Are most anarchists hostile to therapy, mainstream or otherwise? In Against the Logic of Submission (under the heading Revolt Not Therapy), Wolfi Landstreicher writes: “Freedom belongs to the individual — this is a basic anarchist principle — and as such resides in individual responsibility to oneself and in free association with others. Thus, there can be no obligations, no debts, only choices of how to act. The therapeutic approach to social problems is the very opposite of this.. Basing itself in the idea that we are crippled rather than chained, inherently weak rather than held down, it imposes an obligatory interdependence, a mutuality of incapacity, rather than a sharing of strengths and capabilities.”
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?
How do we mourn?
Many anarchists reject the conventions of faith-based rituals. No gods, no masters, no religion… seems to be the line most anarchists draw. We talk a good line of not falling in to religion, but like so many other spooks, the stink of religion lingers when we look at how we treat the dead.
For better or for worse anarchists are lauded with the responsibility for the failure and success of the Occupy movement. We can squirm at this but there is one point that is worth reflecting on. For the past decade anarchists (and friends) have argued, when asked and involved, for a "no demands" attitude towards the MSM and agents of the state. We understand, and agree, that this is aligned with an anarchist approach to politics (ie only negative).
One of the major problems that anarchists wrestle with is what James C. Scott terms “legibility” - that is, “the state's attempt..to arrange the population in ways that simplif[y] the classic state functions of taxation, conscription, and prevention of rebellion”. For Scott, this attempt at simplification includes large-scale centrally planned projects like relocating peasants and developing the streets of Paris to prevent rioting as well as standardized measurements and the encouragement of crop systems that lend themselves more easily to being taxed.
There is a tension between people who don't/would never call themselves anarchist but agree with (some) anarchist principles, and people who own the label. Projects like Crimethinc have perfected (?) the naming of things as anarchist, when some would call those things simple human behavior (like, making and eating meals with friends, etc). Obviously the main point of this sort of practice is to de-mystify anarchy and anarchists, to put the bomb-throwing in a larger, less scary context, or to negate the scary bits altogether.
The Zapatistas have a saying, “preguntando caminamos.”
We don’t need to be perfectionists. We don’t need to have all the answers before starting a project or pursuing a course of action—we can get started and work out the details along the way. Rapid prototyping, the process of ‘failing as fast as possible’ in order to gather feedback about what works and what doesn’t is an effective strategy for completing successful projects. But, to take a step back, why are we even motivated to work on projects or pursue any goals at all—why do we even walk in the first place?
Some years ago there was an anarchist magazine called Practical Anarchy put out by the Alternative Media project. The publication advocated for anarchy as a practice, "such as organizing housing cooperatives, environmentalism, workplaces and DIY media." In short, the idea of the magazine was about putting the ideas of anarchism into every day practice.
Everybody's doing it, so let's do it too: let's talk about Donald Trump. As anarchists, what are we to make of this guy?
Is this guy the new Hitler of the 21st Century? Or is he just a total idiot and ultimately inconsequential? Or is Trump himself a non-issue, but the pandora's box that he opened of blatant racism, xenophobia and the "Alt Right" the real threat that we need to take seriously?