For those that don't know, anti-politics.net is down, but it should be up again soon. Please consider using Anarchism and Poststructuralism at forums.infoshop.org. It is a forum I administer that inspired the spoon collective discussions and can focus on most any of the relevant discussions that anti-politics.net. Its a great forum to discuss and get new people to enter discussion. Sorry for the interruption.
12/10: Creating Epiphanies
Epiphanies are what I seek. Inspiration for my soul. I'd say the Epiphany experience is one of the reasons I have written so much, I know how to induce epiphanies...well, I know how to open the possibilities. Sometimes I overload myself with information, sometimes I'll go on extremely long walks, but the experience is the same, I suddenly realize something and everything just seems to connect. If I seem to be having troubles inducing an epiphany, I will completely change my frame of mind from several days to many weeks. Though I seem like I'm online all the time, I actually have long periods of downtime.
I went through a long period of "internalizing" a variety of theories, all the better way to understand them is to become them. People don't understand this method. It's NOT devil's advocate. Sometimes it might be, but most the time it is a real attempt to understand why a position isn't taken. I'm not someone else's devil, I'm my own devil. Rarely do I attempt to repeat this anymore, I think it is better to use other methods anymore, especially sense I seem to have chosen myself. I take the position on more when I see something new that I don't understand and I want to cheat and understand it by becoming it. It is a far faster method, but people hate you later for defending a position that you weren't really defending. Sometimes its hard for me to take a real position also because I am too fluid, I yield to others arguments and attempt to understand them.
I depend more on Internet discussion than real discussion. I plan on finding a way to change that. However, I find it difficult to maintain a discussion group beyond a handful of discussions. I could switch to a book reading group, but I'd have to be the one buying it, as usual. I feel so damned poor compared to everyone I know that doesn't participate in my regular attempts at project building.
I think have a club would be a good change. I think it is something I'd like more than just one project or another. I think most collectives work like that. Martial arts, discussion, exploring, zine, movies, radio, flyering. I don't think most collectives work like that. I think most like activism. I can tolerate some anarchist protest activism, but outside of that, not a fan. I don't know why I'd rather do stuff that has nothing to do with helping people beyond acting as a media "tech".
I like being associated with people that give a shit about the world though. I can't say its not appealing to be around people who care. I don't know, its like there is little to support beyond what I create.
I went through a long period of "internalizing" a variety of theories, all the better way to understand them is to become them. People don't understand this method. It's NOT devil's advocate. Sometimes it might be, but most the time it is a real attempt to understand why a position isn't taken. I'm not someone else's devil, I'm my own devil. Rarely do I attempt to repeat this anymore, I think it is better to use other methods anymore, especially sense I seem to have chosen myself. I take the position on more when I see something new that I don't understand and I want to cheat and understand it by becoming it. It is a far faster method, but people hate you later for defending a position that you weren't really defending. Sometimes its hard for me to take a real position also because I am too fluid, I yield to others arguments and attempt to understand them.
I depend more on Internet discussion than real discussion. I plan on finding a way to change that. However, I find it difficult to maintain a discussion group beyond a handful of discussions. I could switch to a book reading group, but I'd have to be the one buying it, as usual. I feel so damned poor compared to everyone I know that doesn't participate in my regular attempts at project building.
I think have a club would be a good change. I think it is something I'd like more than just one project or another. I think most collectives work like that. Martial arts, discussion, exploring, zine, movies, radio, flyering. I don't think most collectives work like that. I think most like activism. I can tolerate some anarchist protest activism, but outside of that, not a fan. I don't know why I'd rather do stuff that has nothing to do with helping people beyond acting as a media "tech".
I like being associated with people that give a shit about the world though. I can't say its not appealing to be around people who care. I don't know, its like there is little to support beyond what I create.
Yay! hurrah for anarchy!
Well, we had a good discussion, though it didn't seem like there was any interest in intervention..or more like passion. We ultimately decided to pick up and move the video project forward since we have so many people that are experienced in filmmaking, but we decided it should have some sort of social message. I'm not sure what this will mean, but if it is successful, I'll be busy for a while.
I'm almost done with my gamer fanzine. I don't know how I feel about it. In some ways, I'm using proprietary gaming material and relying on it to make connections with gamer culture outside my own little bubble. I'm not sure if this is going in the direction I want it to, nor do I know if I'll be able to make the kind of connections I want to in this environment.
I'm finding myself in constant contradiction lately, mainly because my life is so separated from itself. Its fucking stupid. I've got some friends that don't like other friends or don't feel like they fit in or share interests or some other excuse. I've maintained these relations and I prioritize my time based on how I utilize my time and space. I have an office and I have a home and my life revolves around these two aspects as they already consume so much of my time anyway.
"Columbus is Dead" may move away from monthly publication. Its already a small monthly and it would save mental energy to do issues after the September issue (issue #6) either every other month or quarterly. Interest hasn't grown, but we've ran only 40-100 copies of each issue and I hope by expanding our time I can spend more of in-between issue time distributing copies around town.
I've not gotten to spar in almost a month and I feel slightly ashamed of myself. I've taken a break due to the project overload I was having and the constant time conflicts and struggle just to get everyone together for a couple of hours. Same with working out. I think I have to make a more conscious decision to work on this, but also I need to rework how we are approaching it so it can remain interesting and inviting. I also get tired after a flux in participation, when interest peaks and then rapidly declines as people attempt to adjust to the disruption in their life.
I've spent much more time thinking about things this past year and composing my thoughts than previous years, but I'm getting the same amount of work complete as well. I think that once I'm done with my obligations in making this office run I'll either goto college again to see if I can get a skill and pose like I'm working class with a sweet paycheck. If I get this sweet paycheck, I'll do what Peter Gelderloos did and get arrested in a foreign country, but instead I'll get arrested in style, sipping martinis and sun-bathing in the nude. If I don't goto college I'll fall back to what I do best, unskilled labor. Re-poverty! Its like rewilding but without the egalitarian sentiment!
Well, we had a good discussion, though it didn't seem like there was any interest in intervention..or more like passion. We ultimately decided to pick up and move the video project forward since we have so many people that are experienced in filmmaking, but we decided it should have some sort of social message. I'm not sure what this will mean, but if it is successful, I'll be busy for a while.
I'm almost done with my gamer fanzine. I don't know how I feel about it. In some ways, I'm using proprietary gaming material and relying on it to make connections with gamer culture outside my own little bubble. I'm not sure if this is going in the direction I want it to, nor do I know if I'll be able to make the kind of connections I want to in this environment.
I'm finding myself in constant contradiction lately, mainly because my life is so separated from itself. Its fucking stupid. I've got some friends that don't like other friends or don't feel like they fit in or share interests or some other excuse. I've maintained these relations and I prioritize my time based on how I utilize my time and space. I have an office and I have a home and my life revolves around these two aspects as they already consume so much of my time anyway.
"Columbus is Dead" may move away from monthly publication. Its already a small monthly and it would save mental energy to do issues after the September issue (issue #6) either every other month or quarterly. Interest hasn't grown, but we've ran only 40-100 copies of each issue and I hope by expanding our time I can spend more of in-between issue time distributing copies around town.
I've not gotten to spar in almost a month and I feel slightly ashamed of myself. I've taken a break due to the project overload I was having and the constant time conflicts and struggle just to get everyone together for a couple of hours. Same with working out. I think I have to make a more conscious decision to work on this, but also I need to rework how we are approaching it so it can remain interesting and inviting. I also get tired after a flux in participation, when interest peaks and then rapidly declines as people attempt to adjust to the disruption in their life.
