If the latest controversies have taught us anything it is that the newest generation of anarchists (and anarchist-adjacent) deal with political disagreements differently than we have in the past. The story is likely apocryphal but it is said that when Johann Most (German anarchist who immigrated to the US in 1882 to join the labor movement here!) talked shit (generally implying that the Berkman assassination attempt against Frick was not what was claimed by Goldman) Emma whipped him across the face.
We thecollective invite you to discuss your favorite anarchist actions from the distant and/or recent past, or in an imaginary future. Of course, definitions of "anarchist action" will be questioned as well and we expect to see many different ideas about the designation of an action as anarchist. However, this thecollective contributor suspects that even those that would dismiss the idea of an "anarchist action" completely still have a special place in their hearts for some kinds of behavior. What might those be?
In its current fashion anarchism appears inseparable from hyper-localism. However, some anarchists may be disconnected from localized community, either because they travel frequently, they socialize infrequently, or, in general, don’t enjoy interactions with other anarchists. These nomads and hermits may fail to build the most highly valued token of solidarity with anarchist community—long-term affinity built through face-to-face interactions—but if this is true should they be outcasts?
There seem to me to be two main ways that people come at fighting oppression. One way is to think about how all the things are similar/the same. I think antifa is that style in practice if not in theory. The other way is the style of (for example) Black Lives Matter, which takes a group of people with (what many consider to be) a primary identifying characteristic and organizes around that.
This week’s topic is near and dear to our hearts. Sometimes entertaining and often frustrating, trolling as a phenomenon is endemic to modern discourse, and this is especially true of political spaces. From people who veer discussions wildly off-topic with seemingly unrelated opinions to those who provoke frustration or even anger with opinions with which we disagree strongly, we are presented daily with complicated social interactions both online and offline.
Most often when we talk about anarchy, we are referring to that which pertains to the anarchists and anarchisms of the United States, and then to a lesser extent Canada, Mexico, Australia and the various countries in Europe. Very often the rest of the world is either forgotten about, or the anarchists in other countries simply cannot be found.
This week's topic is a question from our sister site Anarchy101.org. Check it out if you haven't already!
Do you tend to call what you're against the totality? civilization? power? capitalism? the state? kyriarchy? society?
I have gone through stages of using capitalism, civilization, and christianity as thing-i-was-railing-against. Is it more useful or harmful (and in what circumstances) to combine all-the-bad, or separate things out?