the anarcho-nihilists are a pretty small part of the overall anarchist cohort, and i gather they tend to be people burnt out from a lifetime of political action going nowhere and so retreating more into lifestylism. the key theory for this is blessed is the flame by serafinski which focuses on the idea of "jouissance" (sp), of taking joy in resisting for the sake of resisting even when the situation is hopeless, and going down fighting. it parallels this with (actually interesting) stories of concentration camp resistance in nazi germany in the face of imminent death, and suggests we are in a (much milder and early-stage) parallel situation today calling for similar tactics (although to the authors credit they do emphasise the differences). the obvious counter being that, at least in the current west, we arent otherwise facing immediate death and i would argue that the average western leftist can do much more by biding their time and organising rather than doing an adventurism and spending the rest of their days in prison. one of the orgs they hold up is one that decided the best praxis was to firebomb a greenpeace office for being too lib sooooo. anyway theres some stuff in there thats food for thought for if/when our situation becomes much more dire but it doesnt seem like the most sensible approach right now. the whole lifestylist thing of "living as though youre already free" is pretty cool though, as long as you dont mistake it for substantive praxis. also yeah the irony of covering yourself in symbols of subjugation to domineering chaos gods to represent your "no gods no masters" ideology is also pretty funny to me too.
i agree about a lot of anarchists being individualists first and leftists second, which to me seems like the wrong way around. the growing trend among real-world anarchism these days is a return to more organisational forms of anarcho-communism (platformism/especifismo), which to me is a very welcome change. this is a quite good introduction, with a lot of stuff that i think a lot of mls would agree with, if you can get past some mostly unnecessary jabs at aes states. there is absolutely the realism that everything cant be abolished and overturned overnight and that alternative organisational structures need to be built and put in place over time (which i think can be missing in some of the more naive baby anarchist thought), but with an emphasis of ensuring that these structures dont replicate existing hierarchies.
and yeah anarchist-aligned orgs have their dramas and splits and clowns and shit but thats just leftism in general, i dont feel like its any more so than any other leftist groups
I also run in to “Anarchists” (in name only) sometimes who are just completely ablest and dismissive of questions like “How are you going to manage the manufacture and distribution of insulin?” or related issues.
i mean yeah this is a problem with some people who call themselves anarchists, but part of this is that we cant currently know how exactly things would be organised and will have to determine what works and what doesnt as we go (and its really the same for a revolutionary ml society in this respect). i think thats the problem with the bread book, kropotkin tried to answer a kinda unanswerable question and its not super convincing to people who are cynical about "human nature" etc. i really like
this honest passage from malatesta though (long)
That’s all very well, some say, and anarchy may be a perfect form of human society, but we don’t want to take a leap in the dark. Tell us therefore in detail how your society will be organised. And there follows a whole series of questions, which are very interesting if we were involved in studying the problems that will impose themselves on the liberated society, but which are useless, or absurd, even ridiculous, if we are expected to provide definitive solutions. What methods will be used to teach children? How will production be organised? Will there still be large cities, or will the population be evenly distributed over the whole surface of the earth? And supposing all the inhabitants of Siberia should want to spend the winter in Nice? And if everyone were to want to eat partridge and drink wine from the Chianti district? And who will do a miner’s job or be a seaman? And who will empty the privies? And will sick people be treated at home or in hospital? And who will establish the railway timetable? And what will be done if an engine-driver has a stomach-ache while the train is moving? ... And so on to the point of assuming that we have all the knowledge and experience of the unknown future, and that in the name of anarchy, we should prescribe for future generations at what time they must go to bed, and on what days they must pare their corns.
If indeed our readers expect a reply from us to these questions, or at least to those which are really serious and important, which is more than our personal opinion at this particular moment, it means that we have failed in our attempt to explain to them what anarchism is about.
We are no more prophets than anyone else; and if we claimed to be able to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the course of the daily life of a future society, then what we meant by the abolition of government would be curious to say the least. For we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do the religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations. It is just as well that not having the stake or prisons with which to impose our bible, mankind would be free to laugh at us and at our pretensions with impunity!
We are very concerned with all the problems of social life, both in the interest of science, and because we reckon to see anarchy realised and to take part as best we can in the organisation of the new society. Therefore we do have our solutions which, depending on the circumstances, appear to us either definitive or transitory — and but for space considerations we would say something on this here. But the fact that because today, with the evidence we have, we think in a certain way on a given problem does not mean that this is how it must be dealt with in the future. Who can foresee the activities which will grow when mankind is freed from poverty and oppression, when there will no longer be either slaves or masters, and when the struggle between peoples, and the hatred and bitterness that are engendered as a result, will no longer be an essential part of existence? Who can predict the progress in science and in the means of production, of communication and so on?
