Neyrat says in ‘Biopolitics of Catastrophe’, in acting upon the habitat/living-space in a way that destroys the space of others, we inhabitants destroy our own space. Not initially our inside space or ‘self’, but this physically real outside of ‘self’ which sources essential nourishment that sustains our ‘inside-of-self’. Western man has been steadily growing his own powers [harnessing rivers, animals, plants, colonies] and has arrived at the point where the protection of this ‘outside space’ from his unrelenting rape has become the condition without which he is unable to pursue the growth of his own powers.

You said;

So now I’m gonna be the pedant, ... To suggest, as Ziggy does, that there exist a principle of exclusion in regards to the form of organization amount to little else than catchphrases.

as the above commentary suggests, there are fundamental differences between situation-induced (spontaneous) organizing and logic-based, intention-driven (formal) organization that go well beyond ‘catchphrases’.

That is a rather massive comment to answer. I will do my best, and try to be brief.

You call formal organization a "pragmatic logical idealization". I will agree on it being a practically and logically driven, with all the inherent problems and pitfalls this entails. But calling it idealization is a prefiguring of values (perhaps what you would call intention based), we are not talking about parliamentarism after all. I am not idealizing one form or the other, I am merely suggesting that formal organizing is a useful tool, not more.

In the third paragraph you continue with your prefigured values. You seem to base your argument that a formal structure presupposes a destructive result, in this case a depletion and contamination. The commons were not destroyed because there existed a formal organizing of them, but because exploitive interests took precedence: It was clearcut by capitalistic interests and not that of the commoners.

Fourth paragraph, same again. Formal organizing does not equate only to modes of state aggression. Other ventures can be formally organized as well.

5. paragraph: Yes, I agree that matters are more complex than our semantic reality. Formal organizing is not the creation of a super structure which tomorrow shall adhere to. It is a matter of economy, of structuring labor, building resistance, defending territory etc. How any hypothetical society might be is a matter of how we organize informally, within our communities. Again, formal organizing is not necessarily a continuation of state & capitals categories.

6. paragraph: As the Daoists said: The servant has become the master. In this specific case that does not mean kill your master, but make it a servant again. So as to organizing.

7. paragraph: Again, there are more ways to organize formally than within a state-relation. Hence Anarchism.

8. paragraph: Sure, but that in no way negates a formal organizing. It only says something about how we would relate to such an organizing.

9. paragraph: See 6.paragraph.

And so forth...Anarchism is, to follow Landauer, building a new set of relations. I want to destroy the capitalistic and statist relations. Formal organizing is not necessarily part of that.

So you've new here? That's Emile and you probably shouldn't bother.


thanks for your thoughtful response.

what i am saying is that man is not the jumpstart author of any result, that is ‘his ego speaking’. his ‘little sagacity ego-self’ [Nietzsche] has him assuming that he is an ‘independent being’ with internal powers of jumpstart causation that make him fully and solely responsible for his actions and their results.

you may recognize [or maybe not] that this over-determined conjecture derives from the standard subject-verb-predicate language-and-grammar construct. “I built the house in the valley” who built the house? answer; “I built the house” [the question is already loaded with the simplistic ego-based cause-effect model which fails to deal with physical reality (transforming of relations in the valley dynamic)].

“They chopped down the rainforest, the lungs of the world”. “they shot the elephants for their ivory”. these are further exemplars of subject-verb-predicate constructs that can be formed from any name-label that we impute ‘being’ to; e.g. “The US deposed Saddam Hussein and hunted down and assassinated Osama bin Laden”. “Exxon-Mobil produced 1.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent in 2015”. these depictions are NOT PHYSICALLY REAL, they are logical depictions aka ‘constructed semantic realities’ that are inherently subjective and incomplete since the world dynamic is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum.

now we all know that such cause-effect statements are too simplified to capture the complex physical relations of our interventions into the transforming relational continuum, so we can neither know the real origins of these actions [the corporate activity may be financed/fuelled by labour union pension funds and it may be that it is people impoverished by disproportionately rich keshagesh countries that are chopping down the rainforests and shooting elephants for their ivory], nor can we know the ultimate effects of any actions; i.e. as Nietzsche puts it;