I've spent much more time thinking about things this past year and composing my thoughts than previous years, but I'm getting the same amount of work complete as well. I think that once I'm done with my obligations in making this office run I'll either goto college again to see if I can get a skill and pose like I'm working class with a sweet paycheck. If I get this sweet paycheck, I'll do what Peter Gelderloos did and get arrested in a foreign country, but instead I'll get arrested in style, sipping martinis and sun-bathing in the nude. If I don't goto college I'll fall back to what I do best, unskilled labor. Re-poverty! Its like rewilding but without the egalitarian sentiment!
Something that bothers me about many radical social theories out there is their emphasis on the worker. I can accept that capitalism defines the worker in relation to their power as part of a greater analysis of society. However, when we organize, we aren't organizing workers, we are organizing individuals. If you are looking for areas of tension and choose the workplace, the dialog will probably be based on work and how individuals conflict with work.
This is where I'll step back a little. Anarchists generally have two methods if they are approaching a workplace struggle. Both can be interchangable, but there is an emphasis for developing the workplace as a method to provide economic security and support to the individuals so they don't have to live on the edge of poverty. This takes on the same face as old labor and striking for reforms. The extra security is very subjective in how it provides for individuals in the workplace. These types of struggles help provide income that can be used to help the individuals, their families and friends live with or above poverty as well as assist propaganda and resistance efforts .
The extra security does have its failings. It can provide a person who is working poor an elevation to the lower middle class or maybe even lower middle to damn near rich. This promotes unnecessary material accumulation and compliance to the social order in exchange for the continuation of the good job and its economic security. This creates different interests as has historically been shown with the expansion of the middle class, giving us only a repetition of what has already occurred with the general elevation of most of the working class into the middle. This isn't essentially true, but what has occurred in the 20th century suggests this to be true.
New initiatives by working individuals in poverty towards "friendly" insurance can be more effective at creating economic security. This type of insurance would help with medical bills, funeral bills, strike stipends and so on. This is a reduction from what unions can offer and is diliberately divorced for the idea of unions. I do this because union bureacrats and officials are typically separated from their workers through varying degrees of hierarchy and specialization and have been known to be less than supportive of all forms of workplace resistance. The friendly insurance acts as an alternative service for the working poor by the working poor. This type of insurance would not be based on accumulation and workers participating in its creation would share the hard decisions on who and how people are to be covered by the friendly. Networking with doctors and other professionals that can reduce costs can be beneficial and doctors that accept a life of poverty can be more helpful and fully involved in poverty support. This insurance can be expanded as a professional assistance insurance so that home repairs, plumbing, carpentry, and so on can be included in coverage with medical coverage.
The second method anarchists promote is not based on relieving poverty or creating more economic security. Instead its based on the idea of attacking the workplace as a symbol of oppression, in some cases it is based on causing affects on the general economy and in other cases its based on seizing or shutting down the workplace as an expression of power. The above friendly insurance would be able to function in both examples of workplace struggle as long as it isn't so large that it has to operate as a separate body from its membership. The friendly insurance can be held together by small clusters of informal independent and worker associations to ensure it remains part of what these individuals are doing and not a separate entity.
This is just a brief outline and much more go can go into any method of resistance. I feel anarchists push themselves into a false dichotomy over work because the nuances between attack and reform have become too rigid and absolute while questions of what is necessary to live socially while we resist have moved more in the direction of interests not based on socializing and releaving poverty but accumulating more security and material power. I will continue looking into these kind of issues because I feel that the growth of anarchy would benefit from emphasizing poverty intervention in workplace struggles rather than accepting the current methods of labor struggle. This also makes arguments for ending certain workplaces more possible if we already have a functioning practice for poverty relief and support.
This is where I'll step back a little. Anarchists generally have two methods if they are approaching a workplace struggle. Both can be interchangable, but there is an emphasis for developing the workplace as a method to provide economic security and support to the individuals so they don't have to live on the edge of poverty. This takes on the same face as old labor and striking for reforms. The extra security is very subjective in how it provides for individuals in the workplace. These types of struggles help provide income that can be used to help the individuals, their families and friends live with or above poverty as well as assist propaganda and resistance efforts .
The extra security does have its failings. It can provide a person who is working poor an elevation to the lower middle class or maybe even lower middle to damn near rich. This promotes unnecessary material accumulation and compliance to the social order in exchange for the continuation of the good job and its economic security. This creates different interests as has historically been shown with the expansion of the middle class, giving us only a repetition of what has already occurred with the general elevation of most of the working class into the middle. This isn't essentially true, but what has occurred in the 20th century suggests this to be true.
New initiatives by working individuals in poverty towards "friendly" insurance can be more effective at creating economic security. This type of insurance would help with medical bills, funeral bills, strike stipends and so on. This is a reduction from what unions can offer and is diliberately divorced for the idea of unions. I do this because union bureacrats and officials are typically separated from their workers through varying degrees of hierarchy and specialization and have been known to be less than supportive of all forms of workplace resistance. The friendly insurance acts as an alternative service for the working poor by the working poor. This type of insurance would not be based on accumulation and workers participating in its creation would share the hard decisions on who and how people are to be covered by the friendly. Networking with doctors and other professionals that can reduce costs can be beneficial and doctors that accept a life of poverty can be more helpful and fully involved in poverty support. This insurance can be expanded as a professional assistance insurance so that home repairs, plumbing, carpentry, and so on can be included in coverage with medical coverage.
The second method anarchists promote is not based on relieving poverty or creating more economic security. Instead its based on the idea of attacking the workplace as a symbol of oppression, in some cases it is based on causing affects on the general economy and in other cases its based on seizing or shutting down the workplace as an expression of power. The above friendly insurance would be able to function in both examples of workplace struggle as long as it isn't so large that it has to operate as a separate body from its membership. The friendly insurance can be held together by small clusters of informal independent and worker associations to ensure it remains part of what these individuals are doing and not a separate entity.
This is just a brief outline and much more go can go into any method of resistance. I feel anarchists push themselves into a false dichotomy over work because the nuances between attack and reform have become too rigid and absolute while questions of what is necessary to live socially while we resist have moved more in the direction of interests not based on socializing and releaving poverty but accumulating more security and material power. I will continue looking into these kind of issues because I feel that the growth of anarchy would benefit from emphasizing poverty intervention in workplace struggles rather than accepting the current methods of labor struggle. This also makes arguments for ending certain workplaces more possible if we already have a functioning practice for poverty relief and support.
Well, it has been several months since I attempted to create an "Eastside Praxis", which had marginal success. Where I have found success is in my job, my adventuring, my martial arts group and my zines. Where I've suffered failure is in expanding towards an interventionist group as I initially planned to do. My failure here was based primarily in failing to rally interest in where I outlined my desire to act. I had not expected not being able to break out faster with the projects I was interested in.
The beginning of the year I had a lot of participation in Indymedia and interest was high in expanding. We had several people on the Eastside that were interested in doing more with Anti-Racist Action and with the move of the Indymedia center to the Eastside, it seemed perfectly natural to propose a new direction and work towards abtaining it. However, like all projects, my fellow participants, including myself, suffered from burnout rather quickly, especially when we achieved a very successful level of activity. The stress of success seemed to of wore on a lot of people. At the same time, others were excluded as time went on. They were interested in activism and anarchist projects, but they didn't share any interest in what Indymedia was becoming, a high tech collective. So when interest fell out, it fell out on both sides. Other priorities were found while some continued to enjoy the multi-media possibilities that the IMC offered. Currently we have a active monthly zine that acts as a lot priority for a handful of people, but we get enough participation to put out our small zine every month with original content. We also have maintained our websites, an internet stream and podcasting site and so on. We syndicate John Zerzan's Anarchy radio at 1:00am at radio.freepress.org for those out there interested.