What is important is that a society should be brought into being in which the exploitation and domination of man by man is not possible; in which everybody has free access to the means of life, of development and of work, and that all can participate, as they wish and know how, in the organisation of social life. In such a society obviously all will be done to best satisfy the needs of everybody within the framework of existing knowledge and conditions; and all will change for the better with the growth of knowledge and the means.
After all, a programme which is concerned with the bases of the social structure, cannot do other than suggest a method. And it is the method which above all distinguishes between the parties and determines their historical importance. Apart from the method, they all talk of wanting the wellbeing of humanity and many really do; the parties disappear and with them all action organised and directed to a given end. Therefore one must consider anarchy above all as a method.
also i wrote a whole long thing on here once and it got memoryholed, but the tldr is that i work in a complex medical field running enormous projects with thousands of people across wildly different international jurisdictions in a minimally-hierarchical federalist way (and most of the hierarchical bits could easily be flattened out) and its remarkable how well it all works even for very precise technical stuff and even within a world of ruthless capitalism. it has absolutely reaffirmed my belief in the real-world possibility of much less hierarchical forms of organisation. and every leftist wants to get to the classless stateless society, so deep down we have to all believe something like this is possible
anyway not trying to start The Big Leftist Debate here, just a few alternative perspectives
Of course there is the capacity for more horizontal organization, the problem is getting everyone up to speed at that point. If you are working in a complex medical field, everyone working within it is already at a certain level of competence, and even that level of competence is likely hierarchically barred within society by wealth, opportunity for education, etc.
The issue is how do you get to that point with everybody, or at least enough people to create a stable, self-replicated cultural apparatus, that can withstand challenges from highly hierarchical organizations.
taking joy in resisting for the sake of resisting even when the situation is hopeless, and going down fighting.
I'm familiar with the idea, but I came to it from old warrior philosophy. One of the key themes in the Prose Edda is that Ragnarok will happen, but that the gods strive against it none the less. Odin pursues every option and submits to deeply, personally shameful social transgressions in his quest to postpone the inevitable for just one more day. Even in the face of certain defeat they continue to fight stalwartly, not out of hope of victory, but because their cause is just. People often forget that Valhalla is not a paradise; It's a training ground. The Einherjar are gathered in anticipation of a final battle with the fire giants at Ragnarok.
Another favorite of mine is the Book of Five Rings, especially Musashi's line "Generally speaking, the Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death." Accepting that things can go wrong, that you don't really have much control of the situation, that you may die or be injured or maimed, or that you may have to take action that will result in your injury, capture, or death for the good of others, prepares you to act immediately and without hesitation when necessary.
If you can come to terms with those things you're ready to "live as though you are already free".
the growing trend among real-world anarchism these days is a return to more organisational forms of anarcho-communism
That's good to hear. I think Anarchism is a very powerful theory that has some strategic advantages when compared to Communism, but it's very reliant on being community and close coordination. It's good to know that there are people working in that direction. A small group of well drilled, coordinated people can cause an enormous ruckus and run circles around much larger disorganized groups. : )
I mostly use the medicine question as a gotcha for people who seem like they're interested with action as an end to itself, or people like anprims and others who are interested in very individualistic or destructive tendencies. I like it as a gotcha because it highlights a blind spot in some peoples thinking where they're more concerned with action than what's good for their comrades and community. It's not so much specifically asking them "Give me a detailed plan about how to produce aspirin" as it is a general challenge against overly individualistic thinking.
I do think considering macro problems can help at a micro level in some cases. Doing "war games" or thought experiments can lead to new ideas, highlight blind spots, or just provoke interesting discussions about theory and praxis.
its remarkable how well it all works
That's really good to hear! I think an issue a lot of people have with buying in to revolutionary leftist tendencies is they've never encountered examples of how society might work when these ideas are applied, or in the case of 20th century socialist states they have wildly distorted ideas about how things worked. Being able to provide concrete examples of large scale, complex operations can be really helpful in convincing people to take the next step and start reading theory or attending meetings. : )
the anarcho-nihilists are a pretty small part of the overall anarchist cohort, and i gather they tend to be people burnt out from a lifetime of political action going nowhere and so retreating more into lifestylism. the key theory for this is blessed is the flame by serafinski which focuses on the idea of "jouissance" (sp), of taking joy in resisting for the sake of resisting even when the situation is hopeless, and going down fighting. it parallels this with (actually interesting) stories of concentration camp resistance in nazi germany in the face of imminent death, and suggests we are in a (much milder and early-stage) parallel situation today calling for similar tactics (although to the authors credit they do emphasise the differences). the obvious counter being that, at least in the current west, we arent otherwise facing immediate death and i would argue that the average western leftist can do much more by biding their time and organising rather than doing an adventurism and spending the rest of their days in prison. one of the orgs they hold up is one that decided the best praxis was to firebomb a greenpeace office for being too lib sooooo. anyway theres some stuff in there thats food for thought for if/when our situation becomes much more dire but it doesnt seem like the most sensible approach right now. the whole lifestylist thing of "living as though youre already free" is pretty cool though, as long as you dont mistake it for substantive praxis. also yeah the irony of covering yourself in symbols of subjugation to domineering chaos gods to represent your "no gods no masters" ideology is also pretty funny to me too.
