Preface 

Below are two excerpts from Rodrigo Karmy Bolton’s The Future is Inherited, a compilation of essays and reflections composed during the initial months of the 2019 Chilean uprising, which recently appeared in English. 

In October 2019, Transantiago, the Metropolitan Transit system in Chile’s capital, raised the train fare by thirty pesos. In response, high school students planned what they called a Evasión Masiva, a week of coordinated protests across the city where participants and commuters alike jumped metro turnstiles and refused to pay the fare. On Friday, October 18, a “mass evasion”  shut down Santiago’s metropolitan transit system during rush hour. Crowds began gathering across the city, and by nightfall, barricades guarded by singing revelers burned at every major intersection. Banks and government buildings were set ablaze, while supermarkets, WalMarts, and one sixth of all corporate owned pharmacies were looted. The country’s President at the time, Sebastián Piñera, held a press conference in which he declared a “state of emergency” in the city. Twenty-four hours later, tanks and Humvees patrolled Santiago, military curfews were enforced, and civil liberties were suspended for the first time since the Pinochet dictatorship (1973-1990).

This inaugural wave of unrest was quickly countered by a series of political maneuvers that sought to channel the energy in the streets into institutional changes. By November 2019, the ruling conservative party and its opposition agreed to initiating a process that would lead to the drafting of a new constitution. 

Two years have since passed. The constitutional convention has begun to draft a new constitution, and Gabriel Boric, a leader from the 2011 university student movement turned congressional representative, now serves as Chile’s president. In the eyes of many who cleave to the normative framework of political conflict, this trajectory appears as a sorely needed process of social change. However, as Karmy’s meditations on the experiences and rhythms of October 2019 reveal, the most powerful elements of the revolt are often those least capable of being translated into institutional transformations.  

For Karmy, the date “October 18th” marks not simply a night of insurrection, but a fissure that split Chilean history open, like a short circuit that bridged the anger against the Pinochet Dictatorship, the 1990’s transition to democracy, and the present forms of technocratic governance. After decades of violent social control, forced disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial murder, the political reconciliation that announced the shift from dictatorship to parliamentary democracy was made possible by a series of agreements and accords between Pinochet’s administration, its political supporters, and its centrist and leftist opponents. This meant that throughout the 1990s, Pinochet remained a “senator for life” and the head of the Chilean military, while his 1981 constitution enshrining the Chicago boy’s neoliberal principles remained in place.

Although social democrats and progressives like to present the rampant inequalities and political restrictions that plague contemporary Chile as institutional hangovers from the dictatorship, the Chilean left has its own part to play in this history. As Karmy shows, their inability to break away from “the transitional episteme” has committed them to a pragmatic framework of political conflict, which prioritizes the restoration of a shared legitimacy and the practical matter of governability over all expressions of “popular,” i.e., everyday people’s concern for justice, dignity, and self-respect. If the revolt taught us anything, it’s that the real conflict is not between the camps of left and the right, but between an elitist framework for resolving questions of governance, and a Chilean people who no longer wish to be governed as a population whatsoever.

Whether or not the energy from October 2019 will succeed in breaking out of this transitional episteme remains to be seen. What limitations would need to be overcome, in order for this to happen? In Chile’s capital, it was the state of exception and the military in the streets that allowed the game of mass evasion to be transformed into a general revolt. Yet constitutional states of exception have been declared many times in Chile’s periphery in recent years, without the corresponding eruption of mass revolt. Mapuche communities in Southern Chile have been occupied by the Chilean military since September 2021, in response to an escalation in direct actions against the local elite complicit with extractive industries and ecological destruction earlier that year. In the desert regions along Chile’s northern border, the military has also been called on to police the crisis of mass undocumented immigration spurred by Venezuelans fleeing the economic crisis. This suggests, first, that our understanding of popular revolt must expand beyond the spectacle of urban riots and street demonstrations, to consider what revolt looks like in other territories. At the same time, the concept of “popular” revolt has often been hamstrung by its association with an idea of “the people” as the agent and actor of struggle, whether this be the Nation or various abstract “communities.” As Karmy shows, the protagonists of the Chilean revolt, at the moment they take to the streets, cannot be neatly subsumed under any such categories. In this way, his work not only allows us to see the limitations of the 2019-2021 wave of global uprisings, but also helps us identify potential connections with others struggles internationally that continue to confront similar obstacles. 

—Emilio Janequeo, Santiago de Chile, April 2022

October 18 [1]

Whatever happened to this date? Is it just a chronological date? Perhaps, a dislocated number that, while locating itself on a calendar, desperately flees from it. Its potency does not match its figure, its life with its letter. It explodes without referring to any leader, nor to any political party or partisan vanguard. Everything is much more precarious, but at the same time, more resistant, it can flee between the interstices of the city and permanently “evade” the “who” created by police dynamics. “Evade” designated the subtraction of the sensible life of bodies — what we will call “surface” — with respect to the governmental machinery of neoliberal reason.

As if a crack opened in the middle of the road, as if a historical continuum had stopped. The atmosphere normalized the presence of multiple sounds: sirens breaking the city buzz, helicopters machine-gunning the airspace, shots from various weapons filtering through diverse populations, never before images being monitored by images already frozen, songs — Víctor Jara ^[2] or Jorge González ^[3] — penetrating from other times to face a voracious repression; pots and pans biting into the night coming from dark windows and protesters defying the curfew with shouts and hand-to-hand combat against police or military uniforms.

Nights and days were not the same, but they were the same. A single day, hour or minute that condensed days and nights, days and nights as if there was no more difference between them. Other faces ravaged the mornings, other voices dictated the rhythm; the poor, the blind, those who had said “enough” to a life that promised nothing but debts, to an existence that had renounced all historicity, to an agony whose grief paralyzed bodies. The streets were invested with graffiti with which the crowd embraced the moment of their celebration. It all meant that the downward gaze in front of the boss could not carry on. The randomness of the clash was violent: the boss found the servant in the ferocity of a revolt, without the domestication he presupposed, without the ignorance he attributed to him, without the fear that he had instilled in him.

“No fear” is infinitely replicated on the walls of Chile. With no fear, but with rage: a whole generation that had been hardened by the silence of dictatorship imploded in the emergence of rage brought by their children. But anger not as a psychologically manageable emotion, but as a politically ungovernable affect. The entire transitional episteme was made for docile bodies. It was always a matter of modesty, of control, of learning not to demand beyond “what is possible” within a historical and political limit that became ontological. If not, the military could return or the businessmen could flee: fear provided the affective tonality to the transitional episteme. Sociologists, economists and politicians consolidated an upper echelons’ agreement around the prevalence of neoliberal reason. Everyone had to give in because everyone had to accept the established limit that was forged in the formula “as far as possible”. 

Those who raged during the dictatorship could faint in the desolation of democracy, those who fought during the dictatorship had to tame their spirits in the new transitional machinery. But injustice remained unredeemed. And it is that fissure that always challenged the transitional episteme that is actualized in the politicization of anger that ends up leading the Chilean government machine to bankruptcy.

Rage has been the ardor of an injustice that went beyond the psychological sphere captured by neoliberal confiscation and, like a blast crossing two eras at once, it left historicity in the hands of children: “He who doesn’t know about children, knows nothing of riots.” A revolt leads a people to experience its in-fancy, precisely, the inactuality with oneself, the strange thunder of its untimeliness. Usual spaces and times are shattered into a thousand pieces. And the revolt reminded us that the most decisive tremor, the adjustment with our historicity, is nothing more than a future that is inherited.

It is not a question of “future” as a horizon that owns a precise direction, but of a future in the sense of a disposition to the possibility of becoming others, in which a potency never rested on some trauma that could foreshadow it in some way, but always remained irreducible to the tricks of the law. It is a power that is nothing more than future and that only its clandestine transfer of the impersonality of a common can make it possible for bodies to know what it is that they are actually capable of. Because this potency is defined by its transmissibility and it becomes nothing more than an affirmation of life that escapes any suture provided by power. The future is inherited precisely because the bodies were able to “evade” the fear inoculated by the oligarchy during their years of dictatorship and in the convoluted transition.

The gaze of the former servant — like that passive “Indian” before the colonist — does not bow his head in front of power, but rather defies it and suffers the direct destruction of its eyes. The servant burns everything, launching himself in his martyrological potency for yesterday’s dead, for those who were defeated in the past. Rage burns everything on history’s pyre, without the authorization by the masters who once crushed the native, the worker, the student. In-fancy dislocating the civilized continuity between life and language to lead us to the cleft of popular imagination: the only barricade that connects bodies with surfaces, the new with the old, life with its forms.

The entire university apparatus, with its knowledge of order, believes that the revolt is a “social phenomenon.” A reduction to causalism by current sociology, when truly the revolt is a medium of common sensibility in which the spirits of the past embrace the incandescence of our present. Thousands of Chileans knew this when they sang “The right to live in peace” (El derecho de vivir en paz) by Victor Jara or “The dance of those left behind” (El baile de los que sobran). Uncle Ho, who fought against North American imperialism, became a surplus, a remnant, much like the municipalized students of the 1980s, ungovernable who transmitted potency from one moment to another, who inherited the future to those who could hear the intensity of their voice. That is why October 18 is not a date, but rather an artifact of spiritualism by which the defeated were able to “evade” the historical cruelty of the victors.

Revolt^[4]

One of the first days of protests I found myself at 11am in Plaza Italia. I was going to the demonstration called for 2pm, but decided to arrive earlier to get a feel for the atmosphere. After all, politics is always an atmospheric affair. I began walking from Plaza Italia towards the Andes, that is, towards the Salvador Metro station and the landscape was made up of the rubble after the battle. On Sunday, there was a large demonstration, and protests continued during the night, in the midst of the declaration of a curfew. There was the sour smell of tear gas along the road, burning the skin; burned plastic occasionally penetrated the urban ruin. Some shops were burnt, others were intact: The Gabriela Mistral Cultural Center (GAM) was intact, the Kentucky Fried Chicken branch was burnt; the theater of the University of Chile was intact, the branch of the Bank of Chile was completely burnt.

Popular violence is not a “Hobbesian violence”[5] but a violence interrupting capitalist symbolism. These are not vandals who simply destroy everything they touch, but molecular movements that, most of the time, direct their fury against the signs of power. But this does not mean, that once the revolt is in full swing, several criminal gangs will not penetrate the popular din to progressively restore exchange value from within, inoculating economy into what the revolt had made aneconomical. Precisely: every revolt runs at a loss. The aneconomy of the revolt interrupts “the normal flow” of the country’s capital, the institutions stop working, temporality is strongly suspended. The upsetting of reality, a necessary elixir of revolt, is a sign that a people has broken out as a revolt. 

Because no revolt carries with it the sign of purity. It is dirty, full of mixtures that flourish in the suspension of historical time it has opened. Every revolt fights against its own centrifugal forces, because its power is measured in the ability to remove sovereign violence that, however, tries to capture it permanently. For this reason, a revolt must bring into play an untimely relationship with the present. It never fits with itself because it wildly differs from itself. We cannot demand purity and hygiene from a revolt, because all dynamics oriented towards cleansing or purification symbolize the triumph of sacrificial or sovereign violence that the revolt is destituting. It is sacrifice that purifies, sacrifice that cleanses the world to slaughter the goats that crystallize the new evil on earth.

Sacrifice is precisely the weapon of all reactionary politics, waiting like a shadow within the state formula: “no people has ever doubted that there was an expiatory virtue in the effusion of blood,” wrote Joseph De Maistre in his Treatise on sacrifices.[6] Precisely because the violence of the revolt deposes the sacrificial dynamic, because in it the martyrological power is at stake, that is, the one that seals without blood the revocation of all sovereignty: “A political execution”, asserts Paul W. Kahn, “read as an act of martyrdom, proclaims the weakness, not the strength of the state.”[7] This is because martyrdom threatens to “expose the state and its claim to authority as nothing.” [8] Popular violence is martyrological in this sense: its potency destitutes [9] sovereign violence, exposing its weakness and dissolving its claim to authority as nothingness.

It does not destroy, but destitutes; it does not establish, but revokes. It breaks the subject supposed to know that has erected the discourse, making it fall like a mask, and it can do nothing but exercise sacrificial violence so as to restore order. All calls from the government and the occasional political actor to dialogue are based on the sacrificial fiction, in which all the agents in conflict get solved in the same general equivalent: police lives are as much of a victim of violence as those of citizens who have fallen under the military bullet or police hunt. The government’s discourse is sacrificial precisely when it condemns violence “wherever it comes from.” This sets it up to exercise the greatest violence of all — sovereign violence precisely — which is such because it can crush all the other types of violence that it considers simply sectorial.

But in addition, the sacrificial paradigm raised by the state discourse restores, in turn, capital, to the extent that it restores the equivalent codification that enables state violence to be reconciled in the same unit with the torn revolt of a citizenry out in the open. The martyr breaks sacrifice to the same extent that it exposes its nothingness. Could we say that the notion of sovereignty once proposed by philosopher Georges Bataille is that of a true and properly martyrological sovereignty inasmuch as it implodes the moment it is exercised? [10] And if this is so, would not the Schmittian conception of sovereignty be one that has not assumed the radical nature of its concept, that has never lived up to what it proclaims? [11]

In any case, the term “martyrdom” has had a bad name because, from my point of view, it has always been conceived under the sacrificial aura or, what is the same, it has always been represented from the point of view of the victors who appropriated its concept to capitalize on it in terms of the restitution of order. Using the well-known Benjaminian distinction between pure and mythical violence, I would like to differentiate martyrdom from sacrifice and maintain that the first refers to a popular violence of a redemptive and destituent nature that establishes or preserves nothing and, the latter is oligarchic violence oriented towards the establishment and preservation of order.

In this light, a revolt is martyrological and not sacrificial, and brings with it the courage of living labor in which the affirmation of a potency is played out, rather than the consolidation of power. Beyond the purification of liberal discourse that condemns all violence, wherever it comes from, thereby trying to exempt itself from sacrificial dynamics while reproducing them, it is necessary to vindicate the violence opened up by the revolt that, however, suspends the sacrificial violence that, time and again, does nothing more than exert its mythical death power. It is not a matter of aestheticizing it, but to assume the materiality with which it denounces the injustice of the current state of affairs, exposing sovereign power to the nakedness of its nothingness.

A revolt is never welcome. Crowds don’t know whether to laugh or cry in front of it. They don’t know if it happens for better or worse, precisely because it does not obey any telos or any guarantee to the extent that it exposes the fragility of our bodies before history’s elements. But a revolt never comes in a uniform shape or mode, but is always different, multiple and intense. It is also unpredictable. All efforts to identify its causes always come to a limit. Knowledge goes bankrupt. And suddenly, everyone remembers the thousand reports that kept on showing the misery of our conditions. But at such a moment, we wonder: if the conditions were already there, why did the fuse light at this moment? Why not before or after? Between the conditions and their outbreak, something key always takes place: a murder, an act of radical injustice against certain bodies, committed by the exercise of State violence.

In the Arab Spring, the immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in front of the police station was the imaginal operator that triggered the revolt. In Chile on October 18, thousands of high school students who had evaded the Metro turnstiles were brutally repressed by the police force. Five days after the proclamation of the State of Constitutional Exception, accompanied a nightly curfew apparatus, national and international Human Rights organizations were counting the death toll by State agents as the fierce way in which sacrificial violence was being deployed in the streets of a flooded city.

The revolt breaks out in various ways, an organization can take over — such as the one articulated today by Unidad Social. Like the Unified National Leadership of the Uprising, which articulated a minimum organization during the 1987 Palestinian intifada, Unidad Social could also become an “agency” (a “support” according to Judith Butler) [12] born out of the revolt itself to keep its work alive and not to confiscate it in a dead and completely bankrupt representational apparatus. Because, in the midst of the bankruptcy of a state model violently implemented in 1973, we are witnessing a beginning. 

We do not know what will happen or how events will unfold. But in the face of the devastation wrought by the dictatorship and later by the transition, directing its efforts to separate bodies from their potency, lives from their images, in a neutralization process, the revolt restored their intensity. Faced with the neoliberal body confiscated by the company form — turned “to prey”, said Guadalupe Santa Cruz — the revolt restored a body potency. The fascination experienced by the participants in a political process such as this is entirely linked to the surprise that awaits the conscience — that poor counselor — of what a body can do, what bodies can do. Because the revolt throws us into this: a hand-to-hand combat.

We never imagined what our bodies could do, we were never aware of it. How could we be, if consciousness — that representational apparatus — does nothing more than instill fear in us and push us to calculate our every movement? The revolt is aneconomic precisely because it does not calculate and always runs at a loss. We have already lost comrades in struggle, eyes, academic calendars, international events (APEC-COP 25) and we will continue to lose. Everything has been suspended, then, as Furio Jesi saw: unlike a revolution, a revolt implies the “suspension of historical time.” [13] A suspension that brings with it a radical loss, an unconditional expenditure that is impossible to foresee, but also the opening of a beginning in which we can re-imagine another historical era. It is precisely that beginning that we must embrace today with all the forces of history. Without it, we will not only be left without a future or a past, but above all we will be stripped of the heat of a present.

Rodrigo Karmy Bolton’s The Future is Inherited is now available in English from les presses du réel

Images: Tomas Munita

Notes

1. First published in El Desconcierto on November 27, 2019. 

2. Victor Jara (1932-1973) was a Chilean theater director, actor, playwright and folklore researcher, but generally known as a singer-songwriter, who actively participated in the Popular Unity’s presidential campaign. He was arrested after the coup in 1973 and was sent to the “Estadio Chile” (currently called “Víctor Jara Stadium”) where he was tortured and killed by the military. One of his most relevant songs was “The right to live in peace”, which Jara wrote inspired by Ho Chi Min and the Vietnam War. This song was massively sung during the recent protests along the country. —Editorial note.

3. Jorge González was the leader of Los Prisioneros, one of the main musical bands in recent Chilean history. Formed during the 1980s, they became a critical voice to the political and social order established by the dictatorship. One of their key songs was “The dance of those left behind”, which was massively sung during the protests in Plaza Dignidad. —Editorial note.

4. Originally published in Ficción de la Razón on October 29, 2019, as part of the special dossier “Estado generales de emergencia” coordinated by Sergio Villalobos-Ruminott and Mauricio Amar.

5. José Joaquín Brunner. Democracia, violencia y perspectivas futuras. Online here.

6. Joseph De Maistre. Tratado sobre los sacrificios. México, Sexto Piso, 2009, 24-25.     

7. Walter Benjamin, “On the Critique of Violence.”  

8. Paul W. Kahn. El liberalismo en su lugar. Santiago, Universidad Diego Portales, 2018, 112. 

9. The English edition incorrectly renders “destitutes/destituent” throughout as “dismisses.” —Note added by Ill Will.↰

10. Georges Bataille. Lo que entiendo por soberanía. Buenos Aires, Paidós, 1996. 

11. Carl Schmitt. Teología política. Cuatro ensayos sobre el concepto de soberanía. Buenos Aires, Struhart y Cia., 2005. 

12. Judith Butler. Cuerpos aliados y lucha política. Hacia una teoría performativa de la asamblea. Buenos Aires, Paidós, 2017.

13. Furio Jesi. Spartakus. The Symbology of Revolt, Translated by Alberto Toscano, Seagull Books, Ch. 2. Online here. 

_______

SOURCE: IllWill

The post Fragments of a Chile in Revolt- Rodrigo Karmy Bolton appeared first on Void Network.

Therefore, it is not enough to see the case of Ukraine only through the actions of a Russian authoritarian leader, nor through the prism of a violation of international law. This is for three reasons:

First, because we cannot ignore the presence of NATO, which after the fall of the USSR and in the context of the emerging “neoliberal consensus” became both a military vehicle of consolidation and a police institution against centrifugal forces. Thus, on the basis of the role of the US in this new phase of “globalisation”, NATO became essentially a mechanism for consolidating the US-led empire of capital. To put it in paradigmatic (and largely rhetorical) terms, what exactly did a supposed “defense alliance” do by bombing Yugoslavia without the approval of the Security Council, carrying out one of the largest military operations on European soil? How can it be denied that Yugoslavia was devastated by NATO for the interests of the US and its “New world order” doctrine? Did that event constitute war – at least some form of war – or a “special military operation”? Even if it is not just a powerful military instrument of the Americans, NATO cannot be conceived outside the imperialist policy of the USA. It is worth noting, in this context, that the inter-state relations between Russia and the US over the last 30 years have been largely structured by the initial assurances of the NATO alliance that they did not intend to expand the alliance eastwards and the gradual breaking of these promises. That these assurances, as Spinoza reminds us, have no substantive force outside of actual power relations and their historical unfolding points to the heart of the matter (something we will return to).

Second, war between states in its modern form tends to involve the clash, and therefore the intensification of two or more nationalisms. This is because nationalism is the ideology of the contemporary nation-state and therefore one of the inevitable languages of justification for a state of war. As a determinate historical form, the modern state relied on war for its birth and the organization of society on the scale it proposed: the boundaries of the state as a legal order of sovereignty to coincide with the geographical boundaries of the nation. It is truly an outrageous idea that continues to leave humanity blood-drenched, to produce cultural difference, and to systematically lead to tragedies and ethnic cleansing. Linking soil with blood: a genius German conception! Even the republican conception of the nation that draws on the American and French revolutions, and which admittedly provided the language for an entire revolutionary tradition, inevitably tends, after the consolidation of the state form, to become a language of legitimation of domination, exclusion, violence and expansion.

In the case of the Greek state, nationalism led to the tragedy of Smyrna with the help of the great fantasy – yet one with entirely material consequences – that we called the “Great Idea”. Nationalism is also responsible for the tragedy that Cypriot society has been experiencing for so many decades on both sides of the island. Rhetoric about living space was indeed used by Hitler and is now being used by Putin. But the difference is that the former was a Nazi and as such burned anyone who was not  ‘of aryan race’ in the crematoria, while the latter is the authoritarian leader of a country that sacrificed 20 million people to stop the Nazis. The difference is staggering. And it is a difference of content as much as of form: for all the autocracy, corruption and constant human rights violations that define the dysfunction of official institutions and the huge democratic deficit in the country, Russia is not a fascist state. This, of course, does not justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because whatever the context, it is an invasion. But we must be strict in the analogies and comparisons we make because they determine our perspective and therefore our political stance.