Now we are moving in a new direction for the Westside. As Arawak City has become very successful, I have seen that more must be done to find ways of including people normally excluded in my own social network and within society. I want to outline another aim or project plan. I felt good that we achieved an office and figured the next step would be to create a document that aimed for a new vision of intervention. Though I still have no fixed answer, I see many possibilities of getting involved. Perhaps the biggest thing I've learned since I began calling myself an anarchist is to first get involved in a minor project that aims towards your intentions and then develop from there. So I'll just say I've created another discussion group, this time it is a West Side discussion group, different from all the previous, which have been located primarily on the North Side to increase participation. At this point, our discussions will be able to pull old faces that have enjoyed discussion in as well as give more importance to the interests of those that usually have to travel further to get involved. Hopefully I'll hold back my enthusiasm enough to get a collective desire to move in a direction that is more socially critical and more interventionist.
The beginning of the year I had a lot of participation in Indymedia and interest was high in expanding. We had several people on the Eastside that were interested in doing more with Anti-Racist Action and with the move of the Indymedia center to the Eastside, it seemed perfectly natural to propose a new direction and work towards abtaining it. However, like all projects, my fellow participants, including myself, suffered from burnout rather quickly, especially when we achieved a very successful level of activity. The stress of success seemed to of wore on a lot of people. At the same time, others were excluded as time went on. They were interested in activism and anarchist projects, but they didn't share any interest in what Indymedia was becoming, a high tech collective. So when interest fell out, it fell out on both sides. Other priorities were found while some continued to enjoy the multi-media possibilities that the IMC offered. Currently we have a active monthly zine that acts as a lot priority for a handful of people, but we get enough participation to put out our small zine every month with original content. We also have maintained our websites, an internet stream and podcasting site and so on. We syndicate John Zerzan's Anarchy radio at 1:00am at radio.freepress.org for those out there interested.
Now we are moving in a new direction for the Westside. As Arawak City has become very successful, I have seen that more must be done to find ways of including people normally excluded in my own social network and within society. I want to outline another aim or project plan. I felt good that we achieved an office and figured the next step would be to create a document that aimed for a new vision of intervention. Though I still have no fixed answer, I see many possibilities of getting involved. Perhaps the biggest thing I've learned since I began calling myself an anarchist is to first get involved in a minor project that aims towards your intentions and then develop from there. So I'll just say I've created another discussion group, this time it is a West Side discussion group, different from all the previous, which have been located primarily on the North Side to increase participation. At this point, our discussions will be able to pull old faces that have enjoyed discussion in as well as give more importance to the interests of those that usually have to travel further to get involved. Hopefully I'll hold back my enthusiasm enough to get a collective desire to move in a direction that is more socially critical and more interventionist.
What sounds more tenable than total strategy:
- The left and activism are a small percentage of people in this country. Much more is out there. Activism isn't bad, but it isn't the only way. Anarchists have a long history of activism, but they also have a long history of building communes, starting worker co-ops and organizing workplaces. These activities are all still relevant to anarchists.
- Agitate in the workplace and connect through worker's associations, linked through circumstance, not trade or industrial unions. Unionize as a defensive strategy to prevent mass layoffs. Avoid the language of "bargaining power" and "democracy in action" as these both justify an end to workplace activities and marginalization through majority power. Accept your losses if they come, desperate people will accept compromise. This is normal. We want to maximize the potential of individuals in the workplace to claim power and make the break from normal for as long as they will it so. Not every campaign will be a winner, most might even lose.
-Create a worker co-op and connect it through worker/business associations. A worker co-op offers an alternative method of tolerating work for the purposes of creating a culture that advocates direct action. The worker co-op helps anarchist projects from relying on the state or the left for resources. Worker co-ops that are tied directly to the anarchist movement can grow our capacity to create a posterity of resistance. However, competing with the dominant economy could prove to be a problem as corporations grow larger and larger and resources grow more and more scarse. Then there are other obvious problems with small business interests and maintaining solidarity with the anarchist movement if repression sets in. However, by tieing together these co-ops in a loose network solidarity can become easier. The dangers of institutionalizing struggle still exists, especially if the worker co-op is perceived as a form of anarchy and not a form of resistance.
-Building rural communes and collective housing can be a big help for varying reasons. A rural commune can give space for regional anarchist events, extended skillshares and work sharing. It also has the capacity to practice methods of sustainability that aren't separate from its day-to-day activities, making experimentation easier. Communes built near forests can practice rewilding methods: hunting, gathering, structure building, herbalism, tool creation and other related skills and can act as a starting point for many anarchists that don't have the capacity to practice rewilding from an urban environment. Farm communes can practice permaculture, using polyculture and other methods of alternative agriculture as well as understand the strengths and weaknesses of the variety of possibilities that sustainability can be experimented with.
-Besides this, travelling life may be found of interest. Time and again I see anarchists reacting to Crimethinc acting as if their way of life isn't something that can be carried beyond youth. This is an extreme error in judgement. Crimethinc is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial version of gypsy culture, which has existed since before the times of feudalism. Irish travellers and crimethinc have similar methods of living and approaching life. Both travel the country to continue living their lifestyle. Illegal crimes and scams perpetuate their existance. Both are often anti-authoritarian and exist in small groups. Both have egoist and utilitarian views on property, taking what is necessary and losing what isn't. Crimethinc and travellers differ in a few respects. To my knowledge, crimethinc hardly presses beyond simple, petty crimes, while travellers have been known to pull off highly elaborate schemes. Travelers use a cant that is hard to understand for outsiders while crimethinc has not existed long enough to have developed in such a way. Crimethincers are distinctly anarchists and exist more than just travellers. Ex-travelers, sympathizers in life, lovers, friends and fans also make crimethinc more diverse than how they are known. I believe some sort of music band started crimethinc, but I'm out of the loop on that one.
-Create anarchist projects, some of this could become a worker co-op, but hopefully the future of anarchy won't involve transactions between comrades despite the popularity of our projects. Many magazines and zines are established like this, as well as various other projects. Our Indymedia allows people to use the cameras with only a suggested donation, which is mainly there for those that can afford it, which don't seem to be most anarchists I know of.
-Create anarchist discussion groups. These are very excellent because it often affirms or reaffirms anarchist sentiment in people who are in doubt of how they are anarchist. I never seem to be able to have discussion groups for more than a couple months without long breaks, so expect only a few of these at a time, but stay in contact with those that participate, if they enjoyed it, when it is attempted again, they will be more likely to come out. I don't know if any of my discussions affirmed anyone's anarchist principles, but I know that most that have participated in my discussions for any length of time are still anarchists.
-MORE ACTORS and SCREENPLAY WRITERS!!!! My ability to act and write is mediocre at best, but I'd like to be able to share my movies with others that make movies and those that enjoy underground movies rather than a general public. Zero funded, fully volunteer movies are totally awesome and anarchists making nonactivist films would be even better. I don't make activist films, I make mockeries of life. Directing and production is an easily learned skill for any movie lover, emulation of various shots and effects will make a movie you want to watch. Though my movie making skill is still low, I think my understanding of film has grown as I move along. Everyone should be an actor, its not hard unless you are nervous, if you aren't, its pretty easy. Yes, butcher your lines, B-movies are more than acceptable, they are fucking excellent!