“How false is the supposition that an action must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness ! And morality has been measured in the light of this supposition, as also criminality. . . . The value of an action must be judged by its results, say the utilitarians: to measure it according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin. But do we know its results ? Five stages ahead, perhaps. Who can tell what an action provokes and sets in motion ? As a stimulus ? As the spark which fires a powder-magazine ? Utilitarians are simpletons —"
“The re-establishment of “Nature”: an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

nevertheless, you seem to accept the simplistic ego-based cause-and-effect model; i.e. you say;

“The commons were not destroyed because there existed a formal organizing of them, but because exploitive interests took precedence: It was clearcut by capitalistic interests and not that of the commoners.”

evidently, you are not on board with Nietzsche’s view and instead agree with Western moral judgement based retributive justice, which is founded on the belief in the ego-self’s notion of the ‘independent being’ of the subject [call it ‘exploitive interests’ or ‘capitalist interests’ or whatever] and the notion that the subject’s ‘reason’ and ‘intention’ is the authoring source of its cause-and-result actions. of course, it may be that the capitalist interests are fuelled/financed by a union pension fund whose members are just scraping by and worried about survival/subsistance after retirement etc. etc.

Emerson, Nietzsche and Schroedinger’s view of the natural Self is that it is a vent or agent of transformation that transmits influences from the nonlocal to the local; i.e. the child-soldier’s behaviour derives from imbalance-based relational social tensions and the eruptions of violence, while manifesting through the child-soldier, in no way originate “fully and solely” within him. similarly, the eruptions of violence originating in relational tensions between master-class and slave-class and ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ and ‘privilegeds’ and ‘marginalizeds’ may manifest through the latter ‘short-straw drawers' in these duos, but they certainly do not originate within them. the oversimplistic notion of full and sole responsibility is only for those who believe in the idealization of humans as ‘independent beings within internal process [intelligence and purpose] drive that explains their behaviours without having to implicate the influence of the relational networks that they are situationally included in; i.e. the simplistic assumption of being able to establish full and sole responsibility is only for those that believe that Western moral judgement based justice “is foundationally just”.

for ‘beyond good and evil’ adherents, who agree that one cannot get to the bottom of the source of an action and that one cannot know the ultimate effect of an action, moral judgement of individual or organizational actions aimed at eliminating ‘evil’ and thus concentrating ‘good’ has to be superseded by the minimization of harm/suffering. this is a re-orientation that restores situational experience [voyagism] to its natural precedence over intention-driven actions that are assessed as to their 'moral quality' [destinationism]; e.g;

Nietzsche unfavorably compares Christianity to Buddhism. He posits that Christianity is "the struggle against sin", whereas Buddhism is "the struggle against suffering" [i.e. the orienting to 'harm reduction']; to Nietzsche, Christianity limits and lowers humankind by assailing its natural and inevitable instincts as depraved ("sin"), whereas Buddhism advises one merely to eschew suffering. While Christianity is full of "revengefulness" and "antipathy" (e.g., the Last Judgment), Buddhism promotes "benevolence, being kind, as health-promoting." – wikipedia for more on this see the comment
to label harm-reduction 'reformist' misrepresents both’

moral judgement depends on IDEALIZED subject-verb-predicate constructs which makes no sense without imposing a notional absolute space and absolute time ‘operating theatre’ that enables the idealized notion of an ‘independently existing causal agent’.

so, i disagree with you on your moralist worldview. i am not saying that the child-soldier did not author a lot of harm and i am not saying that ‘exploitive interests’ did not author a lot of harm [a volcano can author a lot of harm although it is just a vent that is, at the same time, source and receptacle],... i am saying, as Nietzsche says in the above quote, that we cannot isolate/specify the ultimate ur-source of an action and we cannot isolate/specify the ultimate effect of an action, but our vision and tactility can localize the storm-cell like nexus wherein converging reception and diverging transmission are in simultaneous non-dual communion [circular flow within a fluid unum/plenum]. that’s what ‘action’ is within a transforming relational continuum; i.e. it is not a local jumpstart cause-and-effect jack-in-the-box dynamic.

of course it is ‘convenient’ and it delivers ‘economy of thought’ to scape-goat the actions of ‘the child-soldier’ and/or ‘exxon-mobil’ instead of acknowledging that their actions are vents for relational tensions that associate with imbalances [supply/transmission versus demand/reception]. but such idealization-based simplification also puts us in the mode of waging war against symptoms instead of addressing source. because it is impossible to isolate/specify the ur-source of actions and impossible to isolate/specify the ultimate effect of actions, some cultures [and philosophers such as Nietzsche] advocate going ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ and orienting instead to ‘reduction of suffering’.