It is also worth pointing out that the identification of Russia with the USSR is untenable, at least in the ideological field. On the other hand, on the geopolitical and economic front, things are clearly more complex, since the USSR (from one point onwards) became to a considerable extent the continuation of the Russian state; thus the Russian Federation, together with its satellites, inherits the treaties left by the USSR. Putin’s rise to power is also the expression of this “continuity of the state”, against the aggressive (and destructive for the plebeian masses) disintegration that preceded it. Besides, apart from some fascists like Georgiades, who else considers “the communists” dangerous and still dreams of exile (really, “dangerous” for whom?). Despite the special symbolic weight of communism in the construction of various identities and perceptions, all countries, in one way or another, move to the rhythm of the capitalist organisation of the economy and society. So does Russia. Within this global system, nationalisms continue to develop and the great powers continue to compete with each other in national terms, without reference to the political-ideological differences of the past. The competition today, similar to some extent to the imperialist competition before the First World War, is about power within the globalised capitalist system. But political-economic competition is always conducted through a multitude of ideological-cultural mediations, de facto historically determined.

Thus, it is difficult to abandon the idea that the cultural representation of Russia in the ‘West’ passes through the imaginative conception (and constitution) of difference. At the state level, the hostility towards Russia clearly has as an objective basis, Russia’s independent hegemonic geopolitical and economic role and ambition (the political expression of which is precisely ‘Putinism’). Also, in the social imaginary (as mediated, of course, by spectacular media representations) the emerging suspicion and hostility towards Russia is due to Putin’s current attempt to regain the country’s old imperial power. On both (related) levels, however, the hostility is fueled by the stereotypical construction of Russia as a threatening authoritarian power coming from the barabaric East. It is within this cultural construction of otherness that the reflexive and endemic anti-communism that some Western military officers and diplomats have long since internalized, finds its functional place.

In this intense interface between the political and economic aspirations of the hegemonic centres and their ideological investments, obsessions and prejudices, international law can only be respected on a case-by-case basis and according to the interests at stake – sometimes invoked and sometimes ignored. Liberals and social democrats of all stripes and tendencies will retort that there is a whole material system of rules, deliberations, agreements, decisions, institutions and bodies which produces what we call ‘international law’, and which has a regulative role; even when it is ignored by some states, its actuality allows us to criticise this attitude while at the same time giving to Right an institutional and therefore practical status (i.e. clearly defining what ‘ought to be done’ and ‘how’ it can be done).

This is certainly not the place for an extended discussion of international law, which de facto presupposes a broader analysis of law in general. Its violation, however, as a fact systematically carried out by the powerful, makes the interpretation of reality on the basis of international law alone a symptom of a normative formalism that does not help explain a complex situation and the dynamics it contains. Founded on the liberal legalist logic that systematized it, international law is utterly incapable of both regulating the actual relations of states and providing a theoretical basis for understanding them. The same can be said differently: vis-à-vis ‘powerful players’, international law is a weak tool and therefore, especially in times of crisis, it is not sufficient either to dictate and organise the practical activity of the powerful, or to take it as the main unit of analysis in understanding complex historical processes, that shape inter-state rivalries and international balances. Unless we want to become the unhappy consciousness of this world, along with liberals and a significant part of the Left. 

The third reason why we need to be careful in our perspective is related to the collective self-identifications and the character of Ukrainian nationalism. It helps us to understand the complexity of Ukrainians’ perception of the Russian invasion, i.e. ultimately how they perceive the ethnic ‘self’ and the ethnic ‘other’ in this particular case. This clearly makes the way in which the invasion of Ukraine is presented by Western officials and the ‘Western’ media very problematic, i.e. as an attack by a foreign power on a fully distinct ethnic society. The empirical data that anyone who knows anything about Ukrainian society can cite suggests something quite different.

Between Russia and Ukraine there is a strong cultural affinity, with deep historical roots, reaching back to the very constitution of Tsarist Russia as the hegemonic political form of the Slavic ethnic group. Even today a large percentage of families in both Ukraine and Russia are mixed, and kinships spread beyond their borders. To this significant part of the population, this particular war seems rather like a civil war. Especially in the east, where there has been secession, a large percentage of Ukrainians have no particular problem with the political attachment to ‘Mother Russia’, which is why Russian forces initially met little resistance by advancing into the country.

On the other hand, colonial control and inequality has been a key index in this complex historical relation. Naturally, the Ukrainian nation-state de facto established its identity in against Russian domination, of which the USSR period was considered a part. This “anti-Russian” national narrative intensified after the events of 2014 in the country, when the balance was disturbed by the violent political shift towards the West and therefore NATO. In this context of geopolitical and economic restructuring, Ukrainian nationalism is becoming radicalized and seems to be gaining traction in the social sphere. Even so, until recently it is doubtful whether, outside the extreme nationalist circles, of which the neo-Nazis of the so-called ‘Right Sector’ (Pravyy Sektor) with their black and red flags or the even broader and more diverse ‘Azov Battalion’, which is part of the Ukrainian national army, most Ukrainians wanted to fight against Russia (which is also true in reverse). This is precisely what Russian expansionism is now decisively reversing, further fomenting Ukrainian nationalism.

In ‘Western’ media and in the mainstream discourse in general there is a deafening silence about the internal political balances and collective identity in Ukraine. In fact, the attack on Ukraine strikes at the pan-Slavic narrative – a central feature of ethnoromanticism there – replacing it with nationalist hatred. Is this not contradictory to the fact that Russia appears to be the main political exponent of this ethno-romantisism? But also, the hybrid character of the collective, national identity in Ukraine, or the fact that it is presented as ambivalent in terms of the distinction between ‘Russian’ and ‘Ukrainian’ nation and the related sense of collective belonging, is a catalyst for the attack. If, in terms of ethno-cultural relations and collective identities, similarity and affinity rather than ethnic difference prevail, without one group necessarily identifying or assimilating the other, the attack from Russia’s perspective ceases to be seen as an invasion. If, even more than in other countries of the former Soviet Union, Ukrainians are, in a sense, in an identity transition, since the process of Ukrainian nation-state building is unstable and ongoing, the attack on Ukraine may have had as an intrinsic purpose to radically interfere in the process. And the instability of the Ukrainian political system and the dysfunction of its democratic institutions actually contributes to this attempted rapprochement with Russia (for a country whose president is a former actor who played the president in a Ukrainian T.V series [!]). Therefore, in the face of the project of stabilising Ukrainian institutions and democracy within the EU. -which seems to have been the main claim of the 2014 protests and which necessarily took the form of anti-Russianism, thus opening up space even for nationalism drawn from the collaborators of the Nazi invasion- Russian imperialism, faced with the very real danger of Ukrainian attachment to NATO (i.e. the expansion of the latter), responded with an operation to strengthen the link with Russia. Of course, since the Russian surprise didn’t last long and the war drags on, it’s hard to see how a regime change could bring anything but instability.

Here it rather seems that we have two sides – Russia and the ‘West’ – that fear and perceive each other as a threat in terms shaped on the one hand by the history of conflicting expansionist nationalisms-imperialisms and on the other hand by the reality shaped by the capitalist economy in its modern globalised version. We will therefore support neither of them! A further reason for not supporting either one is evident from the fact that within the framework of once – but no longer – fringe theories like those of the 4th political theory, we are faced with the possibility of the creation of a deeply authoritarian informal coalition of disparate countries (from North Korea to Iran and China) on an ascending trajectory of conflict with the whole of a distinct civilization now defined in their eyes as “the West”.

Neutrality, by highlighting the community of those from below, with class characteristics and our dynamic peace-promoting practices is, in our opinion, the appropriate attitude in this case and therefore has nothing to do with an abstract refusal of war. This is all the more true since the consequences of such a war will affect us all. In this light, the revival of the international anti-war movement, which has been extinct for over 15 years (better proof of its total absence during the Syrian civil war) could perhaps have some positive influence on developments. However, judging by the content of public discourse, the low dynamics of collective action today and, above all, the proxy nature of the conflict between NATO and Russia, this possibility should not be considered particularly likely. Nevertheless, the anti-war demand for global nuclear disarmament is proving to be extremely necessary today.

Under the weight of developments in Ukraine there is no doubt that this is a moment of paramount historical importance. We are witnessing a direct violent challenge to the balance of power of the hegemonic centres, which is very interestingly linked to the economic challenge being waged by China. Something that has been discussed for a long time may be happening, but the outcome is really uncertain, especially since the ‘first move’ was made by the Russian military state. At a time when many people, while realising the role of planetary domination in the ongoing social and environmental decline, no longer have the courage to speak out, the conflict in Ukraine paints an extremely contradictory picture that has emerged particularly strong in the pandemic and is of immense value both for the left libertarian forces of our time and for radical forces in general. On the one hand we seem to not know how to survive without some kind of state organization, on the other hand the state leads us to social, health, economic and environmental destruction. How do we pragmatically manage such a complex reality?

The dystopia of a nuclear holocaust or a large-scale ecological (hence social) collapse may still seem distant (?), but we cannot ignore the fact that the forces that gave birth to these prospects as a technical possibility and political-military possibility are precisely the dominant forces today: capital, technocracy and all kinds of military-industrial complexes, nationalism and the modern state.

We conclude with some observations which will shed more light on the rationale that leads us to consider the neutrality stance in this war as the only appropriate option from the point of view of social emancipation. Like any authoritarian leader who wages war, Putin, by attacking Ukraine, is undermining, or at any rate endangering, his own power. However, its end will hopefully come with an internal uprising of the Russian people, especially the most oppressed social groups. Ukraine may of course be the occasion for this, but the battle for its downfall cannot be fought on Ukrainian soil. Among other things, because in this case national war and multilateral conflict signify not only the death of soldiers and civilians who have never supported Russia’s authoritarian regime, but also the nuclear threat. This, of course, implies that the phenomenon of Putin’s authoritarian rule cannot be reduced to the realm of individual psychology and personality, as the liberal position, that presents anti-democrats as ‘madmen’, deliberately and with artificial levity tries to sustain. The problem is not that Putin is “insane”. The problem is that the very juxtaposition of democracy and authoritarianism is now losing the formal validity it once had (which historically has always been more complex, of course).

Democratic political systems and their institutions all over the world, regardless of their specifically national versions, are subjected with undiminished intensity to the web of relations and practices that we call ‘capitalism’. So while states continue to be active forces, the contemporary globalised and interconnected world of transnational relations and antagonisms is regulated by the active presence of capital and the imperatives of accumulation and value valorization that define it. So along with a contradiction – transnational competition tends to undermine the capitalist totality that allows it to exist – there is also a truth that the adherents of liberal discourse cannot bear to hear, as it is a truth that calls for political displacement and personal engagement but also for the questioning of multiple cultural constants and perceptions. The configuration of democratic institutions and their articulation with the legal order and the economy allows for the simultaneous and perpetual reproduction, that is, the permanent co-existence, of representation, authoritarianism and inequality in many social fields and in decision-making. It is also a dynamic relationship that today is increasingly unable to take the formal form of democracy. Modern liberal democracies are technocratic oligarchies separated simply by the presence of a social liberalism (which is also challenged by the neo-right reaction).

The pacified societies of the ‘developed’ world in Europe and America are more likely to abandon Ukraine to the expansionist ambitions of a rising Russia than to fight for it. It is not only the experience of two world wars that is, fortunately, frightening. Material affluence, the ideology of producing and consuming infinite objects, the complete commodification of the world and the trivialization of multiple aspects of life by advertising – all of it, that is, which describe the hegemonic conception of ‘growth’ – guarantee (apart from ecological destruction) that war is removed from the range of culturally available options, not only for the sterile upper classes of ‘Western’ societies, but also for the lower classes and subordinate social groups.

And while we could not rule out the resurgence of European and US nationalisms in the face of a common antagonist, we can hardly imagine European citizens sacrificing themselves on the battlefields fighting against the Russians. Especially when everyone knows that the new ‘cold war’ we have already entered is exclusively a game of the powerful for the control of resources and wealth.

But unfortunately, it is even more difficult, to imagine the oppressed fighting an internationalist, anti-nationalist and anti-colonial battle for the equality of people in all corners of this world. This is despite the fact that from the pandemic and the impending ecological collapse to the devastating war in Ukraine, the great issue at stake is the power of the modern state and of capital, the complete inability to control and be controlled.

The question then becomes more crucial than ever and is this: at the dawn of a new ‘cold war’ and in the era of ecological crisis, will the left libertarian forces of our time be able to present a culturally convincing vision to make people believe again in a different way of organizing collective life that includes as its central point the symbiosis of all beings? Or will they forever distance themselves from people by adhering to simplistic rhetorical schemes that are of little interest to anyone? The questions, though theoretically profound, are primarily practical.

Active neutrality in the war raging in Ukraine is our position, the continuation of the global social war against all those who destroy life and freedom is our promise.

Solidarity with the antifascist anarchists in Ukraine and Russia.

DEATH TO TYRANTS –

LONG LIVE ANARCHY- FIGHT FOR GLOBAL FREEDOM

VOID NETWORK – http://voidnetwork.gr

The post The State, Nationalism and the War in Ukraine appeared first on Void Network.

I want to begin with a shout-out to what happened here last night, and to the working class of the city of Seattle, to the rebels of the city of Seattle: I really liked what I saw, that’s why I’m here, you know, to feel that vibe. I would also like to send my solidarity to comrades in Greece. It was they who allowed me to experience insurrection for the first time in 2008. The lessons I’ve learned and the experiences I had there have been so valuable this time around, even though we are in a much different social context. Moreover, a comrade was recently killed at the hands of the police there. To the fallen comrade, Vasillis Maggos, I want to say: rest in power.

My title demands a little bit of explanation. It is a reference to Chernyshevsky [1] , and to the novel he wrote from inside a Czarist prison. Lenin borrowed the title for his 1902 pamphlet, What Is to Be Done? [2] , which provides answers to what he calls “the burning questions of our movement”: what does it mean to constitute a vanguard party? how do we spread consciousness from this vanguard party to the working class? how do we move beyond strikes to a full-on revolutionary political struggle?, etc. Later, in 2001, a text entitled “How It Is to Be Done” appeared in the journal of the French collective Tiqqun. [3] Rather than stating what our goals or objectives should be, Tiqqun sought to shift our focus to the means and the techniques of struggle. Instead of thinking about ends, they thought about the means that we should employ.

My aim here is far less ambitious. As for the grammatical construction, “might should”, from the southern dialect—I tried to Blackify the title a little bit. But it’s also serious, because these are in fact tentative theses and proposals: I’m perfectly okay with being completely wrong about every single thing I put forward today, just so long as it creates a further deeper discussion on strategy. What I really want to do is open up this discussion, and I want to leave it, for people to engage with it as they want to, and to push it further. At the same time, I want the dialogue to be honest. There’s a kind of prevailing posture of cynicism, nihilism, and democratic moralism that holds back insurrection. And I think now is the time: we are experiencing an uprising on a scale that many of us have never lived through. Even if we compare present events to Greece, this thing has gone much further. There are far more martyrs in this struggle than there ever were in the Greek uprising. The time has arrived for strategic thought and reflection.

It’s of course weird to find myself saying this in America, the most counter-revolutionary place on the globe. But we must reorient ourselves, and take these questions seriously. The stakes have been raised to the next level, they’re extremely high now. It’s time for us to think seriously about them.

1. A militant nationwide uprising did in fact occur. The progressive wing of the counter-insurgency seeks the denial and disarticulation of this event.

The obvious is not always so obvious.

We all saw it. We all saw what happened after the murder of George Floyd. What occurred was an extremely violent and destructive rebellion. It was a phenomenon the likes of which we have not seen in America in 40 or 50 years. Very few of us have experienced anything of this magnitude: a precinct was immediately torched in Minneapolis, after which entire cities went up in flames—New York, Atlanta, Oakland, Seattle. Comparisons were quickly made with the riots after Martin Luther King’s assassination. However, I think that we’ve gone further in this case, that 2020 went harder than 1968, and we’re not even done yet.

Despite all of this, the reformers have had the audacity to claim that all of this never actually happened. They are trying to make the burning cop cars disappear, to extinguish from memory the police stations on fire, as if it didn’t happen. Again and again, I hear the same script: someone comes on the news, a political activist gives a talk, and we hear them say something like, “the protests were peaceful and non-violent, they stayed within the bounds of law and order.” No: cops being shot at in St. Louis is not within the bounds of law and order. They’re doing their best to make the event disappear. One has to to wonder what planet they are on that a torched police station appears within the bounds of civility.

This delusion is something that we need to think about. Ultimately, it’s more than a delusion. It unites veritably all the progressive liberals who chatter on about what’s been going on over the past summer. From the Biden democrats to virtually all of the mainstream media not affiliated with Fox News, to the Black Lives Matter people, the agenda pushed by all these groups is the claim that the insurrection did not take place. I even read a recent study by some sort of consulting firm that sought to prove through quantitative means that there was a very civil nature to the protests. [4]

The fact is, whatever data or graphs they draw up, nothing will erase the fact that police cars were on fire in dozens of American cities. So why do liberals feel the need to jump through such incredible hoops in order to erase this insurrection or this uprising? Why is it that the most violent wings of law and order—e.g., Attorney General William Barr—are today the only audible voices willing to acknowledge that the uprising occurred? We need to think this through.

What is at issue is more than just a momentary lapse of sanity: it is a strategy of denial, a counter-insurgent strategy of reform par excellence.

Unconsciously, liberals do recognize that an insurrection occurred. They can’t ignore the shattered glass that occurred in the streets of Seattle yesterday. But what they want is to downplay the significance of these events that mean so much to us, and that we are continually trying to push forward. They want to reassert and reaffirm them, but in a different direction. Ultimately, what they want is to block the possibilities that the revolt has opened up, to dissuade us from going further in this uprising. As with all democratic liberal reformists, what they’re trying to do is exploit the outburst in order to make it so that things change, but only just a little—which is to say, not at all.

There’s a moral component to this as well, a deep ethical problem. This wing of the counter insurgency is just one more way that those in line with the system have found to manage and to exploit Black death. It must be recalled (and I will return to this below) that there are scores of young Black children who lost their lives in the uprising, and that activists, ‘woke’ journalists, progressive politicians of all stripes, and even so-called BLM activists are profiting off their death. This is a continuous narrative in American society, and it will not stop now unless we do something about it.

By denying the event, they seek to obscure the revolutionary truth that was ushered in through the streets. They want to extinguish the present that we brought about. They want to sap our energy while they propose superficial palliative adjustments to preserve the system. The history of America is the history of attempts to reform race relations. If they haven’t gotten it right by now, they never will.

Whatever they do, whatever slight changes they make, there will always remain an insatiable drive to brutalize and kill Black people. Anyone who profits off this change is complicit in that murder. If you block the revolutionary trajectory of the rebellion, you have blood on your hands. Anyone who remains complicit with the system is the enemy, tout court.

By contrast, the Right has adopted the opposite approach to the event. Besides us revolutionaries, they are the only voices today that acknowledge that the rebellion occurred. There’s an illuminating honesty to what William Barr says. Think of it this way: before he can forcefully smash and eventually suppress an insurrection, he must first acknowledge that one did, in fact, occur. In this way, there’s an honesty to Trump’s words. Trump and his entire Fox News crowd, all those who are calling for law and order, have no choice but to acknowledge the existence of the uprising, precisely because they want to crush it. Just today, Trump declared on the news that he intends to send federal stormtroopers not only to Portland but to New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. [5] To justify such a choice, he must acknowledge that the uprising did in fact happen. These are the two sides into which our opponents may be divided, the Janus face of the State we confront today.

What is more, the rebellion shows the liberals what it means to defund the police halfway, instead of abolishing and outright destroying them. If anyone thinks it suffices to undertake a series of small measures and quick fixes, or that they can re[form] and preserve the police as a force while simply shrinking it—well, the result is what is happening right now in Portland. Let that be an example to liberals. On the other hand, those who recognize that a change really did occur, and who now seek to stomp it out are typically more aligned with fascist trajectories and politics, since they are typically the same people who feel the need to dream up and defend a sort of immutable, eternal, and transcendental idea of law, order, and white supremacy. Whatever deviates from the ideal, this fascist side of order will seek to annihilate. For this reason, it is compelled to refuse those same reforms that the liberals attempt to push through. For instance, this is why Trump is so upset about changing the names of military bases. The issue itself doesn’t actually matter, but the sort of power he represents cannot stand such changes, and seeks instead to crush and flatten the event itself in its tracks.

There’s only one way to deal with this fascist wing of the state: they operate with violence, and we return with violence that’s more powerful. However, as concerns the other, more reformist side that aims to deny the event in order to incorporate it into their own objectives, we need to be a little bit sharper in how we handle them. We need to be deceptive, like Machiavelli’s fox. Honesty isn’t their mode of operating. They have always sought to deny what lies right before our eyes. Deception and subversion is how we are going to have to play them: we need to deceive them twice over.

When it comes to these two sides of state, I do not wish to claim that either one is any more nefarious than the other, but simply that these are the two sides that we have to contend with, and ultimately to defeat.

2. While spearheaded by a Black avant-garde, this largely multi-ethnic rebellion managed to spontaneously overcome codified racial divisions. The containment of the revolt aims at reinstating these rigid lines of separation and policing their boundaries.

To begin with, it must be said that former African slaves and their ancestors have been the avant-garde of everything in this country. There’s no culture in America, in this American wasteland, without us. There’s no classical music; there’s jazz, and that was invented by us. And besides that, America has nothing to offer the world and it never has.

However, I used the term avant-garde in a more specific sense. There were no leaders. We were not leaders of the revolt. We were the avant-garde who spearheaded it, we set it off, we initiated it. What ensued was a wildly multi-ethnic uprising, and the reformists will do everything in their power to make it so that this truth is erased. If you were out on the streets, you know you saw people of all different kinds. Different bodies, different shapes, different genders, manifested themselves in the streets together.

There’s a lot of talk about how to end racism, especially within corporate and academic circles. We saw how to end racism in the streets the first weeks after George Floyd was murdered.

