Wild Insurgency TOTW: Anarchist defeatism

From Wild Insurgency:

“Dual power” was a term used by the Bolsheviks to describe the political situation in Russia following the February Revolution. This upheaval came to a tee between March 8th and 16th, 1917. Lenin, an enemy of anarchists of the day, suggested that as the dominant institutions of Eastern Europe would increasingly continue to fail, individual citizens of nations would be left more and more without a social safety net. Essentially, he predicted a situation where more and more people of all classes and castes would be forced to fend for themselves.

In this vacuum, according to Lenin, alternative and counterinstitutions can be formed as a response. This is something anarchists should reject. Unlike the communists, genuine anarchists aren’t world-builders.

Lenin provided three fundamental characteristics for delineating a dual power situation. First, the power of parliament and the respect for and adherence to laws and other official institutions is offset by a “direct initiative of the people from below” (Lenin). Second, “the direct arming of the whole people”. Lastly, the “officialdom and bureaucracy” is “replaced [my emphasis] by the direct rule of the people”. These qualifications represented and typified a form of alternative state power, one desired by the Bolsheviks in March of 1917, and still desired by Marxists today, in 2019. This had supposedly been exemplified to communists (Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, Luxemburg, and so on…) by the experiences of the Paris commune.

“To become a power, the class-conscious workers must win the majority to their side.” (Lenin)

But as an anarchist, I attempt to understand how and why dual power scenarios cannot end exploitation, social alienation, and domination, or other-control. Alternative and counterinstitutions cannot and will not build anarchy. They can only bolster the extant. They might indeed form some sort of alternative hell to this one, but would still rest firmly within the constraints of civilization. Anarchism must be anti-institutional and against humanity itself.

What kind of world do you desire? One without civilization? Without humanity? Life without representation? Then what you desire most is self-control, freedom of will. Freedom from authority.

The proletariat will not win or make gains against capitalism. Our only true target as anarchists is civilization itself.

As individual animals, part of Gaia, we have much more to gain from civilizations downfall than from a communist revolution. Turn all wars into civil wars. Turn them into tribal wars. Delineate, deterritorialize. Find your inner barbarism. Become the wild savage you could be.

There are 26 Comments

Worst social arrangement since communism, which is also a kind of tribe when referring to the Communization and Appeliste crowd. Tribes are another form of identity politics, and also consistent with the organic community of fascism. And as a matter of fact, several Far Right militias these days have abandoned the USA over their pipe-dreamed survivalist ethnostate.

I'd like to know how your tribes can avoid this shitty exclusive relationship based on HERD MENTALITY and negation of the individual.

Your mistake lies in your adoption of this notion of social "arrangement". And this anthropocentric "community" nonsense. That's what's fascist here. No social "arrangements"!

Social arrangements are all over the place, dood. Basically your use of the internet is very likely due to a given social arrangement of sorts. Even picking the wifi from some place is.

Explaning like you're 5... Free public (or private) wifi is what I'd call an open social arrangement, or an open component/infrastructure within a social arrangement. You, on the other hand, appear to be more in favor of closed, private communal internet access (within your tribe only). Which is very much consistent with our epoch of over-protective paranoid gangs/herds.

And just imagine if Thecollective would be THAT tribal... It'd be like IGD! Can't be posting any shit if ya ain't a member of the herd.

mass society is far more susceptible to herd mentality than a small tribe where everyone knows each other as individuals.

also, you could say the same thing regarding any affinity group as what you say about fascism. your concept of a tribe seems rather limited.

This new appeal for "tribes" is fucking dumb.. Tribes have shown to be among the most authoritarian social structures in history, and don't recall many tribes that aren't authoritarian (led by a guru, leader and his henchmen/women, or a priest class). It's anthropology 101. Levi-Strauss has showed that Papua primitive tribes were filled with bullshit politics and cultism aimed at consolidating the hierarchy. Of course they were more sane, authentic and balanced than the French society of his era,

"Tribes have shown to be among the most authoritarian social structures in history"

What a load of bullshit. And a racist trope, too. Make a list of "authoritarian" tribes vs. "egalitarian ones, and compare. You'll find your statement to be incorrect.

Ok well get me instances of a tribe without a leader/guru/monarch figure. The closest thing you get to an anarchistic social arrangement was the Haudenosaunee confederation, in which there were dynamics of power balancing and decentralization. Other examples?

ever read "the forest people"? but one of many examples of non-authoritarian "tribes". pathetic rhetoric there.

Agreed, there are a few, I'm not going to bother going anthro and rattling off a list of names, take my word on this, THEY EXIST!!
Also, the distinction should be made between authoritarian and having a system of instructor/mentorship. REMEMBER, none of these numerous societies had prisons, taxes, capital punishment, police or armies.



what is this trend lately with puffed up man-babies thinking they're feral insurgents that absolutely must teach the sleepers the one! true! correct! wild! feral! savage! best! primal! way! based on their extensive experience of organize black ops style sabotages based on extensive, yet totally not just theoretical (REEEEEE) enlightened wisdoms (as learned by the failures of red militants throughout history)?

more importantly: what is this cringy dogshit doing on my beloved anarchistnews dot org?

tell me what "we" "must" do again… over and over and over and over…
specks of fucking dust.

11/10 criticism here. You're doing a service to everyone with these clarifications.

Is there anything you substantively disagree with or do you just no like the person behind writing this?

here, i'll break it down in a different way for you.
hyperbole gets old. people taking themselves extremely seriously in words is nothing other than funny. this is especially the case when it's not backed up by any relevant experience, as far as readers here can tell. the fact that it's so common makes it harder and harder to take any of it as anything more than a waste of time to get through. yet we keep trying, because maybe we're missing something, even if what we're missing is just the punchline.
we like a good punchline, but they're hard to find.

"people taking themselves extremely seriously in words is nothing other than funny"

To a bunch of clowns, sure.

Ya'll are anarchists to fit-in somewhere, and feel cool, confident...to make friends to get laid. I have never had trouble with these things. My only lasting desire is to end humanity.

Time to up the ante, I guess, because my whole life has been a relevant experience, and I've been FSU for three plus years now. A "ten-million dollar activist" as Hayduke would say.

This isn't the Reagan era anymore. Material conditions have shifted faster than your brain can apparently comprehend. I'm also not an old, jaded fuck with a pension or retirement fund who will be dead in 15 years or sooner. I'm scared of what this world will look like then. And I will likely still be here, unless I get myself killed somehow.

You need a good punchline? I suggest you walk over to your nearest bathroom and look in the mirror. Fucking loser.

we told you this is not a FOOOOKIN GAME M8 U WOT

So in a nutshell, should I understand your and rfa's criticism as having all to do with people making a point online? Then this site basically *should* be about trolling and posting other sniveling edgy fake crap. Talk about the "one" "true" "way"... Is that correct?

you cherrypicking the phrases out of my post that you think will make you sound clever just means that i think my post was too long for you.
perhaps you should try working on that some more.
signed, the not-rfa anon

Let's everyone give Zhachev a round of applause. It's not often a person can commit social suicide multiple times.

Our only hope is that a manifesto follows so we can learn how to be exactly like him.

For wild ferality!

Nechayev totally showed up at the bookfair where he threatened to kill everyone if they showed up and totally did it.

O Rly? Lyk wut

He had a bunch of people exiled and killed his best friend. And, oh yeah, he gave Lenin his start. A true hero for those that want to DO SOMETHING!

Add new comment