- The left and activism are a small percentage of people in this country. Much more is out there. Activism isn't bad, but it isn't the only way. Anarchists have a long history of activism, but they also have a long history of building communes, starting worker co-ops and organizing workplaces. These activities are all still relevant to anarchists.
- Agitate in the workplace and connect through worker's associations, linked through circumstance, not trade or industrial unions. Unionize as a defensive strategy to prevent mass layoffs. Avoid the language of "bargaining power" and "democracy in action" as these both justify an end to workplace activities and marginalization through majority power. Accept your losses if they come, desperate people will accept compromise. This is normal. We want to maximize the potential of individuals in the workplace to claim power and make the break from normal for as long as they will it so. Not every campaign will be a winner, most might even lose.
-Create a worker co-op and connect it through worker/business associations. A worker co-op offers an alternative method of tolerating work for the purposes of creating a culture that advocates direct action. The worker co-op helps anarchist projects from relying on the state or the left for resources. Worker co-ops that are tied directly to the anarchist movement can grow our capacity to create a posterity of resistance. However, competing with the dominant economy could prove to be a problem as corporations grow larger and larger and resources grow more and more scarse. Then there are other obvious problems with small business interests and maintaining solidarity with the anarchist movement if repression sets in. However, by tieing together these co-ops in a loose network solidarity can become easier. The dangers of institutionalizing struggle still exists, especially if the worker co-op is perceived as a form of anarchy and not a form of resistance.
-Building rural communes and collective housing can be a big help for varying reasons. A rural commune can give space for regional anarchist events, extended skillshares and work sharing. It also has the capacity to practice methods of sustainability that aren't separate from its day-to-day activities, making experimentation easier. Communes built near forests can practice rewilding methods: hunting, gathering, structure building, herbalism, tool creation and other related skills and can act as a starting point for many anarchists that don't have the capacity to practice rewilding from an urban environment. Farm communes can practice permaculture, using polyculture and other methods of alternative agriculture as well as understand the strengths and weaknesses of the variety of possibilities that sustainability can be experimented with.
-Besides this, travelling life may be found of interest. Time and again I see anarchists reacting to Crimethinc acting as if their way of life isn't something that can be carried beyond youth. This is an extreme error in judgement. Crimethinc is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial version of gypsy culture, which has existed since before the times of feudalism. Irish travellers and crimethinc have similar methods of living and approaching life. Both travel the country to continue living their lifestyle. Illegal crimes and scams perpetuate their existance. Both are often anti-authoritarian and exist in small groups. Both have egoist and utilitarian views on property, taking what is necessary and losing what isn't. Crimethinc and travellers differ in a few respects. To my knowledge, crimethinc hardly presses beyond simple, petty crimes, while travellers have been known to pull off highly elaborate schemes. Travelers use a cant that is hard to understand for outsiders while crimethinc has not existed long enough to have developed in such a way. Crimethincers are distinctly anarchists and exist more than just travellers. Ex-travelers, sympathizers in life, lovers, friends and fans also make crimethinc more diverse than how they are known. I believe some sort of music band started crimethinc, but I'm out of the loop on that one.
-Create anarchist projects, some of this could become a worker co-op, but hopefully the future of anarchy won't involve transactions between comrades despite the popularity of our projects. Many magazines and zines are established like this, as well as various other projects. Our Indymedia allows people to use the cameras with only a suggested donation, which is mainly there for those that can afford it, which don't seem to be most anarchists I know of.
-Create anarchist discussion groups. These are very excellent because it often affirms or reaffirms anarchist sentiment in people who are in doubt of how they are anarchist. I never seem to be able to have discussion groups for more than a couple months without long breaks, so expect only a few of these at a time, but stay in contact with those that participate, if they enjoyed it, when it is attempted again, they will be more likely to come out. I don't know if any of my discussions affirmed anyone's anarchist principles, but I know that most that have participated in my discussions for any length of time are still anarchists.
-MORE ACTORS and SCREENPLAY WRITERS!!!! My ability to act and write is mediocre at best, but I'd like to be able to share my movies with others that make movies and those that enjoy underground movies rather than a general public. Zero funded, fully volunteer movies are totally awesome and anarchists making nonactivist films would be even better. I don't make activist films, I make mockeries of life. Directing and production is an easily learned skill for any movie lover, emulation of various shots and effects will make a movie you want to watch. Though my movie making skill is still low, I think my understanding of film has grown as I move along. Everyone should be an actor, its not hard unless you are nervous, if you aren't, its pretty easy. Yes, butcher your lines, B-movies are more than acceptable, they are fucking excellent!
02/07: Destroyer of Sacred Cows
I've been online for quite a while. I realize that being active online has made a significant impact on who I am and what I'm about. I've seen the volume of knowledge increase online as my favorite obscure topics became expanded on in more depth. Thoughout the time I have challenged everyone from Michael Albert to Wolfi Landstreicher to discuss or debate me. I've been told that I've debated members of the world bank in my early years, the rumor was this objectivist montelglobalinfestors (his mock identity) was involved in the debate and he was really good. I'd say that debating the objectivists extremely heightened my concept of debate and the employment of logical fallacies and other debate tactics, which is probably why I rail against them so hard. You cry foul in a debate when crying foul keeps the debate on the idea, the target. If you can understand the target better than the opponent and can express what the target is better, you succeed. The target in the case of the objectivists is "freedom", "egoism" and "selfishness".
Semantics must be defeated in the first part of a debate, the key is to win as many words as possible or to call it as "semantical" and work past it by understanding the opponents semantics through questioning, depending on the circumstances. If you are dealing with a dogmatic opponent, be sure to note when they are employing dishonest debate tactics, this is so that you can walk away from the debate knowing you attempting an engagement and it was your opponent that decided to destroy the attempt. More people than I know have used this tactic, which works in real life, but on the internet, I can walk right past the applause of sychophants and annihilate the demagogues.
My writings still need work. I like obscure topics and I don't think I'll change that anytime soon. Sometimes I get excited because I had a good idea and publish something that was more in a revisement stage just because I was happy enough with it and hope for a discussion to occur. I never ment to be a writer, I'm more of a self-educator and a long time ago I realized that debate enhances your learning capabilities because of the crisis of losing face. I'll admit to cruelty in some of my early debates once I mastered a debate form and particular theory. People that aimed to "make me cry" got theorectically brutalized. I was not one for sniping, shooting comments from the side, not really adding to debate. My short asshole comments were fightin' words, let's go, let's fight, I wanna debate fuckhead.
At a certain point I realized that I had advanced myself into another arena where leaders, theorists, writers and propagandists were the participants of debate and the crowd had worn thin. People that can actually challenge my ideas have become rare online. Those so similar to me refuse to have me grill them as hard as I can to squeeze the juice of knowledge from their brains, so now I am bored and I sit around giving my knowledge and desire for knowledge to everyone until I get a bite. Sometimes I'll get a few snipers or a few sophmores ready to bite something big, but I've got the world runnin' scared.
I particularly like challenging the polemics of anarchy because it is where advancement past divides matter. Are people I have a current dichotomy with able to overcome it...nope, but I bet I can. A couple years back, someone from out of town recognized me as Wombat said I was the destroyer of sacred cows. This fits me far more than writer, which is often something I do when I can't get enough. Yes, I can be a bit cocky and I stumble forward aimlessly searching for kernels of knowledge that will make me understand something better. If you think I'm such a fucking idiot then challenge me to a duel of ideas. Moo.