It was only after the uprising began to slow down and exhaust itself that the gravediggers and vampires of the revolution began to reinstate racial lines and impose a new order on the uprising. The most subtle version of this comes from the activists themselves. Our worst enemies are always closest to us. You’ve all been in these marches, these ridiculous marches, where it’s, “white people to the front, black people to the center”—this is just another way of reimposing these lines in a more sophisticated way. What we should be aiming for is what we saw in the first days, when these very boundaries began to dissolve.

The most devastating example of how the racial lines and boundaries are reimposed comes from the example of Rayshard Brooks’ long-time partner, Natalie White, who offers the most blatant example of this racial policing seen so far. White was called out by so-called “woke” Twitter activists for her involvement in the protests in Atlanta over her dead partner. Eventually, they implicated her in the burning of the Wendy’s where Rayshard was killed. It is up to us to never reinforce these sort of bourgeois constructs of guilt or innocence. Whether she had a hand in the destruction or not, I don’t judge her either way. That is not up to us, we stand in solidarity no matter what. But I do hold accountable, I do place blame on the wanna be do-gooders, these “woke” Twitter activists who implicated her in what occurred. I lay the blame solely on those activists, and Rayshard Brooks lays the blame on them from the grave.

Order neatly defines collections of people — these are the prerogatives of prison guards, of the police. We should remember the example of John Brown, who was often criticized by his so-called allies and friends for relating to Black people in a way that they deemed unacceptable. If you saw the way John Brown related to Black people in his time, you might think he was being criticized for relating to Black people as human beings. Every time we cross over those racial boundaries and meet each other as human beings, this is when we will be criticized, especially by the most advanced parts of the counter-insurgency. John Brown was heavily criticized for his advocacy of militant tactics, and Frederick Douglass was among his most vocal critics of his advocacy for insurrection. Douglass would come around later, but history would prove Brown right: the only way to abolish slavery is through violent insurrection. History has now redeemed him to some extent. But what I want us to think about is this: if John Brown was alive today, what would he be like? How would he behave? John Brown would be in jail alongside Natalie White for crossing over those boundaries.

3. By avoiding the morbid libidinal core of white supremacy, identity politics, intersectionality, and social privilege discourse comprise the most sophisticated sector of this police apparatus.

We’ve all come in contact with it at some point, particularly if we have been involved in politics for some time. We all know that identity politics, this talk about “white privilege” and what people call “intersectionality”—all it does is reinforce the racial lines that we’re trying to overcome. If it ever had any use or goal, the uprising has superseded it at this point. Let me work through these ideas one by one.

Privilege: I think we all know, or we can all admit, or we should admit, that privilege has become a purely psychological concept. There’s a long history to the notion of white privilege. It dates back to W.E.B. Du Bois, to Theodore Allen, to Noel Ignatiev, to Harry Haywood. For each of these authors, what was in question was a theoretical construct whose aim was to incite white workers to strike alongside Black workers. Somehow in the twists and turns that are American politics, the notion became psychological, a way to make white people feel good about their guilt. If you look at, for instance, Peggy McIntosh’s definitive text on white privilege, she talks about the privilege of being able to chew with your mouth closed. I don’t give a fuck about chewing with my mouth closed. [6]

As for intersectionality: I did a talk at Red May so I won’t go into this too deeply here, but as John Clegg and I tried to show, the presuppositions that intersectionality holds are becoming empirically false. [7] What the data is beginning to show is that, for instance, there are more Black women prison guards than there are those going into prison. This doesn’t discredit the struggle and plight of Black women, but as a construct, intersectionality is showing its limits. In fact, there are more white women being incarcerated today than Black women, oddly enough. As for Black men, we all know they just sit in jail and stay in jail.

Whatever intersectionality once wanted to do is no longer feasible or viable as a guide for us. In my talk with Red May, I suggest that we get back to the roots of Black feminism. We need categories that understand the Black feminist struggle beyond the oppression that the system inflicts upon them. I cited Toni Cade Bambara’s book called The Black Woman (1970), in her excellent preface, she refuses to define what a “Black woman” is. She does not say that a Black woman is the intersection of two oppressions; she does not say that Black women are in the margins of two different systems of hierarchy. What she argues, rather, is that Black women are an open possibility to be further understood through their revolutionary activity. In place of intersectionality as a discourse of systemic oppression, what we need to do is to bring back the idea of Black feminism as a discourse of struggle.

Finally, by opening up this definition of what Black women are and who they are, what Toni Cade Bambara was saying that Black women cannot be tied down by any static identity imposed upon them. Of course they are something more. And if we look at the history of Black folks in this country, we’re always something more than what has been hoisted upon us.

Identity politics, intersectionality, and social privilege discourse: all are modalities of the police.

What’s more, and above all, is that each of these discourses ignore the morbid and terrifying libidinal politics that undergirds race in this country. It took someone as courageous as James Baldwin to say this, and everyone is still afraid to repeat it. If you read his phenomenal short story, “Going to Meet the Man,” [8] you can see the dynamics of racism in this country acutely. To briefly summarize the story: it starts in the bedroom of a white heterosexual couple. The white man is struggling with impotence. How does he get over his impotence? He remembers back to a time as a child where he was brought to a lynching. At that lynching the corpse was not only mutilated, it was sexually mutilated, and he was given the genitalia. Once he remembers being handed the genitalia, he is able to become erect.

This is deep stuff. No one likes talking about it. But this is the core of racism that we need to reach. What’s more, I think no one wants to touch this part of the race problem because we are all implicated in it. It is obvious that white liberals get off on videos of Black murder. It is even more obvious that there are Black liberals who are more than happy to sell these videos of Black death for their own careerist goals. So long as we fail to take into account these libidinal drives within racism, we will not be able to explain how and why Ahmaud Arbery was killed. It had nothing to do with the police. It had to do with what is driving American society as such.

4. The insurgency cannot be confined within any well-circumscribed sociological category. By necessarily exceeding all classification, it is an excluded remnant detaching itself from all that binds together the American wasteland. Consequently, this combatant formation can only be defined in terms of its movement and its development, as that which emerged during the first weeks of the revolt and which will dissolve itself upon the full completion of the revolutionary project.

As I said earlier, every conceivable kind of person participated in the revolt. This can be confirmed by anyone who participated in the revolt itself. There is no category that can sum up all of who was there. The best we can say is that what we saw was the inclusively-excluded, or the part of America that has no part in it, and that wants nothing to do with this place. Such a formation can only be grasped by how it is moving, outside and against the current state of things, that can only be traced by way of its trajectory: against the state and capital, against American society. What is now up to us is to deepen and strengthen this spontaneous organization, so that we come up with something together that is even more terrible, even more powerful, than what we saw last night. Something that splits American society in half.

5. The so-called the Black leadership, therefore, cannot and does not exist. It is a chimera to be found exclusively in the white liberal imagination.

You hear it everywhere. I’ve heard it from every city, every friend who texted me. If I called a friend and said, “Hey, what happened in NOLA?”, or “What happened in Chicago?” If there were riots, if people got busy, there was no mention of a Black leadership. If things stopped, if things were stultified, all we heard about was a Black leadership.

The thing is, I have never in my life actually seen a Black leader. Why? Because they don’t exist. If there are Black leaders, they’re dead like Martin and Malcolm. If you’re worth your salt, you will be killed. If there are Black leaders, they are in jail with Mumia and with Sundiata. If there are Black leaders, they are on the run with Assata.

There is only one category of people who speak of Black leaders, and we know them as white liberals. The Black leadership is nothing other than a figment and hallucination that exists solely in the imagination of the white liberal’s mind. The odd thing about it is that somehow white liberals have more contact with Black leaders than I have ever come across in my entire life. It is as if a channel extends from the Black leadership directly into their head.

There have been reasons proposed as to why the classical formation of Black leadership no longer exists. One argument, which can be derived from many of the new sociological studies (there was a big report about this in the New York Times as well), asserts that to develop a firm hegemonic leadership of the sort we saw in the past typically requires a substantial middle class. But if you look at the data from the past 40 years, the Black middle class has been under constant threat. Hopefully it stays like that, honestly. But it is very hard to define what exactly the Black middle class is. If you do say there is this well-defined group, and if you’re able to circumscribe this well-defined group, they typically exist within the white community. Just to speak a little bit more personally from my experience in New York, I am hard pressed to think of ever meeting a Black middle-class person growing up, or of ever even hearing their rhetoric and their nonsense. But it’s not really a thing anymore.

Why does the white liberal need to hallucinate and invent a Black leadership for him or herself? Ultimately, it is because whitey loves property. Property enjoys a special prestige in American life, it has a special kind of sanctity. We always get these calls for the Black leadership from white liberals whenever the windows start to crack. There is a very important reason that property has this particular kind of sanctity in America, as many historians are starting to confirm and argue. [9] For most of its history, the most important property in America was human property, shackled and chained. We need to weaponize this argument, and say that whenever property is protected, it is protected for white supremacist ends. If property is truly the pursuit of happiness, in that trifecta of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the existence of that happiness and property is premised upon the negation of Black life and the negation of Black liberty. So the protection of property is something that we need to attack explicitly.

6. The current crisis derives from a contradiction that proceeds from the two Janus-faced sides of post-Cold War American governance: an inconsistency between the demands of the sovereign imperial State and globalized biopolitical security. As a result, the metropolitan center has begun to experience the sort of chaos and the instability that it has classically sewn within the colonial periphery.

This dynamic captures the situation that we are living in today, and which we have been experiencing acutely over the past few months.

On the one side, we have state sovereignty, the classical notion of the state. Following Schmitt, but most importantly following Agamben, the paradoxical foundation of the state proves to be important to the way it operates. In order to define the state, the state must employ extra-legal and extra-juridical measures in order to found itself. Every time the state founds itself, it must go outside the law that it seeks to create. What has occurred classically, and we have a lot of historical examples of this in America, is that whenever there’s a crisis, the state imposes some sort of state of exception in order to create the order that it needs to reassert itself.

As we saw, for example, in the American Civil War, in the two Red Scares, and most recently in the War on Terror, the executive branch of the government has continually mobilized itself beyond its formal legal parameters and confines.

We see this today especially with Trump. Trump is using and abusing his executive powers, but it is better to say that he is using them in the way that they were set out to be used. What was originally the province of the legislative branch has now been taken over by Trump himself.

This component of the U.S. asserting itself has also shown itself in its foreign wars. We need to keep in mind, and I will come back to this, that—and for some reason this fact has been downplayed in the past 20 or 30 years—America is the one imperial power in the globe, and it serves itself aggressively around the world. After the collapse of the [Soviet Union] and the Cold War, we have seen the United States become the police officer, or the storm trooper, of the entire Earth. This is one side of governance.

It is important to contrast this with another form of governance, which is typically called biopolitical discipline, or biopolitical security. The latter differs from the enforcement of the law carried out by the classic state. Rather, it names the management of lives. If the state kills, biopolitics is concerned with the protection of those lives—for its own ends, of course.

The most recent regime of biopolitical control is what is known as “security”. What “security” does is it allows an event to happen, so as to then manage that event. These events are varied. They can be something like pandemics, like the COVID-19 pandemic we’re going through today; these could be famines, or disasters like Katrina; and they could also be insurrections like the one we are hopefully fomenting right now. What the state does in these instances is to make a statistical calculation and try to find acceptable terms within which it can allow events such as pandemics to occur, while keeping them within neatly circumscribed boundaries.

In addition to the paradox of the state that we see in the state of exception, there is also a strange biopolitical paradox of preparedness that we are experiencing right now. The paradox typically goes like this: after a disasters—say, a pandemic or a famine—there is a drive within the security apparatus to begin preparing for the next disaster to come. After SARS in the 2000s, there was a big push to be prepared for the next coming pandemic. This over-preparedness then is put on the back burner when it comes to light that the next disease is not going to appear when we expect it to appear. The famed medical anthropologist Andrew Lakoff drew attention to this paradox, which we have seen again recently. There has been preparedness for pandemics, but the preparedness was then put on the back burner, so that when the COVID-19 pandemic came we were still not ready for it. We are dealing at once with two different types of paradox here: one that must venture outside of itself in order to found itself, and the other a cycle of preparedness that consistently generates unpreparedness.

There is the legal side and the statistical side of the state, the nation state in its classic form and this more global operation of security. I would like to argue that these two directives are colliding with each other and forming some sort of crisis.

Legal means to an ends have been in a constant state of crisis: Trump just can’t do anything right. Whatever he does seems to backfire, and it does not seem to always be the worst thing. Trump and his own deluded mind has become an agent of anarchy. [10] Now of course he doesn’t think he is–it is up to us, when this chaos reigns, to utilize this for our own ends. What I’m saying is that we need to inhabit this chaos that the state is inflicting upon itself.

Unlike liberals and reformists, we are not here to reaffirm and reassert law and order. We are not here to transform America into one big safe space. We are here to make the chaos and the disorder more terrible than it has ever been.

We must do what revolutionaries have always done: we must make the contradiction intolerable.

7. As the rebel-slaves did with the periodic outbreaks of yellow fever in Haiti, there is a hidden partisan knowledge to be uncovered surrounding the novel coronavirus pandemic that also can be exploited and weaponized against established power.

In the Imaginary Party’s best book, entitled To Our Friends [11] , the authors mention a pamphlet issued by the CDC in 2012 on the subject of disaster preparedness. [12] It is a part American Tiqqunists tend not to mention. In order to make disaster preparedness pertinent and hip to the youngsters, the CDC invokes the example of preparing for a zombie apocalypse. Their basic argument was that if people can prepare for a zombie apocalypse, they will be able to prepare for a natural disaster such as a flood, a storm, a pandemic, or even an insurrection.

The Invisible Committee argue in their book that this fear of zombies has a long and racialized history, linked in no uncertain terms to the fear of the Black proletariat. And the other side of this fear that doesn’t want to be mentioned, that refuses to be mentioned or is repressed, resides in the paranoia of the white middle class over its own worthlessness.

If we look back over the history of zombies, the figure of the zombie appeared within the voodoo utilized during the Haitian Revolution. There was a person by the name of Jean Zombi who ended up taking the name because he participated in the massacre of slave owners. What I think is particularly instructive for our purposes today is that the Haitian insurgents were perfectly aware that they could use the yellow fever pandemic against their former masters and against the army, whether this be Napoleon’s army, or the party of order more generally. The insurgents waited until the yellow fever outbreak took hold. They knew that their former slave masters’ army would be devoured by the pandemic, and they also knew that they had built up an immunity to that pandemic. So they waited until the army had been decimated by yellow fever, and then they launched their guerilla attacks.

What I am arguing for here is something very similar. We all know that Black people and brown people were disproportionately affected by the COVID pandemic. This is a medical problem. But it is much more than a mere medical-scientific problem, it is a political problem. We must reject the sort of sanitized liberal politics of safety that is afraid of the pandemic, that is largely a sanitary discourse around masks, distancing, etc. I know this is a political issue now. But, on the flip side, I’m not defending right-wing conspiracy theorist ideas that the pandemic does not exist, or that it is just a flu, etc.. What I’m proposing here is that we develop a kind of partisan knowledge—our own knowledge about the pandemic—to exploit the pandemic for our own good, and to use the knowledge of the pandemic as a weapon against our enemies.

8. The insurrection will involve precise coordination from within the constellation of riots: the paradoxical organization of disorder beyond any measure of control. Accordingly, the problem of insurrection has equal parts social and technical dimensions.

What I am advocating is a paradoxical ordering of disorder, an Organized Konfusion (for those who remember the rap group). To do this, we must read up on tactics: we must look into what exactly was smashed; what exactly was looted; and how and why the occupations were effective or ineffective. We need to think strategically about the chaos that we inflict in the streets.

What is more, we also need to anticipate new forms of tactics, struggles and strategies that will emerge, so as to intensify these struggles and tactics. We can anticipate that occupations and rent strikes are going to occur in the near future due to the looming threat of eviction that is occurring in all of our heavily gentrified cities. But I think we need to go beyond these defensive struggles and to be more creative and to initiate tactics that go on the offensive. In fact, what I am advocating here is employing the whole arsenal of proletarian strategies and tactics–from riots, to strikes, to blockades.

But we need to be creative in our tactics and strategies. As we have seen in the recent Twitter hacks, these are just as important. What’s important is that we be creative in how we deploy these strategies and tactics.

What is the modern equivalent of the telephone exchange in Barcelona that was so savagely fought over during the May Days in 1937? What is the modern equivalent of the St. Petersburg rail line that the insurgent workers fought so hard over in revolutionary Russia? We have a unique problem, in that we live in a huge country. We need to figure out creative ways to break this distance and utilize it for our own ends, i.e., as pure means.

9. Materialize the ever-present specter of a second, more balkanized, civil war by fragmenting the fragments of a crumbling empire.

At least since Trump was elected and took office, the archetype of civil war has been looming over this country. There are historical reasons for this. Since American Civil War was for some the most traumatic experience this country has ever collectively undergone, and for others the most liberating, it stands as a figure that is continually recalled within the collective imaginary. But, I think there are also structural reasons. The fundamental operation of the state works by warding off the ubiquitous threat of civil war. The State as such can be thought of as that which blocks and inhibits civil war. What is unique about this country is our singular emancipatory tradition, which is itself bound up with our understanding of civil war.

I would otherwise here cite Kenneth Rexroth’s excellent autobiography, where he explains that the radical abolitionists who took part in the Civil War gave birth to children who became the first era of the American socialist, anarchist, and communist labor movement. [13] But I think the best example comes from Du Bois’s classic book, Black Reconstruction. [14] It was the proletarian general strike of the ex-slaves that truly put the final nail in the coffin of slavery. It is precisely this lineage of an emancipatory, liberatory, but nonetheless violent, civil war that needs to be updated for its second coming. Another important precedent is Harry Haywood’s “Black-Belt” thesis. As a member of the central committee of the Communist Party USA, Haywood argued that revolution in the United States of America would involve an independent Black state in the South. I think this is no longer feasible, but I think what he was grasping at, and was trying to deal with, was the problem of revolution in a country that is simply massive.

The revolution here presents a problem of sheer scale for us. This is, I think, why Haywood argued for the breaking apart of America. We have no historical precedent for a revolution in such a large, industrialized, and modern state, so we have a unique problem to grapple with.

I do not know exactly what this looks like. What is certain is that this country is already beginning to break and fracture, and it is up to us to break and fracture it further, into so many pieces that it can never be put back together again.

Revolution, here more than anywhere else, will involve the messy task of division. Here too, we have a unique problem, for we must avoid the rather aggressive, ugly, and dangerous nationalism that occurred in other cases of civil war that we have seen over the past forty years. I am not advocating another series of Yugoslav wars, nor am I advocating what has occurred in Syria. Nonetheless, we must harness civil war as an emancipatory liberatory power. The fundamental goal is to break apart America into a constellation of federated communes.

10. The fulfillment of the revolutionary project is ultimately an inescapable ethical obligation that each of us have to the dead and the exploited.

At the risk of sounding naive, I sincerely believe that the riots that we have all witnessed, and hopefully participated in, this summer have opened the window to insurrection and even a full-blown revolution. It is possible that I may be miscalculating the potentialities that have emerged. Still, it is entirely impossible for anyone to have participated in the current uprising without having the fundamental core of their being unalterably changed. As for myself, and I know for many of you, we feel the revolution deeply within our souls, and it changes our very outlook, the approach to how we live our lives. All the pervasive cynicism, all the rational self-interest, all the nihilism, all that is constitutive of the typical American citizen is slowly being worn away by the insurrection and the uprising.

What this shows us is that the revolution is truly beyond us, truly beyond each and every one of us here. It surpasses all the boundaries thrown up by American individualism. It forces us to finally look beyond ourselves and recognize that America has wreaked havoc as an imperial power around the globe for a century.

And the fight is not only for the living, but also for the dead. We owe the revolution to the millions of slaves who never knew a second of freedom. What the long list of martyrs who have fallen during this uprising deserve from us is nothing other than the completion of the revolution.

Pasolini wrote an essay about a trip to America. What really took him was one of the phrases that no one says anymore but was a big part of the Civil Rights movement: “we need to throw our entire bodies into the struggle.” [15]

The dead of the struggle scream out for vengeance, and we must avenge their deaths. As Benjamin famously put it, “not even the dead will be safe from the enemy if he is victorious”. [16] Tonight is the night to begin to settle accounts once and for all, to end their victorious reign upon the globe, and to allow the dead to finally rest.

• 1 https://archive.org/details/cu31924096961036
• 2 https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/
• 3 https://voidnetwork.gr/2012/07/18/how-is-it-to-be-done-by-tiqqun/
• 4 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/10/george-floyd-black-lives-matter-police-protests-widespread-peaceful/5325737002/ & https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/knowledge/society/Protests-in-the-wake-of-George-Floyd-killing-touch-all-50-states
• 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_deployment_of_federal_forces_in_the_United_States
• 6 https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/mcintosh.pdf
• 7 https://youtu.be/MHMeYtYHiKM
• 8 https://www.cristorey.net/uploaded/Academics/2019-2020/Summer_Reading/James_Baldwin_Going_To_Meet_the_Man.pdf
• 9 https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/how-slavery-shaped-american-capitalism & https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/enterprise-and-society/article/slavery/EAF172288A7718B082A074603D149A48
• 10 See, Marten Bjork, “Phase two – the reproduction of this life.” https://www.tillfallighet.org/tillfallighetsskrivande/phase-two-the-reproduction-of-this-life
• 11 https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-invisible-committe-to-our-friends
• 12 https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/zombie/index.htm
• 13 http://www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/autobio/index.htm
• 14 http://www.webdubois.org/wdb-BlackReconst.html
• 15 Pasolini, In Danger: A Pasolini Anthology.
• 16 https://www.sfu.ca/~andrewf/CONCEPT2.html

The post How It Might Should Be Done – Idris Robinson appeared first on Void Network.

Humans are an extraordinary result of evolution. It is a great power to be the most highly evolved creature in our conceivable knowledge and, in that, each one of us has a great responsibility. Problem solving is something that all humans do intuitively every day. It matters not what class, race, age, educational level; every single person can and does solve problems every day. The size, form and manifestations of those problems vary greatly but there is one major problem that transcends the rest and affects every single one of us. That problem is capitalism. This form of free-trade economics based on infinite growth models has proven to be unsustainable. A modern-day solution to the problems posed on the Earth and faced by all animals, human and otherwise, due to human activities can be found in the United Nation’s (2015) 17 Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs. There has also existed since as early as the 19th century a political philosophy that can provide a social, political, and economic framework to accompany the well-defined scientific solutions to our environmental issues. Anarchism, as a political philosophy, realizes that society is entirely able to govern itself (Miller, 2003, 3) and was originally introduced as a critique to industrial capitalism (Proudhon, 1893, 48). It is not within the realm of this essay to defend anarchism against the negative portrayal it has received*. Instead, Proudhon’s political anarchism will be used to accompany the UN’s Sustainable Development as a social, political, and economic framework for a sustainable planet.

Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals calls for “peace, justice, and strong institutions”. Evidently, these virtues are something the global community seemingly lacks. Conventional anarchism focuses on individual and societal cooperation and cohesion and “urges man to think, to investigate, to analyze every proposition” (Goldman, 1921, 22-23). Instilling Proudhon’s anarchic political philosophy, ideologies, and practices will make achieving this goal more realistic because it has been developed through inductive reasoning (Proudhon, 1893). As seen on the “Scale of Knowledge” from Dr. Floris van den Berg, the same highly certain method of acquiring knowledge is also used in the natural sciences, such as physics and chemistry (van den Berg, 2012). In this sense, anarchism is something of the science of politics. As our species developed free-will over basic survival instincts, people were the first animals to live outside of natural law. This affords us countless innovations that provide the comfort and safety to question existence. Before science, it was widely believed that we were descendants of divine beings and, given only the condition that we follow a set of rules established by these gods, the Earth and everything on it was infinite and made for us. This anthropocentric perspective instilled with heteronomous ethics is still widely engrained in global society. However, the recognition of anthropogenic environmental impact can be dated back as far as Plato’s Critias dialogues where he unconcernedly notes soil erosion and deforestation due to agricultural advancements (Attfield, 2018, 3). The fatal flaw of humanity is the continuance of anthropocentricism. If one can only view humans as the apex of life for whom the Earth was created, as opposed to one step in evolutionary time, it is not possible to live sustainably. This alongside prescribed heteronomous ethics systematically removes the virtues of self-awareness, self-responsibility, and autonomy necessary to understand that the ecosystem is finite and that perhaps we are not the be-all, end-all of biological evolution.

Anarchism attempts to bring these virtues to the forefront of humanity by calling for the elimination of overruling heteronomous virtues found in the institutions of religion, property, and government (Goldman, 1910; Proudhon, 1892). Following the Green Revolution in the 1950s, which involved using newly developed artificial fertilizers and heavy irrigation techniques to maximize food production, the development of environmental science and concern for the effects of increased large-scale agriculture and industrialization rapidly became more prevalent. With the release of The Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962, the non-scientific community was able to read an alluring and beautifully written prose that clearly outlined the spread of pollutants from one side of the world to the other (Attfield, 2018, 3). In 1972, The Limits to Growth was published. Written by an international team of multidisciplinary academics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it evaluated those factors which limit growth of our species could be narrowed into five basics: population growth, nonrenewable resource capacity, industrial and agricultural production rates, and pollution output (Meadows et al, 1972, 11). Clearly, these five indicators hold true today. The Limits to Growth also set out to provide an accessible handbook for how people can “achieve a state of global equilibrium” by limiting ourselves and our production of material goods; thus, we can “live indefinitely” (Meadows et al, 1972). These texts were some of the first initiatives by environmentalists to provide complex information in a concise, accessible manner for the general public. In this sense, the various researchers concerned for the environment aimed to expand the anthropocentrism that dominated to a more “ecocentric” (Attfield, 2018, 12) worldview. While it is a much more distorted and silenced voice, anarchism (Goldman, 1910; Proudhon, 1893) recognized this ecocentric worldview by maintaining the philosophy that Gods and the State are socially constructed authoritative figures that can only exist through the peoples’ submission to the rules outlined by these archetypal figures.

Meanwhile, just around the time The Limits to Growth was published, a new ideology of capitalism had been introduced and rapidly appropriated by governments and industries worldwide. It promoted most notably three assumptions: (1) “commercial value could be maximized by handing management of companies and public policy to exceptionally smart, and highly motivated people”, (2) “commercial value, so maximized, would be a good proxy for social value without government interference”, and (3) “the redistributions of income resulting from this maximization, whether within countries or between them, were not a proper concern for economists” (Collier et al, 2021, 638). These quotations are from Capitalism: what has gone wrong, what needs to be changed, and how it can be fixed, a 2021 article in the Oxford Review of Economic Policies which poses these questions to a selection of leading capitalist economists. Their summation of these assumptions is immediately followed by the statement: “Unfortunately, no part of this new ideology proved to be correct” (Collier et al, 2021, 638). As well, the article states that these 3 main drivers of the newest manifestation of capitalism “resulted in social and political polarizations which have become unsustainable” (Collier et al, 2021, 638). It is clear there is now consensus on all sides that the current dominating economic methodology and resulting society is unsustainable and the result of misinformed, misdirected guidance (Attfield, 2018; Collier et al, 2021; Goldman, 1910; Miller, 2010; Proudhon, 1893; van den Berg, 2012). In this revelation, it gives hope that there are grounds for systemic change.

A common term used to critique globalization and free-market capitalism is ‘neocolonialism’. It describes the phenomenon wherein nations that were previously ravaged due to colonialism are now targeted for extremely valuable resources such as precious metals and oil. In statements such as, “The major untapped pool of cheap young workers for the next few decades is Africa and the region is ripe for conventional capitalism”, also extracted from page 643 of the 2021 Oxford Economic Policy Review article, it is clear we must be vigilant in deciding on a global system that will not lead us back but forward. Global free-market capitalism is seen as a “neo” or new form of colonialization. Another view of this can be found in the article in defense of capitalism in the distinction between “winners” and “large groups of uncompensated losers” under the capitalist system (Collier et al, 2021). Aptly so, the result was and is “disaffection and political activism with unpredictable repercussions” (Collier et al, 2021). No deliberation is provided in the article. The only understanding of political activism in this statement is with the vague, negative association of “unpredictable repercussions”. This presents a fallacy of what can come from positive political activism in response to unsatisfactory laws and regulations. One direct example of positive political activism by anarchists is dumpster-diving. Ann Meneley (2018) presents specifically the point of view of Danish dumpster-divers that, “It is perceived as functional, as wasting is seen as stupid”, though this is a view taken by most modern anarchists. Meneley also recognizes the group “Food Not Bombs” which is an international anarchist collective that feeds the impoverished and homeless populations with meals cooked entirely from ‘dumpstered’ food. Dumpster diving is an act of direct rebellion that only exists when a nation lives outside of its means. Educating the Stupid is a concept developed by Dr. van den Berg (2012) which discusses, in part, that the combined ecological footprint of the global population must stay within the Planet’s carrying capacity for our species. The same concept is reverberated through The Limits of Growth report. The seemingly incendiary title of this ethical concept sets to reiterate an ethical standard that has resounded in the speech of many great minds such as Albert Einstein who is famously quoted to have said: “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing”. In the age of knowledge and technology, it is no longer acceptable to feign ignorance of the various consequences of lives based on production, consumption, and infinite growth in a finite ecosystem. At this point, there is only stupidity in those of us who know and do not act.

Aside from the environmental and societal devastation caused by global trade and industry practices, the driving force of capitalism, consumerism, is inherently unsustainable. Though once viewed as a sign of wealth and well-being when a country’s citizens were able to be effective spenders, nowadays, consumerism is being discussed more frequently as a health detriment (Meneley, 2018). On one hand, citizens in impoverished regions, ie. the “losers”, live lives of “involuntary simplicity” (Meneley, 2018). Meanwhile, mental illnesses exhibited in behaviors such as hoarding and physical illnesses such as morbid obesity are rampant in wealthier nations, or the nations of “winners”. Consequently, initiatives encouraging minimalism, or “voluntary simplicity”, immerge in response to these ailments of overconsumption (Meneley, 2018). Capitalism focuses on unbridled maximization of profit through consumer spending, thus requires branding and advertising techniques to promote greater consumption. These tactics often include creating a sense of self for the consumer and encouraging “self-branding”, as the consumer should view themselves as a commodity (Meneley, 2018). Anarchism brings value to individual freedom of expression and calls for the elimination of property (Goldman, 1910; Proudhon, 1893). As expressed so eloquently by Emma Goldman, a distinguished anarchist and feminist pioneer, value is manifested by someone “to whom the making of a table, the building of a house, or the tilling of the soil, is what the painting is to the artist and the discovery to the scientist, — the result of inspiration, of intense longing, and deep interest in work as a creative force” (Goldman, 1921, 24). In other words, anarchism encourages the individual to find what work they can do that does not ultimately feel like work but feels like the fulfillment of one’s personal values. This recognition of ‘self’ in a career path allows for a level of self-responsibility and social obligation often not afforded by a consumer driven society.

So, while globalized trade ravages the underdeveloped nations, consumerism plagues the rest, and the greatest damage is incurred by the ecosystem and non-human animals. Just as no one would deny the atrocities of imperialism, colonialization, fascism, or any other form of absolute authoritative rule, the vast disparities between the winners and losers under capitalism are well-known. Additionally, the complete devastation of the planet’s biodiversity, natural resources, and the ecosystem is not news. The current world economic system and alleged lack of political interference have failed. The solution needs to be a complete reformation of these elements.

In the conclusion of the Oxford Economic Policy Review, the capitalist economists sum up three underlying issues that are commonly reported on about how “the pathologies of economics have misdirected policies”. They are in short: (1) “…inadequate depiction of the individual in conventional economics as a person preoccupied with consumption and leisure. In contrast, evolutionary biology suggests we are strongly motivated by purposes beyond consumption and leisure with a capacity to be morally load-bearing”, (2) “…widespread support for greater devolution to local decision-taking, and an emphasis on the importance of cooperation in communities. Far from being selfishly individualistic, humans have a strong capacity to cooperate in communities”, and (3) “…the human brain has evolved to be well-suited to decisions under uncertainty, and decisions devolved to teams within which people naturally cooperate enable rapid learning through experimentation and copying”, (Collier at al, 2021, 647). Conventional anarchism has always encompassed these exact ideologies, as it is a century-old political reformative plan developed due to disaffection with the capitalist economic system in an industrializing, globalizing world (Proudhon, 1893). In this, Proudhon’s anarchic political philosophy is the only available, long-standing social-political framework to achieve a sustainable planet.

Lina Miller

*See the following text for additional information on this topic:

Egoumenides, M. (2014). Philosophical Anarchism and Political Obligation. Bloomsbury Academic.

Pritchard, A. (2010). What can the absence of anarchism tell us about the history and purpose of International Relations? Review of International Studies, 37, 1647–1669. doi:10.1017/S0260210510001075

References:

• Attfield, D. (2018). Environmental Ethics. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  Collier, P. et al. (2021). Capitalism: what has gone wrong, what needs to change, and how it can be fixed. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 37 (4), 637–649 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grab035
• Proudhon, J.P. (1893). Property is Theft. In D. Guérin & P. Sharkey (Eds.), No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism (pp. 48-54). AK Press.
• Goldman, E. (1910). Anarchism: What it really stands for. In H. Havel (Eds.), Anarchism and other essays (pp. 21-29). Mother Earth Publishing Association.
• Meadows, D.H. et al. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Potomac Associates. https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/
• Meneley, A. (2018.) Consumerism. Annual Review of Anthropology 47, 117-132, https://doi-org.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041518
• Miller, D. (2003). Political Philosophy: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• United Nations. (2015). THE 17 GOALS: Sustainable Development. In Sdgs.Un.Org. Retrieved January 4, 2022, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals
• Van den Berg, F. & Meindertsma, J. (2012). Ethics: Philosophy for a Better World. [Poster for PSE2 course]. Geosciences Department. Utrecht University.
• Van den Berg, F. & Meindertsma, J. (2012). Philosophy of Science. [Poster for PSE2 course]. Geosciences Department. Utrecht University.

The post Make Anarchism Great Again appeared first on Void Network.

Yony Leyser’s delightfully ragged documentary, QUEERCORE: HOW TO PUNK A REVOLUTION, both documents a historical cultural movement in the LGBTQ+ community, and serves as motivation to create more inclusive, diverse spaces today.

The film hones in on the homocore (more modernly referred to as queercore) movement of the 1980’s and 1990’s, a response to the increasingly violent, masculine tendencies of the punk scene.

The story of the rise of homocore is a story of contradictions and good-natured lies – they spoke a movement into existence by pretending it already existed, encouraging lonely queer punks to seek out, and thereby create communities where they could express their sexuality in ways that grated against more mainstream modes of queer expression. Aside from being supremely informative about the rise of the homocore movement – which continues today in various forms – Leyser’s film raises an interesting question about assimilation: should it be the ultimate goal for queer people? (Clayton Walter)

The post QUEERCORE: HOW TO PUNK A REVOLUTION- documentary appeared first on Void Network.

To be clear, this program does not represent our collective as a whole, nor the international anarchist movement. There should be as many such programs as there are anarchists. As you read this, reflect on what resonates and what does not; think about what changes you want to make in the world and what means of change are consistent with your values and desires.

How to Use this Program

What follows is the opposite of an ordinary political program. It is not written in stone; it does not pretend to represent a general will, the public, the people, or any such abstraction.

Anarchists understand freedom as arising from an ongoing process; it is something we create individually and communally every day of our lives. In our view, it cannot be defined via a piece of paper or granted to us by a powerful institution; each of these practices actually destroys freedom. We also believe that defining and obtaining freedom for ourselves is the best way to guarantee our well-being.

Anarchist analyses of capitalism, the state, patriarchy, and colonialism have proven useful in countless social struggles over the past several decades, as have our critiques of reformism, authoritarian revolution, and the institutional left—and perhaps most importantly, our practices of mutual aid and self-organization. Anarchist forms of struggle have also proven compatible with a number of other struggles that have left their mark on the world, as well as influencing and informing anarchism as a living concept.

We do not present a program on the premise that we could lay claim to an absolute truth, nor that this program could speak to all the visions of liberation that we act in solidarity with. Short of presenting a complete vision, we still find the need to express some vision, no matter how partial. Recent experience has shown that we cannot win a revolution that we are not even able to imagine.

That is the primary purpose of this document: to aid in imagining what sort of changes we would begin working towards right now if we were able to abolish the government or create an autonomous zone. None of these are absolute truths we would want to impose, forcing everyone to support a single vision of freedom and revolution. Rather, this offers a way of envisioning principles and goals that many of us would fight for, which will inevitably shift and grow along the way as we enter into conflict and dialogue with other people and other visions. The point is not to convince everyone that our vision of freedom is the correct one. We will be most free when each of us can imagine our own best possible world in every given moment.

Not even the people writing and publishing it think this document is a valid program or a complete proposal. Our hope is that it will serve as a point of departure for discussion and debate, helping people to articulate similar visions, conflicting visions, or visions that are simply different. The more people who imagine the world of their dreams and reflect on how countless such worlds can fit into a single world, breaking with the homogenizing Western project, the greater our collective intelligence will be.

This program deals with some painful topics that no single collective has the right to decide. We concluded that it would be less harmful to address those topics imperfectly than to avoid them and pretend they do not exist. We hope that our inadequate attempts will inspire others to do better. The incompleteness of this program expresses a fundamental anarchist principle: no one can ever express everyone’s needs. Whatever you find missing, it’s up to you to fill it in, and up to all of us to support each other through the process of accomplishing this together.

At the end, there is a short glossary that explains what we mean by certain terms.

An Anarchist Program

0. The Ends Are the Means

Those who support an anarchist program live and organize in a way that makes the program imminently possible, not in some distant future after a dictatorial party has acquired power. This represents a completely different way of creating power starting right now.

Nothing in this program, not even the abolition of the state, can justify means of struggle that would not be at home in the world we wish to inhabit, nor the postponing of questions of freedom and well-being until after some state of exception that we dress up as a revolution.

1. Mutual Survival

Under capitalism, no one has a right to survival. We are all forced to pay for the means of survival—and some of us can’t. Millions of people die every year from easily preventable causes; billions live in misery because they are denied the means for a healthy, dignified life. That ends now.

A. Every person and every community has a right to their means of survival.

B. It follows that persons and communities that choose to constitute themselves in a way that destroys others’ means of survival, or that withhold those means in exchange for some service (exploitation), are destroying the possibility for mutual survival. Therefore, their “way of life” does not constitute survival—it endangers survival.

C. Persons and communities are right to defend themselves against exploitation or threats to their means of survival, preferably by convincing those who threaten or exploit them to change their way of life to a more harmonious, mutually feasible pattern—but also, if necessary, by force.

D. Conflict and death have always been a part of life, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. With current technologies, attempts to stave off death are predicated on multiplying deaths among those who lack access to such technologies. It follows that survival is not the absence of death, but the possibility for a healthy and fulfilling life, as well as the possibility to pass something of that life on to future generations.

E. In this sense, the opposite of life is not death, but extermination, the total annihilation of a group, including even the destruction of the memory of that group. Extermination belongs to the state. It precludes the possibility of mutual survival.

2. Decolonization

Colonization is crucial to the global spread of capitalism and the devastation it has entailed. This devastation has ongoing repercussions at every level. Colonization is the basis of the United States; it has also been foundational to the major European states that functioned as the architects of the current global system of statism and capitalism. The partial revolutions of the 20th century did not alter the basic colonial frameworks they inherited. All of this must change.

A. Colonized peoples have a right to reconstitute their communities, their languages and knowledge systems, their territories, and their organizational systems. All of these are fluid realities that members of such communities adapt to their present needs.

B. Settler societies must be destroyed. Because they are so historically ingrained, their abolition will not be a single moment of compensation (as though a price tag could be attached to all the suffering that has been caused), but a complex and evolving process. Indigenous communities should be able to define what decolonization looks like from a position of strength and healing, such as the abolition of the United States (and Canada and other nations) will allow. This is also necessary to break with the gunboat diplomacy that has characterized much of settler colonialism.

C. By definition, we cannot and will not define the limits of decolonization from the present moment, from within the reality of a settler society. Anarchists, Indigenous and otherwise, favor models of decolonization that break with colonial logics and repudiate nation-states, ethnic essentialism, punitive and genocidal practices, and mere reforms regarding who holds state power.

D. Settler communities that have historically and to the present day played the role of an aggressive and hostile neighbor helping to police and exploit Native communities in the reservation system will be encouraged to disband, and will be treated as paramilitaries if they continue any form of hostility. All “Man Camps” will be disbanded immediately, and resources will be dedicated to helping find missing Indigenous women and two-spirit people.

E. Universities, museums, and other institutions will return all bodies, body parts, art, and artifacts stolen from Indigenous communities.

F. It is right for Indigenous communities to recover all the territory they need for their full cultural, spiritual, and material survival.

G. Priority might be given to recovering land of spiritual importance, land that had belonged to the government, and large commercial holdings—but again, preconceived limitations should not be placed on how decolonization will unfold.

H. Communities in countries that maintained external colonial projects (e.g., the United Kingdom, Spain, France) will facilitate a large-scale transfer of useful resources expropriated from their abolished governments, the wealthy, and institutions that existed to serve the wealthy (e.g., private hospitals). These resources will go to communities in the ex-colonies.

3. Reparations and Ending Anti-Blackness

Anti-Blackness and other forms of racism are fundamental to the current power structure. They grew out of colonialism and capitalism from the very beginning, to such an extent that capitalism is inseparable from racism, though the latter can take many forms. It is impossible to fully abolish these power structures without striking at the historically grounded legacies of racism.

A. Communities of people largely descended from the survivors of slavery are right to take over large landholdings that had previously been plantations, as well as the excess wealth of families and institutions that profited off of slave labor. This redistribution should be carried out on a communal rather than an individual basis, to avoid encouraging identitarian processes that declare individuals legitimate or illegitimate based on abstract criteria. Those who organize a collective or communal expropriation have the right to define their own experiences and how oppression has affected them historically, as well as to choose how to constitute themselves and whom to invite into their community.

B. Historically racialized neighborhoods that have been gentrified may be reclaimed. Because many neighborhoods, before gentrification, are in fact quite diverse and working class people of all races can lose their homes, those who are involved in housing and anti-racist struggles at the time of the revolution may form assemblies to organize the process of inviting people back into reclaimed neighborhoods, for example prioritizing prior residents or their children, and finding ways to strike a balance between revitalizing Black and other cultures of resistance and creating practices of cross-racial solidarity that break down the segregations and separations of racism.

C. People in neighborhoods that are infrastructurally unsound or unsanitary, that suffer from environmental racism or other harmful effects that will continue causing health problems into the foreseeable future, may expropriate and move into wealthy neighborhoods (preferentially targeting the wealthiest). The prior residents of those neighborhoods may move into the vacated, substandard neighborhood with an eye towards improving it through their own effort, or they may move into other unused housing, of which there is plenty, thanks to capitalist real estate markets.

D. Weapons taken from the disbanded police and military will be distributed among Black, Indigenous, and other racialized communities, and to volunteer militias that fought unambiguously on the anti-racist side during the entirety of the revolutionary conflict. The communities will decide what is to be done with the weapons—whether to distribute, store, or dismantle them.

E. Resources related to education and healthcare may be taken from wealthy neighborhoods for the benefit of racialized neighborhoods.

F. The onus is on white anti-capitalists, or more correctly, anti-capitalists in the process of definitively breaking with their whiteness, to work with other white people to achieve a process of reparations that is as peaceful as possible, to help them move to other neighborhoods or territories in the case that they are evicted, to soften their landing and help them find the means for dignified survival, without creating entrenched identities or resentment that might encourage intergenerational conflicts or keep whiteness alive.

G. Assemblies of people committed to the relevant causes at the time of the revolution will set up truth and reconciliation committees to deal with whatever racist atrocities are brought to their attention, such as the forced sterilizations carried out in ICE facilities. The processes for uncovering the truth of these atrocities and achieving some kind of reconciliation will not be purely symbolic, and they need not delegitimize personal acts of revenge, but they will strive for some form of collective healing and transformative justice rather than punitive and carceral measures.

All the following points of the program are contingent on points 1-3 being put in motion in a way that is satisfactory to those who have suffered white supremacy, colonization, and racial capitalism. The rights and principles in point 4, for example, about access to land, must not be used to thwart efforts by Indigenous communities to get their Land Back.