In summarizing this response to your comments i would say the following;

1. where you say;

“You call formal organization a "pragmatic logical idealization". I will agree on it being a practically and logically driven, with all the inherent problems and pitfalls this entails. But calling it idealization is a prefiguring of values”

. ... i am saying that formal organization is based on inherently subjective and incomplete logical propositions which take their meaning from the idealization of space as an operating theatre that is independent of the operatives that reside and interact within it. we know that this idealization is unsupported by physical experience. Einstein had to bang his shoe on the table to get people to listen and then they promptly forget again, once they have heard it;

“Space is not Euclidian’ … “Space is a participant in physical phenomena” … “Space not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.”, … “the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(μ,ν), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.”…”Relativity forces us to analyze the role played by geometry in the description of the physical world.” . . . “A thrown stone is, from this point of view, a changing field, where the states of greatest field intensity travel through space with the velocity of the stone” —Albert Einstein.

2. where you say; “I am not idealizing one form or the other, I am merely suggesting that formal organizing is a useful tool, not more.”

no, you are evidently accepting the legitimacy of ‘formal organization’ for use as an 'operative reality' and you seem to advocate its unqualified use, even though it is based on the idealization that material entities and space are mutually exclusive, so that ‘organization’ can be depicted in the one-sided terms of ‘independent things’ that act as ‘causal agents’ whose actions and interactions determine ‘results’ and thus enable the achievement of an intention-driven desired future result. this is flatly refuted by our experience based intuition which says that; “the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants” [Mach’s principle of relativity aka ‘inhabitant-habitat non-duality’]

3. where you say;

“The commons were not destroyed because there existed a formal organizing of them, but because exploitive interests took precedence: It was clearcut by capitalistic interests and not that of the commoners.”

you are adopting the moral judging stance of Western retributive justice which is based on the assumption that ‘subjects’ in ‘subject-verb-predicate’ constructs are ‘independent beings with their own internal intelligence and purpose driven action-authoring powers which make them fully and solely responsible for their ‘own actions’. this rests dependently on the assumption that their operating theatre is independent of the operatives residing and interacting within it [Euclidian space]. your position on this clashes with Nietzsche’s, Einstein’s, and experience-based intuition.

You do preach non-duality, but are stuck in a theory of an opposite. You're metaphysics leaves you with little else than prejudice. Non, if anything of your comment (as the previous), contradicts formal organizing, or that this can be done along anti-authoritarian lines. It is you imposing this view on the matter at hand, you're making the matter linear and euclidean. You're the one supposing a given value, and a set result in a particular phenomena. I have said that it is not either/or, it is a matter of how we go about it. I have not suggested a direct-causal view, but you do it, you just do it in a round about way. The result of any given activity is already given a result by you.

How you are able to infer what do you in you last paragraph is beyond me. Capitalistic interests are not independent beings, but a way of relating. It is not something with their own internal intelligence, nor have I ever suggested such. But when the trees were gone, when the game slaughtered, when the streams dried, and the pastures gone, this went against the interests (relations) that the commoners had to the land. It served as a degradation and destruction of a habitat, even if the motives behind it might be all good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. But sure, keep on superimposing your assumptions onto that of others.

Bakunin was right in this at least: There is no road between metaphysics and reality, an abyss separates them.

I'm suggesting that NA politics resembles Argentinian politics in the Peronist era, and sentimental songs will be written about Trump's wife which will be No.1 hits. Its all sooo crass and predictable. Or Hillary and Bill will do a slow romantic waltz on her inauguration night, and their supporters will cry into their pizza, omg the corny horror is overwhelming me, this is what benevelent fascism looks like, the propaganda and media overload will cause brain damage and paralysis.

I'll take jackboot fascism anytime over this type of puerile sentimental mind control. Bill and Hillary dancing to Barry White? You sir are a sick provocateur!

I'll have you know that in the late seventies and early eighties, I discoed to Barry White in my White linen suit
in my metropolitan area! And Proud of it. Then again , at Auschwitz, the arrivals at the camp were greeted with fine Classical music.

Yes, Western Civilization as the benevolent Post-Auschwitzian continuum of its historic millenarianist mythology. Thats's the way I look at history, like the huge chunks of carrot and capsican in a vomit of its regurgitated death narrative. But otherwise I'm a fun-loving existentialist minding my own business thanks. Also I can cerebrally groove to Barry or Prince.

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.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.