Semantics must be defeated in the first part of a debate, the key is to win as many words as possible or to call it as "semantical" and work past it by understanding the opponents semantics through questioning, depending on the circumstances. If you are dealing with a dogmatic opponent, be sure to note when they are employing dishonest debate tactics, this is so that you can walk away from the debate knowing you attempting an engagement and it was your opponent that decided to destroy the attempt. More people than I know have used this tactic, which works in real life, but on the internet, I can walk right past the applause of sychophants and annihilate the demagogues.
My writings still need work. I like obscure topics and I don't think I'll change that anytime soon. Sometimes I get excited because I had a good idea and publish something that was more in a revisement stage just because I was happy enough with it and hope for a discussion to occur. I never ment to be a writer, I'm more of a self-educator and a long time ago I realized that debate enhances your learning capabilities because of the crisis of losing face. I'll admit to cruelty in some of my early debates once I mastered a debate form and particular theory. People that aimed to "make me cry" got theorectically brutalized. I was not one for sniping, shooting comments from the side, not really adding to debate. My short asshole comments were fightin' words, let's go, let's fight, I wanna debate fuckhead.
At a certain point I realized that I had advanced myself into another arena where leaders, theorists, writers and propagandists were the participants of debate and the crowd had worn thin. People that can actually challenge my ideas have become rare online. Those so similar to me refuse to have me grill them as hard as I can to squeeze the juice of knowledge from their brains, so now I am bored and I sit around giving my knowledge and desire for knowledge to everyone until I get a bite. Sometimes I'll get a few snipers or a few sophmores ready to bite something big, but I've got the world runnin' scared.
I particularly like challenging the polemics of anarchy because it is where advancement past divides matter. Are people I have a current dichotomy with able to overcome it...nope, but I bet I can. A couple years back, someone from out of town recognized me as Wombat said I was the destroyer of sacred cows. This fits me far more than writer, which is often something I do when I can't get enough. Yes, I can be a bit cocky and I stumble forward aimlessly searching for kernels of knowledge that will make me understand something better. If you think I'm such a fucking idiot then challenge me to a duel of ideas. Moo.
So James Herod covers most everything you can think of in this book as far as talking about a general mass strategy for overcoming capitalism. He talks about strategies that failed: Social democracy, Leninism, guerilla warfare, syndicalism, general strikes, strikes, unions, insurrections, civil disobedience, single issue campaigns, demonstrations, new social movements, boycotts, dropping out, luddism, publishing and education. This I can agree with, all of this has failed.
Where Herod goes wrong is by insisting on a strategy in the first place. Like the previous strategy I talked about in part one, this one is about growing our strength while weakening the strength of capitalism. His strategy is based on intention, its not simply about creating face-to-face connections and real community. Its about this AND its about being absorbed in a diliberate game of chess with the system. We must stop supporting the dominant economy and support the shadow economy we create as an alternative at the same time. Herod realistically announces that the state will be brutal to this strategy, as it is with all social movements that resist its authority.
Herod doesn't pull any punches and announces his intentions for an alternative civilization using this strategy that requires a total image. Not just understanding that we are in conflict with a totalizing way of life, but creating a new totalized life in the image that Herod proposes. However, Herod must be commended for avoiding the creation of a new ideology, instead insisting that this is a strategy of desire.
Herod's proposal uses several diliberate organs in his strategy, something I also took into account with my own personal strategy. These organs are: "autonomous, self‑governing, democratic neighborhoods (through the practice of the neighborhood assembly); self-managed projects; cooperatively operated households; and an association, by means of treaties, of neighborhoods one with another."
Herod get's more in depth with his strategy in chapter 7. What does he actually propose in the present? This is perhaps the greatest failing of these strategies, they often rely on the small business owner to initiate, if not run completely. Herod attempts to overcome this with several parts to this broad strategy. He suggests we: form neighborhood associations, employee associations, cooperative housing associations, build meeting halls, worker co-ops, convert other small business owners to the worker co-op lifestyle, change jobs to worker-owned when the opportunity presents itself, setup local currencies, organize community land trusts, will your house to a community controlled trust fund, switch to more environomentally friendly methods of energy, grow your own food, create neighborhood storehouses for mutual aid, support preventative healthcare and orthomolecular medicine, don't work hard in a dominant economy job, organize grassroots movements against ruling class offenses in our neighborhoods, force criminal laws to apply to capitalists, democratize our voluntary associations, reject divisions in knowledge (specialization), don't watch television/listen to the radio, support independent media, don't buy from the culture industry or commodified entertainment, recover our language, recover the capacity for self-defense, fight religion, negotiate global agreements, abolish war, get control of union pension funds, don't cooperate with the police, don't join the military or become a cop, don't become a boss, reject Robert's Rules of Order, don't deposit money in corporate banks, stay out of debt, break free from schooling, support unschooling, reject church and state certified marriage, break away from the nuclear family, don't recycle, don't wear a suit, don't play the lottery, reject and campaign against representative government.
This is all suggested for now, the present and this is why I like it. Given our circumstances, many of these ideas can be practiced or a dialog about their use can be created to overcome areas that Herod suggests that are disagreeable. They are part of what Herod calls a resistance culture and this I again must commend Herod on. A discussion on his points from any variety of anarchy can help develop our own ideas on what a resistance culture may look like.
After a resistance culture is astablished, Herod suggests we practice space seizures, but also stating that the space seizure would start happening after we've already established ourselves and we are assured victory, they are the last things we are to do.
Herod continues to explain throughout the last parts of his book on ideas revolving around his strategy and specific functions of the various associations. He defends thinking strategically, as that is the whole point to his book, he exposes that he's put a great deal of thought into this book, touching on how people can respect differences with his strategy or within his system. He outlines who controls the resources (the neighborhood assembly) and how big households and neighborhood assemblies may be.
Herod takes on both organic resistance and individualism, but does so in a way that strictly rejects both. Here is where Herod loses me as a critical supporter. Here is where Herod takes the path of sectarianism rather than finding some way for these ideas to be shared in some manner together. Organic resistance can easily take on many of his present suggestions for a resistance culture, organic resistance can even find his ideas on seizing space appealing, but organic resistance clearly can't accept the diliberate methods that Herod takes because like most mass strategies, failure is a drain in creating a mass strategy and success is political if there is no crisis for the creation of mass organs. It does indeed take years to make a resistance culture, but it isn't required to be seen as a diliberate strategy. We can create what we desire now and when a crisis occurs, our resistance culture will respond by joining with organic mass struggle, rather than creating it to manage the methods of resistance.
His attacks on what he calls "individualism" are completely uncalled for and divisive. Herod builds a strawman and attacks this so-called individualism in the same manner that Marx did over a hundred years ago to anarchists, the same way that Lenin attacked the left communists, the same way that Debbs attacked anarchists, the same way that Bookchin attacks "lifestylists", the same way that Staudenmeijer attack post-left anarchy, the same way the Price attacked "some" anarchists and so on. No thought goes into any sort of reconciliation, Herod is strictly on the side of "social anarchism" as if those lumped by his strawman were anti-social psychotics bent on poisoning the meaning of anarchy. This is too far, this is not a way to build bridges in the anarchist community, it is rather a way to start a war between potential allies. Herod attempts to speak for "classical anarchism" as if there were really such a thing. Like the 1950s to the conservatives, this looking backwards is unhealthy and is founded on misconceptions.