4. Land

The way capitalism and Western civilization have taught us to think about the land and the way to treat it has brought us to the brink of disaster. The paradigm of land as property, as a resource to be exploited, is simultaneously a failure and a travesty. The commodification of land has been instrumental to colonialism and exploitation, while the measuring, demarcation, and assertion of dominion over land has been central to the state throughout its history.

A. Land is a living thing. Land cannot be bought and sold.

B. Land belongs to those who belong to it, which is to say, those who take care of it and those whose survival is based on it.

C. Land should be respected. Communities should consider the personhood of the land and all other beings that exist in relation with it. The idea that only humans of a predetermined type have personhood is responsible for a large part of the disaster we face.

D. Land is the basis for survival, and all land is interconnected.

E. It follows that defense of the land is self-defense, and is therefore right.

F. A community that exists in an intimate, localized relationship with the land, or a community that historically has had such a relationship and proved to be good stewards of the land, will probably know best how to interrelate with a specific territory. Others should defer to them in questions regarding defending and caring for the land.

G. It is the responsibility of all communities to aid and accompany the land as it heals from centuries of capitalism and the state.

5. Water

Water is life.

A. All communities must return the water they use to the river, lake, or aquifer as clean as they found it.

B. All communities have a responsibility to help their watershed heal and purify itself after centuries of capitalist aggression.

C. In view of climate change, desertification, and all the other forms of damage to the planet, all communities have a responsibility to adapt their lifeways in the event of water scarcity, and to help each other to migrate if increasing water scarcity and desertification render a dignified survival impossible.

D. In the event of water scarcity, priority for water use is given to localized forms of sustainable agriculture and to preserving the habitats of other forms of life.

E. Polluting the water or taking so much that others downstream or in the same aquifer do not have enough for a dignified survival is an act of aggression.

F. Communities should respond to assaults on their water with attempts at dialogue and negotiation, but if these attempts are fruitless, they are right to defend themselves.

6. Borders

The global system we are abolishing is based on states asserting sovereignty over clearly demarcated borders, alternately cooperating and competing in capitalist accumulation and warfare. Nation-states have always led to cultural and linguistic homogenization and genocide, and borders have revealed themselves to be increasingly murderous mechanisms. All that, henceforth, is abolished.

A. People and communities, in concert, decide what communities they want to be a part of, and how they wish to be constituted, respectively. This is the principle of voluntary association.

B. All together, as best we can, we will develop principles of Freedom of Movement, balanced with a respect for the communities that are the custodians of the territories others wish to move through. These two principles necessitate the abolition of borders, on the one hand, and the abolition of individualistic, entitled tourism on the other. It is reasonable for communities, which exist in relation to a specific territory, to expect privacy as well as basic respect from visitors; at the same time, it is good for people to be able to move freely in search of a better life or even simply because movement brings them joy and well-being. These two rights, such as they are, may come into conflict. Communities and individuals commit to resolving those conflicts as constructively as possible.

C. Communities commit to offering basic hospitality and safe conduct to migrants. This could include migrants who wish to return home, having been forced to emigrate by the effects of capitalism. It could include the migration of entire communities fleeing the long-term effects of environmental racism.

D. Communities will coordinate across territories as they see fit. This could include federations organized along linguistic lines (for the sake of convenience), coordinating bodies in a shared watershed, and more. Anarchists recommend redundant, overlapping forms of organization, as well as membership in multiple communities, to resist the potentially militaristic reproduction of bordered units or essentialist identities.

7. Housing

Even governments that enshrine the right to housing in their constitutions have failed to guarantee this basic need. As Malatesta pointed out, capitalism is the system in which builders go homeless because there are too many houses.

A. Houses belong to those who live in them.

B. No one has a right to more houses than they need. This should not be reduced to a principle of “one family, one house,” because of the danger in normalizing one model of the family, and because some dynamic families include movement between multiple nodes, and to respect pastoral and other societies organized around seasonal migrations. However, this does mean that the vacation houses of the rich are fair game for expropriation for those who need access to land or decent housing.

C. Housing is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

D. Communities will make sure all their own members have dignified housing, and then they will help neighboring communities find the resources they need to meet their housing needs.

E. Anarchists will encourage the transformation of housing, which capitalist real estate development and urban planning utilized specifically to promote patriarchal nuclear families. People are encouraged to change their vital spaces in a way that enables more communal practices of kinship, child-rearing practices not based in the heterosexual couple, and autonomous spaces for women and gender nonconforming people.

F. Anarchists will make it a priority to provide safe housing for people fleeing abusive relationships and circumstances.

G. Communities will begin immediately, within their means, to modify housing to be ecologically sustainable, and to modify settlement patterns so that housing nuclei correspond to ecological and cultural needs, moving away from the present reality in which existing housing corresponds to the imperatives of capitalism. As this process will take decades, communities should develop plans and share ideas for organizing the transition, taking into account that there will be a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and changes in the availability of different construction materials.

H. Evicting people from their houses is an emotionally traumatizing act that we do not want to form a part of the world we are building. However, many historically oppressed communities find themselves living in situations that directly shorten their lives, whereas the ostentatious housing of rich people represents generations of accumulated plunder; in those cases, it is better for them to take the housing of those who profited off their misery than to continue in misery. Under capitalism, there is no inalienable right to remain in a particular house, and we are not carrying out a revolution in order to give rights to rich people they did not even claim under their own chosen system.

8. Food

A key aspect of capitalist accumulation has been the industrialization and hyper-exploitation of food producers, both human farmers and other forms of life, trying to squeeze out an ever-growing surplus. This has led to the acts of genocide associated with the commodification of the land, the total destruction of peasant societies, deforestation and monocrop deserts, mass starvation, mass extinction, pollution, climate change, dead zones in the ocean, the destruction and commodification of communities of different living beings, the murder of living soil, and the systematized imprisonment and torture of non-human animals. How we feed ourselves is a nexus that brings together how we organize our society and the relationships we create with the broader ecosystem.

A. Everyone has a right to all the food they need for a healthy, dignified life.

B. Making sure that everyone has enough food is a collective responsibility.

C. Arbitrarily placing limits on or destroying the food supply that others depend on is an assault on their survival. They may respond to this with legitimate self-defense.

D. Workers in food production industries at the time of the revolution will socialize the means of production under their control with the aim of ensuring everyone’s access to food.

E. Communities will begin the process of redistributing large tracts of farmland and reclaiming land in urban environments to enable food sovereignty and to share access to the means to feed ourselves.

F. Agriculture will transition away from the current petroleum-dependent, highly industrialized model to a localized, ecocentric model designed to fulfill two purposes: ensuring food security and restoring the health of the planet. The human diet will be resituated in an ecosystemic logic.

G. Particularly damaging technologies like factory trawlers and animal warehouses for industrial-scale meat and dairy production will be dismantled as quickly as possible.

9. Healthcare

Under capitalism and the state, healthcare has been used as a form of extortion to keep poor people in misery and in debt, to surveil, discipline, and control our bodies, and particularly to torture and control women, trans and non-binary people, racialized people, and people with different abilities and mental health difference. It is one of the most damning indictments of the present system that the practices that should focus on healing function as a venue for cruelty and profiteering.

A. Everyone has a right to preventive therapies and living conditions that guarantee them the best possible health.

B. Everyone has a right to define for themselves what constitutes health, in dialogue with their community. People who share a collective experience or identity related to gender, sexuality, physical ability, mental health, ethnicity, or anything else, may develop their own definition or ideal of health; members of those groups are free to subscribe to those definitions or not to subscribe to them.

C. Everyone has a right to alter their body, in line with their gender expression or for whatever reason, as they see fit. People have an unrestricted right to contraceptives and abortion.

D. No healthcare worker can be forced to perform a procedure that they do not agree with, but denying someone access to a medical procedure is an assault on their bodily autonomy. Training in skills related to healthcare will be spread as widely as possible so no one is ever in the position of gatekeeping access to healthcare.

E. Everyone has a right to the full extent of treatment available to them in their community, or to travel in search of better conditions or better treatment options.

F. Healthcare workers at the time of the revolution will socialize the hospitals and other institutions and infrastructures at their disposal, and do their best to ensure continuing access to healthcare, to universalize and improve access and quality of treatment, to equalize treatment for historically marginalized populations, to facilitate reconciliation processes to address the abuse of such populations by the medical profession, and to reorganize their profession to remove all capitalist influences and classist organization, while still weighting internal hierarchies to favor training and experience.

G. Trafficking in healthcare, including the threat to withhold healthcare, is an act of aggression.

H. As part of the process of self-definition of health, anarchists will encourage the formation of assemblies that center people’s own needs and experiences, breaking the tradition that establishes healthcare professionals as the protagonists and people as mere receptacles for illness or treatment. People will share and increase knowledge of their own bodies, availing themselves of the tools they need to be proactive in securing the greatest health and happiness possible.

10. Education

Public education has been used to create patriotic, obedient, and white supremacist civil servants, soldiers, and citizens. For even longer, Catholic education in Europe and in the colonies was used to justify colonialism and state authority. Both public and private education are linked to systematic child abuse. Contrary to classist stereotypes, people with more formal education are often more able to dismiss facts that contradict their prejudices or worldview. Education as it stands is a cornerstone of oppression.

On the contrary, education should be an unending process of growth and self-actualization. Anarchists have always been at the forefront of experimenting with models of liberating education that break with the standard formulas of patriotic, patriarchal, colonial, capitalist education.

A. Knowledge must be free; it belongs to the community.

B. Everyone must be able to access whatever educational opportunities they desire. Anarchists will encourage specific projects that end the oppressions that limit people’s access to education because of their gender, sexuality, race, class, or other divisions. Examples might include intensive trainings in fields like math, sciences, and mechanics for people from groups that have historically been discouraged from entering those fields, or history and literature courses that center the voices and experiences of subjects other than upper-class heterosexual white men. Such projects will also deploy a diversity of learning environments that do not assume a single, normative standard of physical and mental abilities.

C. Anarchists will help ensure that historically marginalized groups can obtain the resources they need to identify and develop the body of knowledge that is important to their specific community and to spread it as they see fit.

D. Children are free to engage in educational settings as they see fit, in dialogue with their communities. Free children who have all their basic needs met are constantly engaged in their own education, independently of whether they do so in a formal setting.

E. Teachers and professors who want to continue working as such may organize basic education, but anarchists will encourage the emergence of new projects based on liberating models of education rather than rote memorization or the completion of preconceived modules, especially collective self-organized self-education projects.

F. Professions that prove to be useful and desirable after the demise of capitalism will organize educational programs to train new members of the profession, expropriating resources from schools and universities or taking over teaching spaces within them, in dialogue with other professions.

G. Scientific organizations may constitute themselves to provide for professional training in universities, and to maintain laboratories and peer-reviewed papers. They will discuss ways to raise the resources necessary to maintain laboratories and needed technologies without capitalizing on the processes of knowledge production. One possible solution is that scientific experimentation will have to respond largely to the needs voiced by communities as a whole.

H. The advanced education needed to become a scientist is a gift from the community to the individual; the knowledge the scientists help produce should be a gift back to the community. Scientists should also honor their responsibility to share tools for education as widely as possible. Scientific knowledge and training should not be concentrated in a few hands. Good science thrives on widespread participation in the process of research and review. For science to live, scientists must cease to treat other human beings as objects in a petri dish and focus on equipping them to participate in that process.

I. Scientists, teachers, and other educators will facilitate reconciliation processes to deal with forms of abuse they may have been complicit in before the revolution, from facilitating police violence against students to working with corporations that caused people harm. Accredited scientists who used their knowledge to aid fossil fuel, armaments, and similar industries should be stripped of their perceived legitimacy in the same way that doctors can be delicensed for malpractice.

J. Associations of scientists will decide if they actually need to use some form of licensing in order to assure the quality of their work. The answer may not be the same for heart surgeons as for botanists. This implies a balance between the needs of scientists to ensure standards of quality, the interests of people to prevent monopolies or gatekeepers that limit access to knowledge and training, as well as people’s need for transparency—ensuring, for example, that those they entrust with their medical care or technological projects that might pollute their environment have not been dangerously negligent in the past. Associations of laypeople will also organize to weigh in on these decisions.

11. Production

Under capitalism, production is one of the chief means of accumulating capital for the wealthy—through alienated work, exploitation, and the destruction of the environment. In anarchy, the only question is how to meet socially defined needs, which include everything from collective survival to the need people feel to grow and enjoy life.

A. Ex-workers will seize their workplaces at the earliest convenience, studying whether the workplace (factory, workshop, office, store, restaurant, etc.) can be modified to produce something socially useful in a healthy way. If not, the workplace will be dismantled and its resources shared out among ex-workers, neighboring communities, and useful workplaces.

B. Ex-workers, excluding managers while welcoming unemployed people with pertinent skills who had been denied access to employment under capitalism, will create some form of collective, cooperative, or communal structure to organize their workplaces, federating with other workplaces across their industry in order to oversee the production of socially useful goods.

C. Delegates within these productive federations must be beholden to a specific collective mandate (promoting positions that arise from their base assembly), they must be immediately recallable if they fail that mandate, and they must continue to exercise their craft. Workplace assemblies will decide if delegates must carry out their normal work on a daily basis or if they may be excused for a limited number of months before returning to normal work, as demanded by the conditions of their work and the needs of the federative labor (for example, delegates may have to travel long distances and might not be able to work during certain periods).

D. Those who wish to be professional representatives, doing no other work but that of bureaucrats and politicians, may form their own federations of representatives in which to go about representing themselves and others to the best of their abilities. For this purpose, it is recommended that they paint their faces white, don berets and striped shirts, travel from community to community, and hold their committee meetings open to the public. People don’t need bureaucrats—but we will always need entertainment!

E. No one may be forced to work. Communities and productive federations will do their utmost to operate according to a logic of abundance rather than a logic of scarcity or monopoly. People who wish to carry out productive or creative labors in a more individual setting or manner will be encouraged to do so, and insofar as it is possible, they will be afforded the space and resources they need, though in moments of absolute scarcity, such as the difficult years of the transition, communities may prefer to favor more effective collective workplaces that are immediately responding to a community need.

F. The gendering of different productive activities is abolished. Anarchists encourage their communities to reflect on how different useful, necessary, and beneficial activities are unequally recognized and rewarded with status, and propose initiatives or new traditions by which to eliminate these vestiges of patriarchy.

G. Ex-workers are encouraged to fully transform their workplaces, deconstructing machinery into its component tools if need be in order to work at a safer pace and create an environment that is healthy in terms of noise, air quality, chemicals, and non-repetitive labors.

H. Workplaces will strike a balance between the creative or productive desires of the members, the needs of surrounding communities, and the needs of society as a whole. This means encouraging artisans in their creative development, making sure not to pollute nearby communities with harmful chemicals or excessive noise, and seeking to create things that others in society need, though embracing the logic of abundance means giving this latter directive the broadest possible interpretation except in cases of acute scarcity that threaten a community’s survival.

I. Destructive energy infrastructure will be phased out at the safest pace possible. Experts in the relevant fields will be encouraged to oversee the shutting down of nuclear power plants according to a schedule that leaves the smallest amount of highly radioactive waste and the plugging of oil wells so they do not contaminate ground water.

J. On a less urgent timeline, communities will explore the decommissioning of highly destructive “green energy” projects that endanger river populations, migratory birds, and other living things. This work will depend on the development of localized, ecological energy production and the drastic reduction of overall energy use, a part of which is the redesigning of buildings to allow for passive solar heating and cooling, a demanding endeavor that cannot be accomplished in a single decade.

K. Communities will decide what technologies and what kinds of scientific experimentation and development they will support. However, in all cases, the communities and scientific organizations involved must be able to absorb or remediate all the negative consequences of that technology. There is no justification for mining someone else’s territory or creating toxic substances that future generations will have to deal with.

12. Distribution, Communication, and Transportation

Localizing power in people and communities has an adjunct in organizing the material means of survival on as local a level as possible, for example through principles like food sovereignty. However, the danger of dependence on an exploitative socioeconomic system decreases dramatically when people can meet most of their survival needs through the resources and activity of a small local network of communities. For the remainder of those needs, as well as all the things that make life more enjoyable, it may be necessary to organize distribution across multiple regions of a continent and beyond. Additionally, travel is extremely important in an anarchist society to inculcate a global consciousness, encourage reciprocity and solidarity, prevent the emergence of borders, and collectivize knowledge as much as possible.

A. All state-backed currencies are abolished. All monetary debts are canceled.

B. Exchange of goods between communities shall be done in as equitable a manner as possible. Communities in close contact may prefer a free exchange or gift economy. Communities without the basis of trust that makes a gift economy easier to practice may decide to use quid pro quo trade, but trading up for profit (serial trading to capture a growth of value) or charging interest on the lending of goods can be considered attempts at coercion and exploitation.

C. Communities should pursue food sovereignty, meeting the majority of their survival needs from their local land base, but beyond that, infrastructures should be maintained to encourage exchange and travel.

D. Transport workers, together with affected communities, will collaborate to transform existing transportation infrastructure to be as ecologically sustainable as possible, while other infrastructures (e.g., airports and highways) are to be dismantled.

E. Already extracted fossil fuel reserves and existing infrastructures will be rationed, giving priority to the transition in agricultural production, global reparations of resources, and maintaining connectivity in rural areas with no transportation alternatives.

F. Communities, transportation workers, and those involved in fighting against patriarchal violence at the time of the revolution will work together to make sure that people can travel freely and safely regardless of their gender. Communities that enable or permit violence against women or gender non-conforming people traveling through their territory are considered to be in aggression against the rest of the world.

G. Communities will do their best to maintain existing communications infrastructure so that they can remain in touch to communicate globally and share the experiences of their respective revolutionary processes. In the long term, they will explore ways to maintain those infrastructures they find useful with recycled or non-harmful materials. They will also study whether addictive and depressive behaviors related to social networking technologies are intrinsic to those technologies or a maladaptive response to the alienations of capitalism.

13. Conflict Resolution and Transformative Justice

Prisons and police have existed for far too long, destroying people and communities. There are ways to deal with the inevitable conflicts of social existence that see people as capable of growth, redemption, and healing, and that are organized to meet the needs of the community rather than to protect a system of oppression and inequality. The revolution is a process of destroying state power; it is also a process of the rebirth of real communities. Capitalism forced us to be dependent on its mechanisms for our survival, but once it is abolished, our survival once again becomes something we create collectively.

A. Communities are reconstituted through the assemblies and other spaces through which they organize their territory and the survival of their members. A part of this means being accountable to the community on which our survival depends, and taking part in the healthy resolution of conflicts, the healing of harm, and the restoring of reciprocal relations.

B. Communities will do their best to enable fluid ways of being and relating that break with the closed, patriarchal, and micro-oppressive structures that have been traditional in many places. However, no leeway need be given to the dominant concept of fluidity of late capitalism in which people move through space without ever acknowledging their relations, their impact on others, or the simple fact that their survival is not their personal property.

C. People involved in mediation, conflict resolution, and transformative justice will share resources and encourage communities to deal with conflict and harm in a restorative way that promotes healing and reconciliation. We will also make sure that the burden of this work does not fall disproportionately along gender lines.

D. Communities will define norms and boundaries around harmful behaviors, but anarchists will encourage them to develop practices that center dialogue and processes of healing and reconciliation, rather than the codification of prohibited behaviors and punishment.

E. Communities that already have traditions of mediation and reconciliatory processes are encouraged to share their experience as they see fit.

F. All prisons will be dismantled, with communities taking in ex-prisoners who had been convicted of harming other people and committing to working with them on exploring the circumstances around the harm.

G. Committees of people experienced in transformative justice will work with ex-prisoners who are not taken in and vouched for by any community, together with the communities harmed by them, to try to find a solution.

H. Given that total opposition to prisons is not a widespread position, anarchists will organize debates on other possible responses to the worst scenarios of harm—the small minority of cases in which people repeatedly kill, abuse, or victimize others. One possible proposal is to always favor reconciliation with all resources available, but to never delegitimize autonomous acts of self-defense or revenge, especially in cases in which reconciliation is not a realistic outcome.

I. Special attention will be given to all acts of gender and sexual violence, especially those that had been normalized under the patriarchal, punitive regime that is to be abolished. People active in opposing such violence will suggest appropriate structures and practices for communities to adopt.

14. Safety

The state thrives on the lie that security and freedom constitute a dichotomy, two things that exist in inverse proportion and that we must sacrifice each in equal measure to strike a balance between them. Because security is connected with survival, the state can convince us that we would not be able to enjoy what little freedom we have if we did not prioritize security and accept its protection.

In truth, our survival, our safety, and our freedom all depend on how well we can take care of one another, not how high we build walls around ourselves. As long as states exist, even only as a projection in the minds of the power-hungry, we will need to defend ourselves from those who would subjugate and exploit us; sometimes, we will also need to defend ourselves from those who cause harm by not recognizing others’ boundaries, not empathizing with others, or not realizing the consequences of their own actions. How we organize our defense can be dangerous to our freedom. It is also a challenge to conceive of dangers and conflicts in a way that transforms us and others, rather than fixing our antagonists as permanent enemies we need to destroy.

A. All police forces are abolished, and their members should participate in reconciliation processes to address the harm they have caused. Those who refuse may be viewed as statist paramilitaries.

B. Communities may create some kind of volunteer service to protect against various forms of aggression or interpersonal harm. However, to prevent anything like a police force from emerging, whatever form this service takes, it must focus on de-escalation and reconciliation rather than punishment; it should focus on calling out the rest of the community to deal with the conflict or instance of harm rather than monopolizing the response; and the participants must not have special privileges in terms of the right to use force or access to weapons that the rest of the community does not have.

C. Communities are encouraged to create some kind of protective group, tradition, or structure specifically designed to respond to and deal with gender violence in all its forms. They may wish this force to be composed of people other than cis men.