i agree about a lot of anarchists being individualists first and leftists second, which to me seems like the wrong way around. the growing trend among real-world anarchism these days is a return to more organisational forms of anarcho-communism (platformism/especifismo), which to me is a very welcome change. this is a quite good introduction, with a lot of stuff that i think a lot of mls would agree with, if you can get past some mostly unnecessary jabs at aes states. there is absolutely the realism that everything cant be abolished and overturned overnight and that alternative organisational structures need to be built and put in place over time (which i think can be missing in some of the more naive baby anarchist thought), but with an emphasis of ensuring that these structures dont replicate existing hierarchies.
and yeah anarchist-aligned orgs have their dramas and splits and clowns and shit but thats just leftism in general, i dont feel like its any more so than any other leftist groups
i mean yeah this is a problem with some people who call themselves anarchists, but part of this is that we cant currently know how exactly things would be organised and will have to determine what works and what doesnt as we go (and its really the same for a revolutionary ml society in this respect). i think thats the problem with the bread book, kropotkin tried to answer a kinda unanswerable question and its not super convincing to people who are cynical about "human nature" etc. i really like
this honest passage from malatesta though (long)
also i wrote a whole long thing on here once and it got memoryholed, but the tldr is that i work in a complex medical field running enormous projects with thousands of people across wildly different international jurisdictions in a minimally-hierarchical federalist way (and most of the hierarchical bits could easily be flattened out) and its remarkable how well it all works even for very precise technical stuff and even within a world of ruthless capitalism. it has absolutely reaffirmed my belief in the real-world possibility of much less hierarchical forms of organisation. and every leftist wants to get to the classless stateless society, so deep down we have to all believe something like this is possible
anyway not trying to start The Big Leftist Debate here, just a few alternative perspectives
Of course there is the capacity for more horizontal organization, the problem is getting everyone up to speed at that point. If you are working in a complex medical field, everyone working within it is already at a certain level of competence, and even that level of competence is likely hierarchically barred within society by wealth, opportunity for education, etc.
The issue is how do you get to that point with everybody, or at least enough people to create a stable, self-replicated cultural apparatus, that can withstand challenges from highly hierarchical organizations.
I'm familiar with the idea, but I came to it from old warrior philosophy. One of the key themes in the Prose Edda is that Ragnarok will happen, but that the gods strive against it none the less. Odin pursues every option and submits to deeply, personally shameful social transgressions in his quest to postpone the inevitable for just one more day. Even in the face of certain defeat they continue to fight stalwartly, not out of hope of victory, but because their cause is just. People often forget that Valhalla is not a paradise; It's a training ground. The Einherjar are gathered in anticipation of a final battle with the fire giants at Ragnarok.
Another favorite of mine is the Book of Five Rings, especially Musashi's line "Generally speaking, the Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death." Accepting that things can go wrong, that you don't really have much control of the situation, that you may die or be injured or maimed, or that you may have to take action that will result in your injury, capture, or death for the good of others, prepares you to act immediately and without hesitation when necessary.
If you can come to terms with those things you're ready to "live as though you are already free".
That's good to hear. I think Anarchism is a very powerful theory that has some strategic advantages when compared to Communism, but it's very reliant on being community and close coordination. It's good to know that there are people working in that direction. A small group of well drilled, coordinated people can cause an enormous ruckus and run circles around much larger disorganized groups. : )
I mostly use the medicine question as a gotcha for people who seem like they're interested with action as an end to itself, or people like anprims and others who are interested in very individualistic or destructive tendencies. I like it as a gotcha because it highlights a blind spot in some peoples thinking where they're more concerned with action than what's good for their comrades and community. It's not so much specifically asking them "Give me a detailed plan about how to produce aspirin" as it is a general challenge against overly individualistic thinking.
I do think considering macro problems can help at a micro level in some cases. Doing "war games" or thought experiments can lead to new ideas, highlight blind spots, or just provoke interesting discussions about theory and praxis.
That's really good to hear! I think an issue a lot of people have with buying in to revolutionary leftist tendencies is they've never encountered examples of how society might work when these ideas are applied, or in the case of 20th century socialist states they have wildly distorted ideas about how things worked. Being able to provide concrete examples of large scale, complex operations can be really helpful in convincing people to take the next step and start reading theory or attending meetings. : )