Anarchists have always been for individuals, but not all anarchists. Anarchy is the name for multiple tendencies that seek to resist the state and capitalism. The insurrections of 1848 were organic and were the foundation of Bakunin's ideas on resistance are not removed from his ideas on collectivism simply because one was a conspiracy while the other was a formal business association. Bakunin applauded the mutualists and their cooperatives but he also greatly embraced conspiracy to agitate and attack the social order. Bakunin wasn't immune to strategy, but he definately wasn't all about the system he is more popularly attributed to. Collectivism was part of his ideas on a future society and the creation of an anti-state resistance culture. The coop and labor movements are indeed very much apart of classic anarchy, but so are insurrections and covert action. Kropotkin also could be said to embrace a commune strategy modelled after the Paris Commune, but it was defended by the tactics of direct action and propaganda of the deed. Anarchist intervention never rejected the informal groups that make attacking the system possible. During the early period of classic anarchism, the differences between diliberate and organic were hardly assumed, it wasn't until later when diliberate groups in the workplace became legal that they became as diliberate as the co-operatives.
I see no reason to critique Herod's strawman here, I've already challenged these strawmen many times, as have other authors, yet they still continue to be written as if no challenges have ever occurred. Its my opinion that ALL of these authors read the critiques of "individualism" but not how the "individualists" respond. As a social anarchist I'll simply say that "individualist" authors must be challenged by "social anarchists" in a less dogmatic way on an individual basis. Staudenmaier comes close with his Anarchists in Wonderland and its responses, but he is properly taken to school by Jason McQuinn and Lawrence Jarach. Perhaps Herod would benefit from reading this debate and discussing his ideas with the various people and tendencies he lumps under "individualism".
Outside of this great flaw, I recommend reading this book. It may make you think about how contemporary anarchy can develop that isn't based on following the latest trend in political activity.
Where Herod goes wrong is by insisting on a strategy in the first place. Like the previous strategy I talked about in part one, this one is about growing our strength while weakening the strength of capitalism. His strategy is based on intention, its not simply about creating face-to-face connections and real community. Its about this AND its about being absorbed in a diliberate game of chess with the system. We must stop supporting the dominant economy and support the shadow economy we create as an alternative at the same time. Herod realistically announces that the state will be brutal to this strategy, as it is with all social movements that resist its authority.
Herod doesn't pull any punches and announces his intentions for an alternative civilization using this strategy that requires a total image. Not just understanding that we are in conflict with a totalizing way of life, but creating a new totalized life in the image that Herod proposes. However, Herod must be commended for avoiding the creation of a new ideology, instead insisting that this is a strategy of desire.
Herod's proposal uses several diliberate organs in his strategy, something I also took into account with my own personal strategy. These organs are: "autonomous, self‑governing, democratic neighborhoods (through the practice of the neighborhood assembly); self-managed projects; cooperatively operated households; and an association, by means of treaties, of neighborhoods one with another."
Herod get's more in depth with his strategy in chapter 7. What does he actually propose in the present? This is perhaps the greatest failing of these strategies, they often rely on the small business owner to initiate, if not run completely. Herod attempts to overcome this with several parts to this broad strategy. He suggests we: form neighborhood associations, employee associations, cooperative housing associations, build meeting halls, worker co-ops, convert other small business owners to the worker co-op lifestyle, change jobs to worker-owned when the opportunity presents itself, setup local currencies, organize community land trusts, will your house to a community controlled trust fund, switch to more environomentally friendly methods of energy, grow your own food, create neighborhood storehouses for mutual aid, support preventative healthcare and orthomolecular medicine, don't work hard in a dominant economy job, organize grassroots movements against ruling class offenses in our neighborhoods, force criminal laws to apply to capitalists, democratize our voluntary associations, reject divisions in knowledge (specialization), don't watch television/listen to the radio, support independent media, don't buy from the culture industry or commodified entertainment, recover our language, recover the capacity for self-defense, fight religion, negotiate global agreements, abolish war, get control of union pension funds, don't cooperate with the police, don't join the military or become a cop, don't become a boss, reject Robert's Rules of Order, don't deposit money in corporate banks, stay out of debt, break free from schooling, support unschooling, reject church and state certified marriage, break away from the nuclear family, don't recycle, don't wear a suit, don't play the lottery, reject and campaign against representative government.
This is all suggested for now, the present and this is why I like it. Given our circumstances, many of these ideas can be practiced or a dialog about their use can be created to overcome areas that Herod suggests that are disagreeable. They are part of what Herod calls a resistance culture and this I again must commend Herod on. A discussion on his points from any variety of anarchy can help develop our own ideas on what a resistance culture may look like.
After a resistance culture is astablished, Herod suggests we practice space seizures, but also stating that the space seizure would start happening after we've already established ourselves and we are assured victory, they are the last things we are to do.
Herod continues to explain throughout the last parts of his book on ideas revolving around his strategy and specific functions of the various associations. He defends thinking strategically, as that is the whole point to his book, he exposes that he's put a great deal of thought into this book, touching on how people can respect differences with his strategy or within his system. He outlines who controls the resources (the neighborhood assembly) and how big households and neighborhood assemblies may be.
Herod takes on both organic resistance and individualism, but does so in a way that strictly rejects both. Here is where Herod loses me as a critical supporter. Here is where Herod takes the path of sectarianism rather than finding some way for these ideas to be shared in some manner together. Organic resistance can easily take on many of his present suggestions for a resistance culture, organic resistance can even find his ideas on seizing space appealing, but organic resistance clearly can't accept the diliberate methods that Herod takes because like most mass strategies, failure is a drain in creating a mass strategy and success is political if there is no crisis for the creation of mass organs. It does indeed take years to make a resistance culture, but it isn't required to be seen as a diliberate strategy. We can create what we desire now and when a crisis occurs, our resistance culture will respond by joining with organic mass struggle, rather than creating it to manage the methods of resistance.
His attacks on what he calls "individualism" are completely uncalled for and divisive. Herod builds a strawman and attacks this so-called individualism in the same manner that Marx did over a hundred years ago to anarchists, the same way that Lenin attacked the left communists, the same way that Debbs attacked anarchists, the same way that Bookchin attacks "lifestylists", the same way that Staudenmeijer attack post-left anarchy, the same way the Price attacked "some" anarchists and so on. No thought goes into any sort of reconciliation, Herod is strictly on the side of "social anarchism" as if those lumped by his strawman were anti-social psychotics bent on poisoning the meaning of anarchy. This is too far, this is not a way to build bridges in the anarchist community, it is rather a way to start a war between potential allies. Herod attempts to speak for "classical anarchism" as if there were really such a thing. Like the 1950s to the conservatives, this looking backwards is unhealthy and is founded on misconceptions.
Anarchists have always been for individuals, but not all anarchists. Anarchy is the name for multiple tendencies that seek to resist the state and capitalism. The insurrections of 1848 were organic and were the foundation of Bakunin's ideas on resistance are not removed from his ideas on collectivism simply because one was a conspiracy while the other was a formal business association. Bakunin applauded the mutualists and their cooperatives but he also greatly embraced conspiracy to agitate and attack the social order. Bakunin wasn't immune to strategy, but he definately wasn't all about the system he is more popularly attributed to. Collectivism was part of his ideas on a future society and the creation of an anti-state resistance culture. The coop and labor movements are indeed very much apart of classic anarchy, but so are insurrections and covert action. Kropotkin also could be said to embrace a commune strategy modelled after the Paris Commune, but it was defended by the tactics of direct action and propaganda of the deed. Anarchist intervention never rejected the informal groups that make attacking the system possible. During the early period of classic anarchism, the differences between diliberate and organic were hardly assumed, it wasn't until later when diliberate groups in the workplace became legal that they became as diliberate as the co-operatives.