D. Because the state will not be abolished everywhere at once, and because many communities with hierarchical values may continue to exist and may try to subordinate neighboring communities to their will, there may be a need to create anarchist militias or other fighting units—both to defend a free territory and to engage in revolutionary warfare against a statist, imperialist territory. To deserve the terms “free militia” and “revolutionary warfare,” these must be dedicated to several key principles that distinguish them from statist armies. Simply tacking on a red flag is not enough. The fighters must be volunteers; they must be able to choose their own leaders and leadership structures. There must be no officers with aristocratic privileges. The entirety of the force must decide together on acceptable measures of discipline. Assemblies that transcend the free militias—for example, federations of the communities from which the fighters come—will decide the broad strategic objectives and guidelines for humanitarian conduct. In other words the militias must not be fully autonomous: they exist to defend the needs of broader communities, rather than dominating those communities or promoting their own interests on anything but a tactical level.

E. Free militias will avoid the logic of territorial, aggressive warfare in which the objective is to conquer a space defined as enemy territory. The purpose should either be defensive warfare, defending the communities and dissuading others from attacking, or revolutionary warfare, supporting people in an oppressive society who are fighting for their own freedom. In the latter case, the initiative must come from those oppressed people and must not be organized primarily by the militias of a neighboring territory.

F. Free communities do not try to eliminate or annihilate enemies. They defend their freedom and dignity, and support others who are doing so, and then they try to make friends or at the very least make peace.

G. Safety, in an anarchist framework, is not the protection of the weak by the strong, it is the empowerment and cultivated capacity for self-defense of all, with priority given to those whose gender socialization, racialization, or physical and psychological difference has specifically disempowered them under current oppressive conditions.

H. Peace, in an anarchist framework, is not simply the absence of armed conflict, especially when such absence indicates acquiescence to oppression. Peace is an outgrowth of happiness, freedom, and self-actualization, which we hope this program will foster more than capitalism ever has, and a proactive effort. Anarchists will encourage communities to engage and exchange not just with their immediate neighbors, but transcontinentally, sharing and creating cultural bonds, affinities, and friendships on a global scale so as to make the wars of conquest and annihilation that states have been practicing for millennia inconceivable.

15. Community Organization and Coordination

In opposition to involuntary citizenship and dictatorial or representative decision-making that imposes homogenizing laws on all of society, anarchism posits the principles of voluntary association and self-organization, meaning people are free to form themselves into groups of their choosing, to organize those groups as they see fit, and to order their lives on a daily basis, with everyone’s participation.

A. Every community is autonomous and free to organize its own affairs. Every community should develop its own methods and structures of organization and subsistence.

B. Anarchists encourage models that prioritize well-being and prevent the reemergence of statist organization, including the gift economy within communities, and overlapping, redundant forms of organization that prevent the centralization of power, such as combinations of federated territorial assemblies, workplace assemblies, infrastructural organizations, and professional and educational organizations. The goal is to tie people together in a multiplicity of organizational spaces. This way, many different organizational models and cultures can be practiced, since none are neutral or equally accessible to everyone; conflict is mediated by multiplying relationships through numerous organizational and territorial bonds; and the emergence of a political class that is skilled in manipulating assemblies and that thrives in the alienated space of politics is discouraged. If there is no central space where all decisions and authority are legitimated, no matter how participatory that space pretends to be, there can be no political class. This is the difference between democracy and anarchy—not to mention the fact that anarchism has historically opposed slavery, capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism, and the like, whereas democracy has often relied upon them.

C. In order to prevent the return of authoritarian dynamics in the guise of democracy, anarchists would do well to facilitate community processes exploring how formal and informal mechanisms of decision-making distribute gendered power and how vital informal, non-legitimized spaces are to the organization of daily life—but also identifying which informal spaces enable the centralization of power and studying how different ways of organizing, opening, and diffusing formal spaces can serve to prevent rather than facilitate the centralization of power.

D. As a general rule, the only time it is acceptable to intervene in the affairs of a neighboring community is in matters of self-defense, when they do not respect their neighbors’ need for freedom and a dignified survival.

E. When a community does not respect its members’ need for food, water, shelter, healthcare, and bodily integrity, it is good for neighboring communities to offer those members support and refuge. The neighboring communities may support efforts by oppressed or exploited members of the first community to end their oppression, but liberation must always be the task of those who are most directly affected by oppression. Communities should try to avoid intervening directly or forcefully in the affairs of their neighbors.

F. Communities should strive to accept the inevitable differences they have with their neighbors, aiming to foster relations of dialogue and peace. In the case of communities that do not respect the dignity and survival of others, it may be preferable to seek mediation or cut off connections rather than escalating to physical conflict.

G. Many communities will find the need or the desire to join in larger associations for matters of culture, production, and distribution and in order to share common resources. It is preferable to form free federations or associations that maintain power at the local level, while also creating multiple, cross-cutting organizational ties so that every person in every community is a member of multiple groups—for example, the coordinating body to protect a shared watershed, a cultural-linguistic grouping, a scientific association and university system, a producers’ and consumers’ union for sharing resources, and a territorial confederation. In this way, each community has a richer web of relationships, and in the case of conflicts, disputes do not fracture into two belligerent sides, but everyone is tied together by other relationships so there is an abundance of mediators and a general interest in preserving the peace.

16. The Planet

Capitalism has brought the planet to the brink of collapse. It is not enough to destroy capitalism. We must also uproot the capitalist, Western way of relating with the land in favor of healthy, reciprocal, ecocentric relations, and we must do everything possible to heal the planet and all the living communities that share it.

A. It is our responsibility to help the planet heal and help ensure the survival and continuity of all living communities.

B. Communities will tend to their territories as best they can to remediate the destruction and pollution caused by capitalism, to identify and protect species and ecosystems that are in danger, to promote the rewilding of spaces, and to conceive of themselves as part of the ecosystem.

C. Communities and scientific associations will pool resources and share information in order to track problems of global concern, such as greenhouse gases, vulnerable species, dead zones and plastic pollution in the oceans, radiation, and other forms of long-term pollution. They will set targets and make recommendations to specific communities and territorial confederations with the goal of ameliorating these problems as thoroughly and fairly as possible.

Glossary

___________

Community

A community is a group of people who live together, mutually creating their material and cultural survival. Because communities define and organize themselves, it is difficult to give them a specific definition. In some cases, community refers to the smaller group, between 30-150 people, that coordinates more closely for the organization of daily affairs, taking advantage of the small numbers and close relationships to decide their affairs smoothly and horizontally. In other cases, it can also refer to the supra-community of several, dozens, or even hundreds of communities that share common languages and culture and an identification with a territory, and that coordinate frequently for matters of subsistence, infrastructure, education, and other matters.

In some cases in the text, living communities does not refer exclusively to humans but to all living things that exist in a web of relationships.

Excess Wealth

Communities should decide for themselves what constitutes excess wealth or a wealthy person. However, the intention in this text is not at all to follow in the footsteps of left-wing populism and focus our disapproval on billionaires or even millionaires. On the contrary, we feel the bar should be set much lower. For determining wealthiness, we suggest the guidepost as having three times more wealth than is average in a given geographical region (e.g., those making more than three times the average wage in their country before the abolition of capitalism and nation-states). Excess wealth, after the abolition of money, is everything a wealthy person possesses that is not necessary for their dignified survival, especially what they had used to ostentatiously set themselves apart from the average.

Managers

A manager is someone whose job is to monitor and discipline other workers in order to increase their productivity and facilitate their exploitation. At each workplace, people can decide whether a person did something genuinely useful before the revolution and whether a part or the whole of their job category can be redeemed.

Rights

In this document, we do not use the concept of rights in the Christian or liberal fashion, as a set of properties guaranteed by God or nature, nor in the statist fashion, as a list of opportunities that a state must safeguard for all its citizens. We mean it strictly in an anti-authoritarian ethical sense: things that we consider it right for people to have, to take, or to defend, so much so that we would fight alongside them to help them protect or recover these things if they were threatened.

Territory

We do not understand territory as a dead, two-dimensional space demarcated on a map, with borders and a fixed area. Territory is the earth, it is alive, it is a web of relationships. The only rightful claim people have to a specific territory is if they are a part of that web of relationships and help keep the web vibrant and alive. Because memory is an important part of knowing and respecting a territory, people who had a strong relationship with a territory and were forced off that land still have a relationship with the territory.

Additionally, territory implies movement. This is not a proposal for allotting equal parcels to roughly interchangeable communities. All territory is specific, and the healthiest way to relate with the territory will change from region to region. Nomadic or semi-nomadic lifeways are just as legitimate, just as intimately connected with the territory, as sedentary ones (excluding, of course, those based on private property and exploitation). Following this logic, claims to territory can and do overlap, with different groups carrying out different activities related to subsistence, spirituality, play, and the like at different moments and in different ways.

Transition

The only kind of transition referred to in this document describes the transformation of existing capitalist infrastructure into the kind of infrastructure suited to a free society. This is simply a recognition that it will involve difficulties and a great deal of effort to make universal food, housing, and healthcare a reality by means of infrastructures and productive practices that do not harm the planet. We do not contemplate any kind of transitional state. The state never fades away; it must be destroyed.

Workers

Under capitalism, workers designates an alienated category: we are those who sell our activity in order to buy back a small part of the value we produce. We are the ones who carry out the labor that gives society life; yet it is important to emphasize that we do not seek to identify with our alienation, the quality that makes us workers, but rather to abolish it, especially since under capitalism, work creates so many useless or harmful things and is organized in a way that tends to be terrible for our health. Ex-workers, then, are those who had been forced to be workers under capitalism, but who, with the abolition of capitalism, abolish the category of wage work and other compulsory labors. They may deserve some special legitimacy when it comes to expropriating the resources of their former workplace or industry; like everyone else, they are engaged in the endeavor of transforming human activity in order to create abundance for all and to blur the distinctions between learning, work, and play.

CRIMETHINC

The post Exercise: What Would an Anarchist Program Look Like? – Crimethinc appeared first on Void Network.

**Many people regard anarchism and socialism as contradictory programs. This is based on the conception of “socialism” as state ownership of the economy. Yet historically, anarchists have regarded this program as “state socialism” or “authoritarian socialism.” They have rejected such views in favor of “anarchist-socialism” or “libertarian socialism.” This concept of anarchism as a variety of socialism remains important today in opposition to pro-capitalist “libertarianism” and to “democratic socialism”–that is, reformist state socialism.**

Many U.S. anarchists, or radicals interested in anarchism, are surprised to hear of “anarchism” as being “socialist.” Like most U.S. people they have learned to think of “socialism” as meaning state-owned industry-which would be the opposite of anarchism. (Similarly “communism” is usually thought of as Stalinist totalitarianism.) Also “the Left” is often interpreted as support for such state-oriented economic programs. This was the view of socialism propagated by the U.S. ruling class as well as by its opponents in the Soviet Union and similar states.

And yet, what sort of economy have anarchists advocated? They are anti-capitalist and want to take away the wealth and power of the capitalist elite. They want to replace private ownership of the means of production with collectivized, social, ownership-to replace economic competition with cooperation-production for profit with production for use-division into classes with a classless society, with no rich or poor, no specialized order-givers ruling over specialized order-takers. A chaotic, competitive, system would be replaced with overall democratic coordination (planning) from below. All of which is entirely consistent with the rest of the anarchist program of abolishing the state and all other forms of oppression: racial, national, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. What is this proposed non-profit, cooperative, economy but socialism?

In fact, virtually all anarchists, from the beginning, have called themselves “socialists” (and some have also called themselves “communists”). At the same time, they have always regarded themselves as “libertarian socialists” or “anarchist-socialists,” to the left of-and in opposition to-the “authoritarian socialists” or “state socialists.” Well before the Russian Revolution, they argued that-whatever the subjective desires of the state socialists-in practice that program would only create a form of state capitalism (with the state bureaucracy acting as the new, exploitative, capitalist class).

The first person to identify himself as an “anarchist” was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon usually “described himself as a socialist….Although he criticized both centralized democracy and state socialism, he still considered himself a democrat and socialist….Like Bakunin and Kropotkin, he argued against state socialism and called for a decentralized, self-managed, federal, bottom-up, socialism: anarchism.” (McKay 2011; 23)

In his 1910 entry on “Anarchism,” written for the Encyclopedia Britannica,, Peter Kropotkin wrote, “As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing…consider the wage system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress….The anarchists combat with the same energy, the State, as the main support of that system….To hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life…would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism.” (Kropotkin 2014; 164-5; my emphasis)

The great Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was a younger comrade of Bakunin’s and Kropotkin’s. In 1897 he wrote, arguing against the “democratic socialists,” “From 1871, when we began our propaganda in Italy, we have always been and have always called ourselves, socialist-anarchists….We have always been of the opinion that socialism and anarchy are two words which basically have the same meaning, since it is impossible to have economic emancipation (abolition of property) without political emancipation (abolition of government) and vice versa.” (in Richards 1984; 143; emphasis in original)

Malatesta had supported Kropotkin’s “anarchist-communist” version of anarchist-socialism, but he stopped using the “communist” label after the Russian Revolution. He still identified with that tradition and with the end-goal of a libertarian communist society. But he felt that the Leninists had given the term “communism” an authoritarian reputation. Instead, Malatesta referred to himself as a “revolutionary anarchist-socialist.”

Noam Chomsky cites the views of the anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker as indicating, “anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism.” (Chomsky 1970; xii) Chomsky further quotes one of the U.S. Haymarket Martyrs, Adolph Fischer: “Every anarchist is a socialist,
but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist.” (xii)
So, by theory and by history, mainstream anarchism is a wing of the socialist tradition. Some of today’s anarchists attack “socialism” and
“the Left” for things-statism, authoritarianism, reformism, misuse of technology, sexism-which the classical anarchists had long since denounced. Yet the earlier anarchists were clear that they were not condemning “socialism” but “state socialism.” They regarded themselves
as being far to the left of the authoritarian Left. Therefore they had seen no need to reject “socialism” as such.

Right Wing “Libertarians” and “Democratic” State Socialists

This argument may seem abstract and archaic, but there are also current reasons for U.S. anarchists to keep the term “socialist.” One reason is the growth of a “libertarian” pro-capitalist movement. Anarchists need to distinguish themselves from this trend which is relatively influential. It draws on some of the same motives that attract people to anarchism-opposition to drug laws, to gun suppression, to sex laws, and to other forms of state oppression. When anarchists speak about their views, they are often accused by Leftists of sounding like these pseudo-libertarians. Unfortunately, these right-wingers use the same label of “libertarian” which anarchists have used since the 19th century.

These “libertarians” range in views from Trump-supporting Republicans to the Libertarian Party to some who regard themselves as anarchists. As free-market absolutists, they oppose laws which protect public health or worker safety. Some are for a “minimal state,” while others call themselves “anarcho-capitalists” (which is not a thing). These latter are against the bureaucratic-centralized state but do not object to bureaucratic-centralized corporate monopolies. They would replace the state with private armies of “rent-a-cops” hired by the wealthy-which would, in effect, become the new state.

These pseudo-libertarians claim to be in the tradition of “individualist anarchism.” This tradition is somewhat distinct from the mainstream of revolutionary anarchism from Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin onward. Many anarchists (such as Emma Goldman or Daniel Guerin) have sought to integrate the insights of individualist anarchism with socialist anarchism. In any case, the individualist anarchists were never supporters of capitalism and sometimes called themselves “socialists”. One of their founders, Benjamin Tucker, wrote in 1893 of “the two principles…Authority and Liberty” as the basis of “the two schools of Socialistic thought…respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism.” (Krimerman & Perry 1966; 62)

Iain McKay argues, “Anarchism has always been a socialist theory and the concept of an ‘anarchism’ which supported the economic system anarchism was born opposing is nonsense.” (McKay 2008; 7; emphasis in original) So it is important for anarchists to identify as “libertarian socialists” and “anarchist-socialists” in order to distinguish themselves from these phony, “libertarian,” supporters of exploitation and oppression.

Another current trend to which anarchists must relate is the rise of “democratic socialism” (or “social democracy”). Due to various factors, including the obvious failures of capitalism, a large minority has become attracted to this sort of “socialism.” A review of political polling over the last decade reveals, pretty consistently, that a sizable number (between 30 to 40 percent) favors “socialism.” While this is only a minority, it is about the same proportion of the population as that which supports President Trump! Importantly, young adults are most likely to have a positive view of socialism and a negative view of capitalism-from 40 to 50 percent. (Polling is summarized in Price 2018.) This is reflected in the significant position in the Democratic presidential primaries held by Bernie Sanders, despite his
self-identification as a “democratic socialist.” It is also reflected in the rapid growth of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to around 60,000.

What people mean by “socialism” or “democratic socialism” is very uncertain. (Sanders himself does not advocate expropriating the ruling rich, nor socializing major sectors of industry; his model, he says, is the Nordic countries, such as Denmark, which are capitalist countries with major welfare benefits-benefits which are now under attack.) The DSA itself is “multi-tendency.” It even has a Libertarian Socialist Caucus. But its predominant tendency involves using the electoral system of the capitalist state–by “democratic” they mean working within the electoral system of capitalist representative (limited) democracy. For most of them this means participating in the Democratic Party (right now supporting Sanders and some others, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). This is in order to propose reforms which supposedly may lead to a socialist society. That is, they are reformist state socialists. Some of them regard themselves as “revolutionaries,” but they do not openly advocate overthrowing the existing state.

Not that “democratic socialists” openly propose a completely centralized, state-managed, economy. This is no longer possible even on the Left. They are also for workers’ management, consumer cooperatives, and local, municipally-owned, industry. Anarchist-socialists also include such concepts within their overall program of a self-managed economy-a program which can only be achieved through the overturn of the state. But for these “democratic socialists,” such ideas go together with nationalized industry and reforms enforced by the existing (capitalist) state. (See their proposals for a “Green New Deal”; Price 2019.)

Revolutionary anarchist-socialists should have a two-sided approach to this growth of interest in socialism. On the one hand, they should welcome the new, popular, hostility to capitalism and openness to alternate systems, summarized as “socialism.” This is not the time for anarchists to be rejecting “socialism.” Anarchists, too, are part of the socialist movement and have always been.

On the other hand, they must oppose all varieties of state socialism, both reformist (working through the existing state) and “revolutionary” (seeking to overturn this state and to set up a new state-the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or whatever). Anarchists are the authentic socialists, they must say. Reformist state socialists will only maintain the existing capitalist system-a system in crisis which can no longer provide significant reforms. Alternately, revolutionary state socialists (Marxist-Leninists) would, if successful, only create a new system of state capitalism.

The radical movement of the “sixties,” also began with a reformist program. The Students for a Democratic Society, the then-dominant organization, began as the youth group of the League for Industrial Democracy. This was a social democratic body which included Michael
Harrington (who later started DSA). It was only over time that the youthful Left developed in a revolutionary direction-although one which was dominated by Leninist statism.

The pattern of movement from reformism to revolutionary socialism is likely to be repeated–this time hopefully toward libertarian socialism. The ongoing crises of U.S. and world capitalism will push the current radicalization further to the Left. The reformists will be unable to offer real solutions to the disasters which are looming over society. I am not proposing specific tactical directions (should anarchists join the DSA while opposing its electoralism and statism, or build independent organizations?). But revolutionary anarchist-socialists should be preparing for future developments by organizing themselves now.

References

Chomsky, Noam (1970). “Introduction.” In Daniel Guerin. Anarchism; From Theory to Practice. NY: Monthly Review Press. Pp. vii-xx.

Krimerman, Leonard, & Perry, Lewis (Eds.) (1966). Patterns of Anarchy; A Collection of Writings on the Anarchist Tradition. Garden City NY:
Anchor Books/Doubleday.

Kropotkin, Peter (2014). Direct Struggle Against Capital; A Peter Kropotkin Anthology (Iain McKay ed.). Oakland CA: AK Press.

McKay, Iain (2008). An Anarchist FAQ; Volume one. Oakland CA: AK Press.

McKay, Iain (2011). “Introduction.” Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology. (I. McKay ed.) Oakland CA: AK Press. Pp. 1-52.

Price, Wayne (2018). “The Revival of U.S. Socialism-And an Anarchist Response.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30763?search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2019). “A Green New Deal vs. Revolutionary Ecosocialism.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31250?search_text=Wayne+Price

Richards, Vernon (Ed.) (1984). Errico Malatesta; His Life and Ideas. London UK: Freedom Press.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31755

The post Are Anarchists Socialists? appeared first on Void Network.

Σύντροφοι συντρόφισσες,

Συναισθανόμενος ότι ο δεύτερος κύκλος της κινηματικής μου εμπειρίας που κράτησε τα τελευταία 10 και πλέον χρόνια μοιάζει να κλείνει, ένιωσα την ανάγκη να συνεισφέρω από τη πλευρά μου αυτό κείμενο. Πρόκειται για μια πρόταση για το τι πρέπει να γίνει, ώστε ο αναρχικός πολιτικός χώρος, να καταφέρει τα αποτελέσματα που του αντιστοιχούν, στον αγώνα του γα τη κοινωνική απελευθέρωση, από το κράτος και το κεφάλαιο.

Αναγνωρίζοντας ότι δεν υπάρχουν μαγικές συνταγές, προσπαθώ να αξιοποιήσω όσο μπορώ τις εμπειρίες,  που προέρχονται, από την επαφή μου με τον κόσμο, μέσω της δουλειάς, της καθημερινότητας, της αγωνιστικής δράσης και κινηματικής εμπειρίας. Άλλωστε δεν είμαστε πολλοί εκείνοι, που έχοντας φτάσει σε μια αρκετά ώριμη ηλικία που έχουν μαζέψει γνώσεις κι εμπειρίες, , και ταυτόχρονα συνεχίζουν να «παιδεύονται», με αυτό που λέμε σήμερα χώρος. Αυτός είναι άλλωστε και ο λόγος που πιστεύω ότι η συνεισφορά αυτή θα μπορούσε να φανεί χρήσιμη, παίρνοντας το θάρρος να καταθέσω και τη δική μου άποψη για το «τι πρέπει να γίνει».

Η κατάθεση λοιπόν  της πρότασης αυτής, ικανοποιεί την ενδόμυχη ανάγκη να συνεισφέρω στο χώρο, ανεξάρτητα από την όποια αποδοχή της. Ελπίζω ότι ότι θα προσληφθεί σα μια δημιουργική προσθήκη ιδεών μιας ακόμη, στις πάμπολλες «συνταγές επιτυχίας» υπάρχουν ήδη στα κεφάλια όλων μας.

Α. Το περιβάλλον

Ζούμε σε μια εποχή επέλασης του ολοκληρωτικού καπιταλισμού, που στη νεοφιλελεύθερη εκδοχή του, είναι πιο επιθετικός από ποτέ. Έχει αλώσει εκμεταλλευόμενος οικονομικά σχεδόν, όλες τις χώρες του «τρίτου κόσμου». Έχει φτάσει στα πιο ανεξερεύνητα σημεία του πλανήτη λεηλατώντας και τους τελευταίους φυσικούς πόρους της γης. Έχει διεισδύσει σα τρόπος ζωής ακόμα και στο τελευταίο στάβλο στα κορφοβούνια του Αφγανιστάν. Έχει διασπείρει μαζικά τον ιό του ανταγωνισμού στις ανθρώπινες σχέσεις. Έχει καλλιεργήσει ατομισμό στα μύχια των ψυχών, προωθώντας το καταναλωτισμό, τη λατρεία του εμπορεύματος, το πλουτισμό, κι επεκτείνεται ακόμα, σε βάθος και πλάτος, διατρέχοντας όλα τα σημεία του πλανήτη, και τις πιο σκιερές γωνιές της ανθρώπινης ψυχής.
Οι όποιες όψιμες αντιστάσεις που αναδεικνύονται από τις διάφορες εθνικές κι εθνικιστικές ελίτ σε διάφορα σημεία του πλανήτη, στη πραγματικότητα όχι μόνο δεν αντιμάχονται τον ολοκληρωτισμό της αγοράς, αλλά έρχονται να εξυπηρετήσουν και να ευωδούν με το ρόλο τους τη περαιτέρω εργασιακή εκμετάλλευση, καλλιεργώντας στη κοινωνία την υποταγή στην βίαιη εξουσιαστική ισχύ.
Είναι σίγουρο ότι βρισκόμαστε μπροστά σε μια διαφαινόμενη σύζευξη, ένα «γάμο» ανάμεσα στο νεοφιλελευθερισμό και το φασισμό, που θα κηρύξει την έναρξη ενός απάνθρωπου δυστοπικού μέλλοντος, ενός νέου μεσαίωνα. Μια σύζευξη εξαιρετικά επικίνδυνη που βρίσκει ρόλο και για τους δύο, αφού οι πρωτεύουσες οικονομικές και αντίστοιχα οι βίαιες εξουσιαστικές σκοπιμότητες ικανοποιούνται, θυσιάζοντας αντίστοιχα η κάθε πλευρά τα φιλελεύθερα και λαϊκίστικα χαρακτηριστικά τους. Η πολιτική θα μετατραπεί σε αυταρχική διοίκηση, που μέσω του φόβου θα παράξει τη κοινωνική συναίνεση. Η ακρισία εμπεδώνεται όλο και περισσότερο στις συνειδήσεις και η αλλοτρίωση δηλητηριάζει τις ψυχές. Μια φασίζουσα διεθνής, οργανώνει τη τελική της έφοδο μέσα στη κοινωνία. Η δουλειά έχει γίνει από χρόνια, οι ανθρώπινες ψυχές έχουν δηλητηριασθεί. Το φίδι είναι γύρω μας, και παλεύουμε να μη μπει στα σπίτια μας.

Η παγκόσμια κοινωνία, είναι αναγκαίο να αντιληφθεί ότι ο μοναδικός τρόπος ουσιαστικής αντίστασης στον επερχόμενο «νεοφιλελεύθερο» φασισμό δηλαδή το καπιταλιστικό ολοκληρωτισμό, είναι ο μονόδρομος της ολικής χειραφέτησής της, της απεμπλοκής της από το κράτος και το κεφάλαιο και της οριστικής καταστροφής τους. Για να γίνει αυτό θα πρέπει οι κοινωνικές δυνάμεις να αναλάβουν άμεσα δράση γι αγώνα ενάντια στο σύστημα, μέσα από ακηδεμόνευτες οριζόντιες συλλογικοποιήσεις, οργανώνοντας ομόσπονδα, ένα διεθνιστικό κίνημα, με στόχο τη παγκόσμια κοινωνία της γενικευμένης αυτοδιεύθυνσης και του ελευθεριακού κομμουνισμού. Έναν αγώνα αναρχικά κοινωνικό ενάντια στο κεφάλαιο και το κράτος, αφού μόνο η αναρχική πολιτική ιδεολογία, δεν δίνει κανένα περιθώριο, δεν αφήνει κανένα «ανοιχτό παράθυρο», στη συνέχιση της ύπαρξής τους. Η κοινωνική αναρχία, είναι η μοναδική αλλά και ολιστική λύση για την αντιμετώπιση του επερχόμενου μεσαίωνα. Από τη φύση της μπορεί να αποτελέσει το σκληρό πυρήνα των κοινωνικών αντιστάσεων, γύρω από τον οποίο μπορούν να συσπειρωθούν μεγάλα κομμάτια πληθυσμών, καθώς και κοινωνικών, αλλά και πολιτικών ομάδων. Από τη φύση της μπορεί να είναι ο προνομιακός πυλώνας της εκπομπής των ανθρώπινων νοημάτων, της λογικής, της συνεργασίας, της αλληλοβοήθειας, της εμπιστοσύνης της τρυφερότητας και της στοργής. Όλα επαναστατικά διακυβεύματα, που διαρρηγνύουν την εξατομίκευση, τον εγωτισμό, την απομόνωση, τον ανταγωνισμό, την επιθετικότητα και αντιπαλότητα, αποσκοπώντας στην αρμονική συμβίωση, και στην εξύψωση του θεσμού της κοινωνίας των ανθρώπων.

Η νεοφιλελεύθερη επέλαση χτυπάει απειλητικά τη πόρτα της δυτικής Ευρώπης, που με δούρειο ίππο το μεταναστευτικό ζήτημα, προωθεί νεοφιλελεύθερες πολιτικές χρησιμοποιώντας αντικοινωνικές ρατσιστικές, εθνικιστικές, φοβικές συνωμοσιολογικές, ρητορείες. Ήδη με κέντρο τις Βρυξέλλες δρομολογούνται σχέδια ανάπτυξης της ακροδεξιάς σε κάθε χώρα της Ευρώπης. Μιας Ευρώπης καπιταλιστικής μεν, αλλά με μακριά παράδοση διαφωτισμού κοινωνικών αγώνων κι εργατικών δικαιωμάτων, με πρόσφατες τις ιστορικές πληγές του μεγάλου πολέμου, που ανέδειξαν την αναγκαιότητα των αρχών του ανθρωπισμού, του διεθνούς δικαίου,  της κοινωνικής πρόνοιας, της αλληλεγγύης, κτλ. Σε μια τέτοια Ευρώπη εκτυλίσσεται από καιρό μια μεθοδευμένη επίθεση της αγοραίας καταναλωτικής εγωτικής κουλτούρας μέσω του θεάματος, δομώντας κοινωνικές νοοτροπίες της αμερικανικής άγριας δύσης κι εκφασισμού. Έτσι, ο πολιτικός εκφασισμός, έρχεται να φυτευτεί στο οργωμένο έδαφος μιας αντίστοιχης κοινωνικής ηθικής. Επιπρόσθετα, σε αυτή τη συντονισμένη προσπάθεια πολιτικού εκφασισμού, έχουν επιβουλευτεί think tanks, καθώς κι έχουν επιστρατευθεί προπαγανδιστικά, mainstream δημοσιογραφικά συγκροτήματα, που αφανώς και μεθοδικά ενισχύουν τις θέσεις που θα αποδομήσουν το παραδοσιακό ευρωπαϊκό εποικοδόμημα.

Η Ελλάδα δεν αποτελεί εξαίρεση, και μοιάζει δύσκολο να αποτελέσει. Άλλωστε έχει βαθιά εθνικιστική χριστιανορθόδοξη παράδοση , και η «αριστερή παρένθεση» δεν έχει τη τόλμη να φανεί, λίγο έστω, συνεπής με τον εαυτό της. Το δεξιό ακροδεξιό σύμφυρμα, περιμένει διψασμένο για εξουσία, αλλά και βία, έχοντας ήδη προδιαγεγραμμένο ρόλο, -ένα κοστούμι πολιτικά φασίζοντα οικονομικού νεοφιλελευθερισμού με σκληρό πρόσωπο, που θα εκδικηθεί με κάθε τρόπο την τετράχρονη απώλεια της εξουσίας πέφτοντας πάνω στα αδύναμα κομμάτια της κοινωνίας, και καταστέλλοντας σκληρά τις απείθαρχες φωνές, ικανοποιώντας έτσι την ακροδεξιά φασιστική πελατεία.

Ο χώρος

Ο αναρχικός πολιτικός χώρος, θα πρέπει να προετοιμασθεί για την επίθεση που θα δεχθεί, είτε αυτή προέρχεται από τη φασίζουσα νεοδεξιά, είτε από την από τα δεξιά πιεζόμενη ρεφορμιστική αριστερά, που βλέπει τη σημερινή αναρχία (ενν. ως αναρχικός χώρος) σα θυσιαστικό ανάθημα, στο βωμό της δικής της παραμονής στην αστική νομιμότητα, αν όχι στην εξουσία. Άλλωστε πάντα η αριστερά  θεωρούσε τους αναρχικούς άλλοτε χρήσιμους και άλλοτε αναλώσιμους, ανάλογα με τις δικές της πολιτικές σκοπιμότητες, τηρώντας κατά γράμμα τη λενινιστική της κουλτούρα και παράδοση.

Η αναρχία στην Ελλάδα ποτέ δεν συνέπραξε σε αυτή τη διαδικασία, όντας αυτόνομη κινηματικά, κι εκθέτοντας, αν όχι ταπεινώνοντας, τους επίδοξους εισοδιστές με το δικό της πάντα τρόπο. Τελευταία, παρατηρείται μια προσπάθεια ώθησης του αναρχικού χώρου σε σύγκλιση με τον εξουσιαστικό «κομμουνιστικό» χώρο, μέσω του αντιφασισμού. Τα επιτεύγματα του Εαμικού αντάρτικου στα ελληνικά βουνά τα χρόνια της κατοχής αλλά και στον εμφύλιο, γοητεύουν πολλούς στον αναρχικό χώρο, που αδυνατούν να αντιληφθούν ότι ένας λόγος της αδυναμίας τους να φτιάξουν τις δικές τους προϋποθέσεις για ένα δικό τους νικηφόρο αγώνα, περνάει και από τη προτυποποίηση του αγώνα των άλλων, και μάλιστα των αριστερών εξουσιαστών. Πρόκειται για «δάνειο ευκολίας», που πιστεύω ότι έχει εφήμερη αν όχι μικρή επίδραση. Το ίδιο ισχύει κατά την άποψή μου και για τα μερικά κινήματα ταυτότητας, που αντίστοιχα λειτουργούν ως πολιορκητικός κριός του φιλελευθερισμού. Και στις δύο περιπτώσεις το κίνημα μοιάζει να έχει τα αντισώματα, εκδηλώνοντας αντιδράσεις που επαναπροσδιορίζουν τη σχέση στο ολικό.

Εδώ λοιπόν, η σημερινή αναρχία οφείλει να κάνει ένα ποιοτικό άλμα. Να συμμερισθεί τη μικρή της ηλικία, και συνεπώς ότι θα πρέπει να φτιάξει τη δική της ιστορία, μέσα από τους δικούς της αγώνες, κρατώντας απ’ έξω τα όποια δάνεια τείνουν να επηρεάσουν την ολιστική οπτική, που είναι και η πεμπτουσία των προταγμάτων της.

Η  σημερινή αναρχία οφείλει επίσης να κάνει ένα τεράστιο ποσοτικό άλμα, που θα ξεπεράσει την όποια συρρίκνωση, αλλά και να αντεπιτεθεί σε μια ολιστικού τύπου επίμονη επιχείρηση. Να αντιληφθεί την ιστορική κρισιμότητα. Να αφήσει κατά μέρος την εσωστρέφεια και την αυτοαναφορικότητα. Οι συλλογικότητες θα πρέπει άμεσα να ξεκινήσουν δράση απευθυνόμενες προς τη κοινωνία. Να αφήσουν σε δεύτερη μοίρα τις εσωτερικές «δημόσιες» και μη σχέσεις, τον εσωτερικό διάλογο, τους ανταγωνισμούς και τις όποιες διαφωνίες, και να προτεραιοποιήσουν τη κοινωνική απεύθυνση στις δραστηριότητές τους. Θα πρέπει να πάψουμε να βλέπουμε τον αναρχικό χώρο σα καταφύγιο εκτονωτικής έκφρασης. Ο αναρχικός πολιτικός χώρος θα πρέπει να γίνει εφαλτήριο απεύθυνσης. Όλοι οι σύντροφοι είναι σημαντικοί, κρίσιμοι και σύμμαχοι στο κοινό αγώνα απέναντι στη φασιστική διεθνή, που επελαύνει τόσο γρήγορα, ώστε διατρέχουμε το κίνδυνο να μας πιάσει χαυνωμένους στον ύπνο της αυτοαναφορικότητας.  Δεν έχουμε πια χρόνο γι ανταγωνισμούς και διαφοροποιήσεις.

Είναι ώρα να εκκινήσουμε προς τα έξω, με διπλό στόχο. Να δώσουμε στο αναρχικό πρόταγμα πρωταγωνιστικό ρόλο στη μάχη της κοινωνίας κατά του μαύρου μετώπου, γκρεμίζοντας ταυτόχρονα  ολόκληρο το σύστημα, κράτος -κεφάλαιο.
Το αναρχικό κίνημα έχει ευκαιρίες. Μπορεί να αξιοποιήσει τις αδυναμίες του αντιπάλου, που δεν είναι άλλες από τις κρίσεις που το ίδιο το σύστημα παράγει, καθώς και τις ίδιες του τις αντιφάσεις. Αξιοποιώντας τα δικά του πλεονεκτήματα, να προετοιμάζει μεθοδικά το έδαφος, φυτεύοντας το σπόρο της απελευθέρωσης βαθιά μέσα στη κοινωνία μέχρι την επόμενη ευκαιρία, μια επόμενη κρίση, που θα ανάψει το φυτίλι για τη κοινωνική επανάσταση ενταφιάζοντας οριστικά το σύστημα κράτος-κεφάλαιο. Για να γίνει αυτό, το κίνημα θα πρέπει να ξεκινήσει άμεσα έναν αγώνα μέσα στη κοινωνία, αναδεικνύοντας τη σημασία της χειραφέτησής της απέναντι στο σύστημα, και καλλιεργώντας τη δυσανεξία της απέναντι στο κράτος. Η καλλιέργεια αυτών, θέτει τις προϋποθέσεις ώστε, στο ενδεχόμενο μιας επερχόμενης καπιταλιστικής κρίσης η κοινωνία να στραφεί πολιτικά προς τη κατεύθυνση της χειραφέτησής της, και όχι σε αυτή των εξουσιαστικών σχηματισμών, εθνικιστικών, νεοφιλελεύθερων, ακόμα και σοσιαλδημοκρατικών.

Β. Αντι-σύστημα

Η καλλιέργεια της αναρχικής πολιτικής κουλτούρας μέσα στο κοινωνικό σχηματισμό θα πρέπει να είναι βαθιά, και για να γίνει τέτοια θα πρέπει να είναι αποτελεσματική. Το κίνημα έχει και το ηθικό αλλά και πάνω από όλα τα ιδεολογικό πλεονέκτημα, να καταφέρει μια επιτυχημένη σπορά, που θα επιφέρει μιαν αξιόλογη κινηματική και κοινωνική συγκομιδή. Για να γίνει αυτό απαιτείται ο ταυτόχρονος συνδυασμός, ένα σύστημα δεσμών δράσεων και ποιοτικών στοιχείων. Ένα τέτοιο «αντι-σύστημα» θα πρέπει να έχει τις εξής δέσμες πρακτικών και δράσεων:

1. Ιδεολογικά ξεκαθαρίσματα.
2. Οργάνωση προδιαγραφών (άτομο –ομάδα -οργάνωση)
3. Επαναστατικό πρόγραμμα – οδικός χάρτης.
4. Ποιοτική και μεθοδική πολιτική επικοινωνία
5. Στρατηγική και τακτικές.
6. Εφαρμογές και πολιτικό κίνημα.

1. Ιδεολογικά ξεκαθαρίσματα.

Το αναρχικό ιδεολογικό πρόταγμα, θα πρέπει να εκπεμφθεί απαλλαγμένο από τις όποιες επιρροές που πιθανά προέκυψαν στη προσπάθεια γι αποτελεσματική ή ακόμα  και ελευθεριακή πολιτική έκφραση. Είτε αυτές οι επιρροές έρχονται από το χώρο της αριστεράς και της αυτονομίας, είτε από το χώρο των δικαιωματιστών, αλλά κι από οπουδήποτε αλλού.  Η κοινωνική αναρχία έχει τους ιστορικούς εκφραστές της, έχει τη βιβλιογραφία της, έχει τα περιεχόμενα. Μένει σε εμάς μόνο να ξεκαθαρίσουμε τα ιδεολογικά μας επίδικα, το ποιά θα επιλέξουμε να προτάξουμε επικαιροποιώντας τα στις σύγχρονες ανάγκες, ώστε να υλοποιηθεί με ρεαλιστικούς όρους η γέννηση ενός κοινωνικού κινήματος που θα επιφέρει τη κοινωνική επανάσταση.

Διαφωνίες θα υπάρξουν πολλές, ανταγωνισμοί όμως δεν έχουν θέση μέσα στο αναρχικό κίνημα, αφού από τη φύση του ένα τέτοιο κίνημα δε μπορεί παρά να είναι συνεργατικό. Συνεπώς, οι όποιες ιδεολογικές διαφωνίες και διαφορές είναι σεβαστές μεν, αλλά ίσως ν’ αποτελούν και πολυτέλεια κρίνοντας από το επείγον της επερχόμενης κατάστασης. Συμπερασματικά, οι όποιες απαντήσεις μπορούν να δοθούν σε ιδεολογικά επίδικα, είναι ζήτημα επιλύσιμο ορθολογικά (αν όχι τεχνοκρατικά), έχει δηλαδή συγκεκριμένες λύσεις, αρκεί να είναι ξεκάθαρες οι αξιακές συμφωνίες.

*[Θα ήταν εξαιρετικά επωφελές για το χώρο, η δημιουργία ενός ανεξάρτητου κέντρου αντιεξουσιαστικών μελετών, που θα αποτελείται από συντρόφους-ισσες, ειδικούς-ες επιστήμονες, μελετητές-ιες, και θα έχει σαν σκοπό την ανάδειξη των συζητήσεων, των θέσεων, των πλεονεκτημάτων και μειονεκτημάτων για θέματα που το ίδιο το πολιτικό κίνημα βάζει ως επίδικα στην ατζέντα του. Τα επιστημονικά συμπεράσματα, θα δίνουν απαντήσεις πάνω σε προβλήματα εκσυγχρονισμού της πολιτικής μας θεωρίας σε σχέση με τομείς της δραστηριότητας όπως, π.χ., της οικονομίας, της οργάνωσης μαζικών κοινωνιών, οργάνωσης της εργασίας και της παραγωγικότητας,  την οικολογία, τον υπερπληθυσμό, τη διαδρομή της επαναστατικής διαδικασίας, της ασφάλειας, και της παιδείας, της απονομής δικαιοσύνης, καθώς και οποιουδήποτε άλλου ζητήματος, για το οποίο δεχόμαστε κριτική και οφείλουμε να έχουμε απαντήσεις, είτε αδυνατούμε ακόμα να προσεγγίσουμε με έγκυρους όρους. Οι εργασίες ενός τέτοιου κέντρου, θα έχουν μόνο γνωμοδοτικό χαρακτήρα, και σε καμιά περίπτωση δε μπορούν να αποτελούν «ανάθεση», με την αρνητική χροιά της έννοιας. Εναπόκειται σε όλους εμάς το ζήτημα του εφησυχασμού ή μη, από τέτοιου είδους αναζητήσεις στο συλλογικό και ατομικό επίπεδο, αναλαμβάνοντας πρωτοβουλίες που είναι και το ιδανικό εφόσον υπάρχει χρόνος. Επίσης οι γνωμοδοτήσεις του σε καμιά περίπτωση δεν θα αποτελούν χρησμούς αυθεντιών, και δε μπορούν να μπαίνουν στη βάσανο της κριτικής. Πόσο μάλλον να γίνονται άκριτα αποδεκτές. Από την άλλη πλευρά όμως θα πρέπει να παραδεχθούμε, ότι η γνώση έχει αναπτυχθεί σε τέτοιο βαθμό που είναι εξαιρετικά δύσκολο να μπορέσουμε χωρίς εξειδικευμένες πληροφορίες να καταφέρουμε να προσεγγίσουμε έγκυρα κι εύστοχα το πολύπλοκο «υπάρχον», αλλά ακόμα και το δικό μας προτεινόμενο μέλλον.]

2. Οργάνωση προδιαγραφών. (άτομα -ομάδες -οργάνωση)

Καμία κοινή συλλογική προσπάθεια δεν έχει ελπίδα ευόδωσης αν δεν υποστηρίζεται από οργάνωση. Κάθε πολιτικός χώρος που φιλοδοξεί να ασκήσει κοινωνική επιρροή, για να φέρει το επιθυμητό αποτέλεσμα θα πρέπει να έχει οργάνωση και μάλιστα σοβαρών ποιοτικών προδιαγραφών. Ο αναρχικός χώρος, παρά τις όποιες πρόσφατες φιλότιμες προσπάθειες, χαρακτηρίζεται ακόμη από ένα γενικευμένο αφορμαλισμό, που αποδεικνύει την εκτονωτική εντροπία του χώρου, και όχι την ενεργητικά  πολιτική.