I see no reason to critique Herod's strawman here, I've already challenged these strawmen many times, as have other authors, yet they still continue to be written as if no challenges have ever occurred. Its my opinion that ALL of these authors read the critiques of "individualism" but not how the "individualists" respond. As a social anarchist I'll simply say that "individualist" authors must be challenged by "social anarchists" in a less dogmatic way on an individual basis. Staudenmaier comes close with his Anarchists in Wonderland and its responses, but he is properly taken to school by Jason McQuinn and Lawrence Jarach. Perhaps Herod would benefit from reading this debate and discussing his ideas with the various people and tendencies he lumps under "individualism".
Outside of this great flaw, I recommend reading this book. It may make you think about how contemporary anarchy can develop that isn't based on following the latest trend in political activity.
James Herod has finished a book on anarchist strategy called "Getting Free: Creating an Association of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods". An interesting read, it is perhaps the most current assembly strategy to date. New Mutualism, New Syndicalism, Bolo'bolo, Horizontalism, Libertarian Municipalism, Inclusive Democracy and so on have created a method of anarchist strategy placing emphasis on the neighborhood assembly with slight variations. Such attempts are a move towards the 21st century with an attempt for a viable theory towards mass participation. All appear to be answering the problems that developed when Unions stopped being the organizations of a mass movement and started becoming an institution for political power and worker materialism.
Herod talked of various similar ideas in his book and I figured I'd expose my past in this method of mass strategy. It has been a while since I looked into these theories, I spent a few years embracing these sort of ideas after I rejected some of my early thoughts on anarchy. During this period I started studying Marxism and how to create an anarchist structure that was inclusive of the majority of people. I created my own strategy of mutualism, called mutual communism. It was an economic treaty among individuals ment to pull workers into worker-owned co-ops and also pay for areas of work not generally considered work, such as housework or activism. It was ment to equalize all income based on the labor hour system, so even a corporate CEO could join, but he'd make the same as the janitor by choice. The strategy also had a treaty on development where a portion of everyone's money was ment to create growth within the mutual communist network. It was always ment to be a system receptive of individual whim and desire.
With my ideas on mutual communism, I attempted to practice them in a workplace dominated by drug-users, drug-dealers, thieves, anarchists, hipsters, good ole' boys and socialists in unity. I quickly noticed how everyone practiced some of my former views on illegalism and I adjusted the concept of mutual communism with ideas on conspiracy of egoists, which became my other ill-fated strategy of Insurrectionary syndicalism. The conspiracy would have to act autonomous of the system strategy and deny all connections between the two so the mutual communist network could grow and flourish without state intervention. Pretty much our tactic was focused on economic damage as resistance and empowerment. We didn't need to strike to make ends meet, we could take. Not much could be sabotaged in this warehouse other than the trucks and the line, but tons of commodities could be appropriated with little chance of being caught. My agitation consisted of insisting we could run the place without the bosses, because they were unnecessary and make shitloads more. I compared our bosses to big time drug dealers (they, in fact, were alcohol distributors) but far more stupid. We almost unionized with the IWW, but not because we wanted the IWW (I did though), we wanted to rip off the bosses and exploit whatever union we could to make the most money, fucking the boss and forcing the union to take or leave our participation. We could always ditch it for another. It was more powerful than any workplace I've ever attended. Open threats and hostility to the bosses, if it wasn't just an isolated case, we could've taken power.
The Mondragon corporation, which I talked briefly about while at the Division Street Autonomous Zone with Cindy Milstein, was an area I ment to also overcome, so I planned to democritize every portion of the system without any representative council. After I left Chicago, I debated a "Cyber-Leninist" while holding these views. He was rather receptive, as are many on the left towards these ideas. These ideas could be another way for Marxism, another way for anarchism, they are the new hope. They are "holistic" and talk about most major spheres of civilized life and offer democratic and anarchistic methods of resistance. My holistic strategy included areas dismissed by all other thinkers. I had developed my own views of property by taking LSD and seeing how utterly worthless stuff is. I agreed with the Ravnos Vampires (White Wolf Games) that all property was in flux and accepted egoism far more than Ben Tucker. My system was built to respect the possessions of its members, but secretly not that of dominant capitalism, waging a covert war of attrition on its economy, making our way the dominant system. The interchangability of "shadow economy" was attractive because of its double usage as both a synonym for alternative economy and black market.
Herod does a good job avoiding jargon and has taken his theory further than any other of these holistic strategies in an attempt to respect local social autonomy while furthering anarchist goals. Herod focuses very much on the "democratic" aspects of his strategy. Today I don't defend systems, but where Herod places emphasis, I think there is something to it. My above example didn't use a single formal method nor even collaboration, just a lot of shit talking about the bosses and stuff missing like crazy. We knew we could form a council, I had educated everyone in the workplace about their rights, but we were not in a situation where it was seen as necessary. And how unfun would it be to formalize a crime/labor syndicate when we had no reason for it? Everything ran smoothly without the interferance of democracy. However, I still emphasized a mass strategy and a system of economics so I disgarded it.
(more later..)
Herod talked of various similar ideas in his book and I figured I'd expose my past in this method of mass strategy. It has been a while since I looked into these theories, I spent a few years embracing these sort of ideas after I rejected some of my early thoughts on anarchy. During this period I started studying Marxism and how to create an anarchist structure that was inclusive of the majority of people. I created my own strategy of mutualism, called mutual communism. It was an economic treaty among individuals ment to pull workers into worker-owned co-ops and also pay for areas of work not generally considered work, such as housework or activism. It was ment to equalize all income based on the labor hour system, so even a corporate CEO could join, but he'd make the same as the janitor by choice. The strategy also had a treaty on development where a portion of everyone's money was ment to create growth within the mutual communist network. It was always ment to be a system receptive of individual whim and desire.
With my ideas on mutual communism, I attempted to practice them in a workplace dominated by drug-users, drug-dealers, thieves, anarchists, hipsters, good ole' boys and socialists in unity. I quickly noticed how everyone practiced some of my former views on illegalism and I adjusted the concept of mutual communism with ideas on conspiracy of egoists, which became my other ill-fated strategy of Insurrectionary syndicalism. The conspiracy would have to act autonomous of the system strategy and deny all connections between the two so the mutual communist network could grow and flourish without state intervention. Pretty much our tactic was focused on economic damage as resistance and empowerment. We didn't need to strike to make ends meet, we could take. Not much could be sabotaged in this warehouse other than the trucks and the line, but tons of commodities could be appropriated with little chance of being caught. My agitation consisted of insisting we could run the place without the bosses, because they were unnecessary and make shitloads more. I compared our bosses to big time drug dealers (they, in fact, were alcohol distributors) but far more stupid. We almost unionized with the IWW, but not because we wanted the IWW (I did though), we wanted to rip off the bosses and exploit whatever union we could to make the most money, fucking the boss and forcing the union to take or leave our participation. We could always ditch it for another. It was more powerful than any workplace I've ever attended. Open threats and hostility to the bosses, if it wasn't just an isolated case, we could've taken power.
The Mondragon corporation, which I talked briefly about while at the Division Street Autonomous Zone with Cindy Milstein, was an area I ment to also overcome, so I planned to democritize every portion of the system without any representative council. After I left Chicago, I debated a "Cyber-Leninist" while holding these views. He was rather receptive, as are many on the left towards these ideas. These ideas could be another way for Marxism, another way for anarchism, they are the new hope. They are "holistic" and talk about most major spheres of civilized life and offer democratic and anarchistic methods of resistance. My holistic strategy included areas dismissed by all other thinkers. I had developed my own views of property by taking LSD and seeing how utterly worthless stuff is. I agreed with the Ravnos Vampires (White Wolf Games) that all property was in flux and accepted egoism far more than Ben Tucker. My system was built to respect the possessions of its members, but secretly not that of dominant capitalism, waging a covert war of attrition on its economy, making our way the dominant system. The interchangability of "shadow economy" was attractive because of its double usage as both a synonym for alternative economy and black market.
Herod does a good job avoiding jargon and has taken his theory further than any other of these holistic strategies in an attempt to respect local social autonomy while furthering anarchist goals. Herod focuses very much on the "democratic" aspects of his strategy. Today I don't defend systems, but where Herod places emphasis, I think there is something to it. My above example didn't use a single formal method nor even collaboration, just a lot of shit talking about the bosses and stuff missing like crazy. We knew we could form a council, I had educated everyone in the workplace about their rights, but we were not in a situation where it was seen as necessary. And how unfun would it be to formalize a crime/labor syndicate when we had no reason for it? Everything ran smoothly without the interferance of democracy. However, I still emphasized a mass strategy and a system of economics so I disgarded it.
(more later..)
26/06: Ohio
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
-Neil Young, Ohio
---
I think Neil Young had a great analysis of the situation after the Kent State massacre. It is when the state uses violence against the people empowered that make us feel the illegitimacy of the state. It is rather spiritual, a cleansing to see state violence against people, all sentiments of protection from the benevolent arms of the government are stripped away. Only the conservative/reactionary/cynical voice of power makes sense when describing the use of state force against a people angered over their policies. The state is there to enforce order, if people are doing things that could create a disruption of their order, the state will assert itself to twart the disruption.
If the state or capitalism is doing things we don't agree with, the liberals, the left and the anarchists take to the streets. The liberals grant law enforcement and riot control legitimacy when people resist, the only actions you can do is civil disobedience, which is always nonviolent and usually respectful of property rights. The left is more heterogenius, fans of democracy tend to side with the liberals, differing usually on policies or the scale of reforms. In regards to law enforcement, the jargon is different but the sentiment is usually pro-civil disobedience. Its when we examine the leftists with a critique of democracy that we see more of a desire to be pro-resistance, but with some desire to cooperate. Afterall, with a change of political power, the bureas will remain relatively unchanged.
What disrupts this is either an uncontrolled rupture from the working class outside the political landscape or when the police or military attacks their own nation. This is when other people agree with anarchists, who tend to agree or justify most actions against the state from non or anti-political people. However, in the former expression, the liberals will tend to condemn the disruption, the left will sometimes split, but more often they will be sympathetic, but prefer that order be restored. This is because the riot is not given any legitimacy as a force of power in and of itself by authority. Others describe it merely as disgruntlement, but not as anything more. They want to restore order, some offering concessions to get people to calm down.
This is ultimately what the liberals and the left want to do with the current war, force the government to give in on the war and while they won't typically defend a riot, they will defend its sentiment because it gives them political clout. But when the state breaches its legitimacy of governance, the latter example, the liberals and the left begin looking for other options. "We're finally on our own" is great language for this change in political opinion and ideas of political revolution take shape.
Anarchists must compete with all political sentiment, our alternative to political revolution is social revolution, but before we can talk of such things, we must be in a situation when political revolution is just as possible. Defending riots as an expression of the people's will and an attempt to claim space for their own desires is how anarchists see and express power in these situations. These things have to exist before they are actually possible and we can't manage them into existence.
The current war lacks the will to claim space outside of anarchists and the small numbers of other diseffected individuals. Anarchists have moved past wars before when it was clear that they didn't have the power necessary to maintain a resistance the majority doesn't support. The crisis of sustainability is the greater foundation we should be working to overcome. It is the reason our nation is at war. Being simply against the war can only be political in this climate, what makes anarchists legitimate in this developing crisis isn't summit hopping, but by developing collaborations that create a sustainable now in our own world for those individuals we touch.
The United State's government, its businesses, its media and its bureaus must fuck up beyond their control for something sudden to occur to change this situation. Their control relies on the atomization and division of people as well as maintaining the possibilities of consumerist desire. If the working class overcomes this, then we could see power beyond affinity groups, clusters and protest mobs. To maximize this possibility, anarchists in the United States create spaces experimenting in sustainability and offer it as direct action. Recognizing this as beneficial and expanding on it is the key to breaking the war spectacle.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are gunning us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
-Neil Young, Ohio
---
I think Neil Young had a great analysis of the situation after the Kent State massacre. It is when the state uses violence against the people empowered that make us feel the illegitimacy of the state. It is rather spiritual, a cleansing to see state violence against people, all sentiments of protection from the benevolent arms of the government are stripped away. Only the conservative/reactionary/cynical voice of power makes sense when describing the use of state force against a people angered over their policies. The state is there to enforce order, if people are doing things that could create a disruption of their order, the state will assert itself to twart the disruption.
If the state or capitalism is doing things we don't agree with, the liberals, the left and the anarchists take to the streets. The liberals grant law enforcement and riot control legitimacy when people resist, the only actions you can do is civil disobedience, which is always nonviolent and usually respectful of property rights. The left is more heterogenius, fans of democracy tend to side with the liberals, differing usually on policies or the scale of reforms. In regards to law enforcement, the jargon is different but the sentiment is usually pro-civil disobedience. Its when we examine the leftists with a critique of democracy that we see more of a desire to be pro-resistance, but with some desire to cooperate. Afterall, with a change of political power, the bureas will remain relatively unchanged.
What disrupts this is either an uncontrolled rupture from the working class outside the political landscape or when the police or military attacks their own nation. This is when other people agree with anarchists, who tend to agree or justify most actions against the state from non or anti-political people. However, in the former expression, the liberals will tend to condemn the disruption, the left will sometimes split, but more often they will be sympathetic, but prefer that order be restored. This is because the riot is not given any legitimacy as a force of power in and of itself by authority. Others describe it merely as disgruntlement, but not as anything more. They want to restore order, some offering concessions to get people to calm down.
This is ultimately what the liberals and the left want to do with the current war, force the government to give in on the war and while they won't typically defend a riot, they will defend its sentiment because it gives them political clout. But when the state breaches its legitimacy of governance, the latter example, the liberals and the left begin looking for other options. "We're finally on our own" is great language for this change in political opinion and ideas of political revolution take shape.
Anarchists must compete with all political sentiment, our alternative to political revolution is social revolution, but before we can talk of such things, we must be in a situation when political revolution is just as possible. Defending riots as an expression of the people's will and an attempt to claim space for their own desires is how anarchists see and express power in these situations. These things have to exist before they are actually possible and we can't manage them into existence.
The current war lacks the will to claim space outside of anarchists and the small numbers of other diseffected individuals. Anarchists have moved past wars before when it was clear that they didn't have the power necessary to maintain a resistance the majority doesn't support. The crisis of sustainability is the greater foundation we should be working to overcome. It is the reason our nation is at war. Being simply against the war can only be political in this climate, what makes anarchists legitimate in this developing crisis isn't summit hopping, but by developing collaborations that create a sustainable now in our own world for those individuals we touch.
The United State's government, its businesses, its media and its bureaus must fuck up beyond their control for something sudden to occur to change this situation. Their control relies on the atomization and division of people as well as maintaining the possibilities of consumerist desire. If the working class overcomes this, then we could see power beyond affinity groups, clusters and protest mobs. To maximize this possibility, anarchists in the United States create spaces experimenting in sustainability and offer it as direct action. Recognizing this as beneficial and expanding on it is the key to breaking the war spectacle.