Η ελλιπής απήχηση των πρόσφατων οργανωτικών προσπαθειών, σε συνδυασμό με την αναγκαιότητα μιας ομόσπονδης οργάνωσης, μας υποδεικνύουν μια δομή, αρχικά χαλαρής σύζευξης μεταξύ αλληλέγγυων –μη ανταγωνιστικών πολιτικών συλλογικοτήτων, που αλληλοενημερώνονται και συνεργάζονται, πάνω σε εθελοντική βάση μακριά από ηγεμονισμούς. Να μοιράζονται τις υποδομές (ιστολόγιο, τυπογραφείο, ρ/σ, γραφεία, αποθήκες, κ.ά.) δημιουργώντας οικονομίες κλίμακας, να συναντώνται, να αλληλοενημερώνονται, να διαμορφώσουν ένα κείμενο γενικών αρχών. Σε δεύτερη φάση, να φτιάξουν πλαίσιο λειτουργίας με σαφείς προδιαγραφές, να φτιάξουν τις υποστηρικτικές ομάδες εργασίας, να έχουν προσδιορισμένο αριθμό μελών, να συντονίσουν όποτε χρειάζεται έναν αγώνα, και πάνω από όλα, να συνδιαμορφώσουν ένα πρώτο κοινό πνεύμα, που με τη σταδιακή ωρίμανσή του, σε επόμενο χρόνο θα φέρει από μόνο του ένα πιο σφιχτό και συγκροτημένο πλαίσιο. Και όλα αυτά, σε μια διασύνδεση που θα κινείται στη σχέση της αλληλέγγυας συντροφικότητας. Μιας συντροφικότητας που θα τρέφεται από την διαπάλη με το «έξω», και θα τη σχετικοποιεί στο σωστό λόγο, ώστε αυτή να είναι υγιής, και να της δίνει το περιεχόμενο. Η ύπαρξη ομάδων εργασίας άμεσα ανακλητών εκπροσώπων για θέματα ταχείας παρέμβασης (π.χ. άμεσης αντίδρασης, τύπου, περιφρούρησης, κτλ) είναι ζητούμενο, αλλά κι εφικτό εάν περιγραφεί ένα ξεκάθαρο συμφωνημένο απ’ όλους, πλαίσιο αρχών λειτουργίας κι ευχερειών διαχείρισης. Όπως και να έχει οι ομάδες αυτές, θα πρέπει να έχουν εκτελεστικό ρόλο και όχι αποφασιστικό. Ακόμα όμως κι αν προβλέπονται αποφασιστικές αρμοδιότητες, αυτές θα πρέπει να περιγράφονται από ένα σαφές πλαίσιο.

Οι συλλογικότητες θα πρέπει να διατηρούν την αυτονομία τους, απόλυτα. Οι συμφωνίες, οι συναινέσεις, οι υποχωρήσεις, και πάνω απ’ όλα οι διαφωνίες, αποδεικνύουν την ελευθεριακότητα των συλλογικοτήτων. Οι ανταγωνισμοί, οι επιδιώξεις, οι ηγεμονισμοί, είναι απαξία και δεν έχουν θέση. Ο αναρχικός χώρος θα πρέπει να αντιληφθεί τη κρισιμότητα των καιρών, και οι συλλογικότητες απευθυνόμενες στο κοινό τους, θα πρέπει να υλοποιήσουν ένα σχέδιο κοινωνικής απεύθυνσης για τη διάχυση του αναρχικού λόγου.

Οι συλλογικότητες θα πρέπει να διέπονται από τη φιλοδοξία της αύξησης της πολιτικής τους επιρροής, με απώτερο πολιτικό στόχο τη δημιουργία συνελεύσεων στη γειτονιά και στην εργασία. Θα πρέπει να θέτουν σα προτεραιότητα να προβάλλουν καταστατικά τα πολιτικά περιεχόμενα, και τις κοινές πολιτικές συμφωνίες μεταξύ των μελών τους, δηλαδή τις αρχές και τις θέσεις τους. Η εξωστρέφεια στη πολιτική παρέμβαση είναι η υπαρξιακή τους ταυτότητα. Χωρίς αυτή δεν είναι παρά μόνο κελύφη εκκόλαψης συγκεκαλυμμένων παθών. Ο αγώνας και η διάδραση με τη κοινωνία, είναι ο μόνος τρόπος να διατηρήσουν την ουσία τους ως συλλογικότητες. Είναι η «ασκητική» του αγώνα που θα τις προστατέψει από τις παθογένειες. Οι συλλογικότητες θα πρέπει να έχουνε προδιαγραφές λειτουργίας και σαφή ταυτοτικά στοιχεία όπως, περιγραφικό σημείωμα, διακήρυξη αρχών και θέσεων, καταστατικό λειτουργίας,  ελευθεριακές διαδικασίες λήψης απόφασης, επιλογές τακτικής, απολογισμό, αναθεωρητική διαδικασία. Επίσης σαφή αριθμό μελών, αλλά και φίλων –υποστηρικτών. Οι ομάδες θα πρέπει να επιλέγουν πρακτικές προσαρμοσμένες στις δυνατότητές τους, ώστε αυτές να επιτυγχάνουν.
*[Για περισσότερες πληροφορίες σχετικά με την κατά την άποψή μας καλή  λειτουργία της ομάδας,  μπορείτε να βρείτε στο παράρτημα: «Για μια επιτυχημένη πολιτική εκστρατεία». Πιστεύουμε ότι θα διευκολύνει.]

Τα άτομα που συμμετέχουν ως μέλη στις συλλογικότητες, θα πρέπει να γνωρίζουν πως βρίσκονται σε μια συνεχή επιμορφωτική διαδικασία επαναστατικής συνειδητοποίησης, σε μια διαλεκτική διαδικασία από το «θυμικά επαναστατημένος», στο επαναστατικά συνειδητοποιημένος. Από τη δηλωμένη πολιτική ενεργοποίηση, στην επαναστατικά  συνειδητοποιημένη συλλογικοποίηση. Χρειάζονται μέλη που αναλαμβάνουν ευθύνες κι έργα, από έρωτα για την κοινή μας υπόθεση. Και τα μέλη αυτά οφείλουν ν’ αποτελούν το παράδειγμα του ελεύθερου ανθρώπου. Ο επαναστάτης ως παράδειγμα, έχει απίστευτη επικοινωνιακή ισχύ,  επηρεάζει με ουσιαστικό και βαθύ τρόπο τους γύρω του, και αποτελεί «φάρο» του αγώνα. Ο επαναστάτης ως παράδειγμα ελευθεριακής ηθικής, είναι το μεγαλύτερο όπλο του αγώνα.

Άτομο, ομάδα, οργάνωση, όλα στο καλύτερο δυνατό βαθμό, ποιοτικής αξιακά, απόδοσης. Όλα αυτά πρέπει να συγκλίνουν σε μια οργανωτική ομόσπονδη δομή που θα αποτελείται από όλες τις αναρχικές συλλογικότητες. Μια δομή μαζική, που να διέπεται από τις αρχές της ελευθερίας, και θα διαφυλάσσει την απόλυτη αυτονομία των συλλογικοτήτων που θα την απαρτίζουν, και μέσω αυτών, να έχει ένα σαφή αριθμό συνειδητοποιημένων επαναστατικά, χειραφετημένων αυτόνομων οργανωμένων μελών. Μια οργάνωση που θα λειτουργεί με προδιαγραφές, αλλά και ταυτόχρονα θα ενεργεί λειτουργικά στη βάση της δημιουργικής λογικής. Οι όποιες κριτικές μεταξύ αλλήλων θα είναι αποδεκτές πάνω στη βάση του…, «γιατί εμείς δε θα το κάναμε έτσι». Γενικές αρχές, καταστατικό λειτουργίας, συνδιαμορφωτική διαδικασία, λογοδοσία, αναθεωρητική διαδικασία, αξιολόγηση. Μια οργάνωση εξωστρεφή σε κάθε περίπτωση.

3. Επαναστατικό πρόγραμμα – οδικός χάρτης.

Είναι εξαιρετικά κρίσιμο, για τη διευκόλυνση της αποδοχής των προταγμάτων μας  από τη κοινωνία, η σύνταξη ενός επαναστατικού προγράμματος, που θα μπορούσε να είναι ένας οδικός χάρτης της προόδου της κοινωνικής επανάστασης από το σήμερα στη κοινωνία που ευαγγελιζόμαστε. Η σύνταξη ενός επαναστατικού προγράμματος, κρίνεται απαραίτητη, στο βαθμό που αποδεικνύει στο κόσμο τη ρεαλιστικότητα των προταγμάτων μας, και δημιουργεί αίσθηση βασιμότητας -αλλά και ασφάλειας μπροστά στο αβέβαιο, για τα βήματα που θα μπορούσαν να ακολουθηθούν, ώστε το αναρχικό διακύβευμα να δείχνει υλοποιήσιμο και όχι ουτοπικό συνολικά στη κοινωνική αντίληψη. Ταυτόχρονα, η κοινωνία, διαβλέπει μια σαφή εναλλακτική διαδρομή, που έχει προοπτική υλοποίησης και δεν είναι ένα «όνειρο θερινής νυκτός».
Το επαναστατικό πρόγραμμα, θα πρέπει να βασίζεται σε ρεαλιστικές παραδοχές, να αναγνωρίζει το υπάρχον σαν ιστορική φάση της ανθρωπότητας, να διέπεται από τις αρχές της λειτουργικότητας, της εφικτότητας, και να συμπεριλαμβάνει μιαν αντίληψη σταδίων επαναστατικής προόδου, χωρίς αξιακές ποιοτικές διαφοροποιήσεις, ή εργαλειακούς συμβιβασμούς και σκοπιμότητες ξεκινώντας με μια ξεκάθαρη αντίληψη γι αυτό που συμβαίνει τώρα, σήμερα, στην εποχή μας.
Το επαναστατικό πρόγραμμα αποτελεί μια εναλλακτική πρόταση προς τη κοινωνία, μια ενδεχόμενη επιλογή και όχι αναπόφευκτη αδιαμφισβήτητη συνταγή. Μια προαπεικόνιση, ως ενδεχόμενη πραγματικότητα. Η κοινωνία θα επιλέξει τον τρόπο που θα πορευτεί στη τελική. Η σύνταξή του όμως, θα πρέπει να είναι τόσο ρεαλιστική και τεκμηριωμένη, που η όποια αμφισβήτησή του από τη πραγματικότητα, να είναι εξαιρετικά δύσκολη. Το μέγεθος της πιστότητας του προγράμματος θα είναι ευθέως ανάλογο της απήχησής του. Όπως και να έχει, το πρόγραμμα, θα πρέπει να συνδέεται με σαφήνεια με το όραμα, και να αποτελεί τη ρεαλιστική προαπεικόνισή του. Μια απεικόνιση που θα αποδεικνύει τη βασιμότητα, το υλοποιήσιμο του οράματός μας.

4. Ποιοτική και μεθοδική πολιτική επικοινωνία.

Αν θέλουμε να αλλάξουμε τη κοινωνία, θα πρέπει να πάψουμε να βλέπουμε το πολιτικό χώρο μας σα καταφύγιο έκφρασης παθολογιών κι εκτόνωσης παθών, αλλά σαν εφαλτήριο εξωστρεφούς δράσης για την ανατροπή. Δυστυχώς, πολιτική μας επικοινωνία δε προσπαθεί να αντιληφθεί τη νοοτροπία, αλλά και να λειτουργήσει διαλυτικά στις βεβαιότητες του δέκτη -καταλυτικά στη πολιτική του άποψη. Αντίθετα, επιδιώκει τη καταγγελία, την αντιπαράθεση, τη περιχαράκωση των στρατοπέδων και τη συγκρότηση ενός πόλου, που γύρω του θα επιχειρηθεί να συσπειρωθεί ο ήδη φιλικά διακείμενος. Μια προσπάθεια που επιχειρεί να συσπειρώσει τους «δικούς μας», ώστε να αισθανθούμε δυνατοί, για να προχωρήσουμε πιο πέρα. Πρόκειται για μια φοβική ανακλαστική αντίδραση ενστικτώδους ευκολίας.

Θα πρέπει να αλλάξουμε νοοτροπία. Να επιλέξουμε τα δύσκολο δρόμο της διείσδυσης, στη καθεστηκυία αντίληψη. Να σπάσουμε τις τσιμενταρισμένες αντιλήψεις. Να βρούμε τις ρωγμές. Να βρούμε τις διόδους προσαρμόζοντας τη διαλεκτική μας πάνω στο παγιωμένο τρόπο σκέψης, κι από κει να φτιάξουμε τις ρωγμές.  Να συντονισθούμε στη γλώσσα των καθημερινών ανθρώπων, αφού μόνο γνωρίζοντάς τους καλά , μπορούμε να καταφέρουμε πλήγματα μέσα στο παγιωμένο «λογισμικό» τους. Όντας ανοιχτοί στην αλληλεπίδραση με όλους τους ανθρώπους, να τροφοδοτούμε με ερεθίσματα παρμένα από τη καθημερινότητα τη σκέψη, να τα μετατρέπουμε σε διδάγματα, και να τα αξιοποιούμε προς όφελος του αγώνα μας. Αυτό είναι το μυστικό για μια επιτυχή πολιτική επικοινωνία. Να περπατήσουμε με γενναιότητα στη κορυφογραμμή της καθημερινότητας στη ζωής μας, να βλέπουμε κι από τις δύο μπάντες, όντας ελεύθεροι στην αντίληψη, αλλά και δημιουργικά ενταγμένοι στην πολιτική έκφραση. Εκεί βρίσκεται το νόημα της επιτυχημένης πολιτικής επικοινωνίας

Ένας αγώνας διάχυσης της πολιτικής μας κουλτούρας, περνάει μέσα από μια πολύμορφη διαχείριση του πολιτικού μηνύματος. Το μήνυμα για να εκπεμφθεί απαιτεί έξυπνα μέσα, που να αντιμάχονται στα ίσα, τη κατεστημένη μαζική επικοινωνία των συστημικών ΜΜΕ. Το διαδίκτυο, το ραδιόφωνο, η τηλεόραση υπό προϋποθέσεις, είναι μέσα χρήσιμα και αποτελεσματικά στη μαζική επικοινωνία, ας μην εθελοτυφλούμε. Σε κάθε περίπτωση θα πρέπει να εξετάζουμε το θεμιτό της χρήσης τους, και να εφευρίσκουμε εκείνες τις μορφές, που πρωτοπορούν δίνοντάς μας το χρονικό πλεονέκτημα, όπως άλλωστε έγινε με το indymedia στο λυκαυγές του διαδικτύου.

Η τέχνη (μουσική, θέατρο, σινεμά), είναι εξαιρετικά δυναμικό μέσο, κι απηχεί στις χορδές ανθρώπων με ευαισθησία. Κάθε μορφή τέχνης, αποτελεί μια διανοητική σύνθεση που οπλίζει με συναισθηματικό έρμα, δικαιώνοντας και σε αυτή τη διάσταση τον αγώνα. Η συλλογικοποίηση των ανθρώπων της τέχνης, η παραγωγή και στήριξη του έργου τους, και η προβολή του μέσα από τους δικούς μας χώρους με τα δικά μας μέσα, είναι μια σχέση αμφίδρομη και διακριτή, που σέβεται το πόθο του δημιουργού από τη μια κι εκείνος την ανταποδίδει  στο κοινό από την άλλη. Να ξαναφτιάξουμε λοιπόν τη δική μας κουλτούρα. Την αντισυστημική κουλτούρα. Αρκεί  ο πολιτικός να λειτουργεί συνεκτικά με το δημιουργό αναρχικό.

Ο λόγος που χρησιμοποιούμε θα πρέπει να γίνει απλός κατανοητός κι ελκυστικός στον αναγνώστη, μακριά από σορβονισμούς και διανοητικούς ελιτισμούς. Θα πρέπει κάθε μήνυμα να υποστηρίζεται από τρία επίπεδα επικοινωνίας. Το αναλυτικό (μπροσούρα), το συνοπτικό (προκήρυξη), και το συνθετικό (αφίσα- σύνθημα- τέχνη).  Κάθε μήνυμα να απευθύνεται σε όλων των ειδών τους δέκτες και να έχει την απαραίτητη αμεσότητα.

Η πολιτική μας επικοινωνία για να είναι αποτελεσματική, θα πρέπει να έχει συχνότητα, σταθερό ρυθμό, και να είναι συνεπής και στη παρουσία. Ακόμα κι αν οι οικονομία των δυνάμεών μας δεν το αντέχει, ας επικεντρώσουμε τουλάχιστον τακτικά,  σε συγκεκριμένο κοινό, πχ, σε μια γειτονιά, στην ίδια γειτονιά. Είναι εξαιρετικά σημαντικό να γνωρίζει ο κόσμος που και πότε θα μας βρει. Και όταν θελήσει, να είμαστε εκεί. Η συνέπεια είναι κρίσιμο συστατικό για μια επιτυχημένη πολιτική επικοινωνία.

Είναι εξαιρετικά κρίσιμο επικοινωνιακά να είναι ξεκάθαρες οι πολιτικές μας θέσεις. Μια συλλογικότητα οφείλει να δείχνει από την αρχή τα προτάγματά της αποφεύγοντας επικοινωνιακούς τακτισμούς, έμμεσες αναφορές και κρυψίνοες λογικές. Είναι σημαντικό ο κόσμος να σε αναγνωρίζει ως διακριτή ταυτότητα, με ξεκάθαρα χαρακτηριστικά. Ακόμα και στη περίπτωση ασυμφωνίας εντός της συλλογικότητας ή όπου αλλού, είναι εξαιρετικά σημαντικό η διαφωνία να καταγράφεται και να αναδεικνύεται, με ισότιμη προβολή. Οι όποιες αντιφάσεις ας αναδεικνύονται, προκειμένου τουλάχιστον να αποφύγουμε μια εικόνα ενός, τεχνητά, απόλυτα συγκροτημένου χειριστικού  λόγου. Η ειλικρίνεια των προθέσεων είναι πλεονέκτημα στις μέρες μας.  Άλλωστε η κοινωνική αναρχία από τη φύση είναι ανιδιοτελής, και συνεπώς δεν έχει τίποτε να φοβάται όσον αφορά στο λόγο της.

Η επικοινωνιακή μας στρατηγική θα πρέπει να εκκινεί με θέσεις σεβασμού απέναντι στο κοινωνικό υπάρχον, όσο κι αν αυτό δεν αξίζει μια τέτοια στάση. Όσο κι αν ο κόσμος μας πληγώνει, εμείς θα πρέπει να αλληλεπιδρούμε με σεβασμό απέναντί του, αφομοιώνοντας ουσιαστικά την αρνητικότητα της αλλοτριωμένης του συνείδησης. Ας μη φοβόμαστε. Έχουμε αρκετό ανεξίκακο δυναμικό, που σε κάθε περίπτωση μόνο δημιουργικά λειτουργεί, αφού σε δεύτερο χρόνο, αυτό επενεργεί θεραπευτικά στη κοινωνική σκουριά. Αυτό δε σημαίνει ότι θα επιτρέπουμε την όποια προσβολή δεχόμαστε, όμως επικοινωνιακά θα πρέπει να συνδυάζουμε στιβαρότητα όταν απαιτείται, αλλά και ηπιότητα στην επαφή μας. Η αναρχία οφείλει να σταθεί επικοινωνιακά ανθεκτική, επίμονη και υπομονετική στις μικρότητες, με τη βαθιά πεποίθηση ότι η  κοινωνία όπως και ο άνθρωπος είναι δυναμικά σύνολα και συνεπώς μεταβλητά.

Κλείνοντας αυτή την ενότητα, πιστεύουμε ότι το σημαντικότερο όλων, το πιο κομβικό σε ένα πολιτικό αγώνα,  είναι η δημιουργία οράματος, και η κοινοποίησή του στη κοινωνία. Ένα όραμα ιδεαλιστικό αλλά και ρασιοναλιστικό. Ένα όραμα που θα περιγράφει μια πραγματικότητα ελκυστική ποιοτικά αλλά και επαρκή υλικά. Ένα τέτοιο όραμα, περιγεγραμμένο με καθημερινότητα, αλλά και επεξηγημένο ορθολογικά, που θα αποτελεί δυνατό πόλο έλξης, σε αντίστιξη με τη μίζερη σημερινή πραγματικότητα. Ένα τέτοιο όραμα, είναι και αξιακό, και προγραμματικό, και μέρος μιας επικοινωνιακής τακτικής, και συνολικότερα ο πυρήνας της στρατηγικής μας.

5. Στρατηγική και τακτικές.

Βασική προϋπόθεση για μια ουσιαστική κι επιτυχημένη κοινωνική επανάσταση είναι η συμμετοχή σε αυτή του συνόλου των ανθρώπων, αν όχι της συντριπτικής πλειονότητας. Μια ελευθεριακή κοινωνική επανάσταση δε μπορεί να είναι και να παραμείνει τέτοια, στο βαθμό που σε αυτή συμμετέχουν ή ακόμα περισσότερο συναινούν, κοινωνικές μειοψηφίες. Στο βαθμό που γίνεται κάτι τέτοιο διακινδυνεύεται το κεντρικό διακύβευμα της επανάστασης, που είναι η κοινωνική ελευθερία και η εμπέδωσή της στο επέκεινα κοινωνικό γίγνεσθαι. Και το τελευταίο πράγμα που επιθυμούμε σαν αναρχικοί είναι να έχουμε μια «πετυχημένη» επανάσταση, χωρίς ουσιαστική κοινωνική συμμετοχή. Άλλωστε η κοινωνική συνδιαμόρφωση είναι χρωματόσωμα της πολιτικής μας θεωρίας, και «δεν υπάρχουμε» χωρίς αυτή.

Αυτό το αξίωμα, της καθολικής κοινωνικής μετοχής, προκαθορίζει τη στρατηγική: και αυτή δε μπορεί να είναι άλλη, από την επίμονη, άοκνη, με υπομονή, και με βάθος χρόνου προσπάθεια αποτελεσματικής απεύθυνσης προς το κοινωνικό σώμα, διαμέσου της λογικής και ακόλουθα εθελούσιας πειθούς. Σκοπός, η σταδιακή μεταβολή της κοινωνικής νοοτροπίας, μέχρι του σημείου που οι κοινωνικές διεργασίες και ζυμώσεις να δημιουργούν ένα απεριόριστο ελευθεριακό πεδίο, που από μόνο του θα συμπαρασύρει, και θα καταργεί εξουσία σε όσα επίπεδα, -πολιτικό, κοινωνικό, οικονομικό, πολιτιστικό, ανθρώπινων σχέσεων, αλλά και εσωτερικό ψυχολογικό. Ένα ελευθεριακό πεδίο που θα καταργεί επαναστατικά την ανάθεση, τους ρόλους εξουσίας, την ανισότητα, την ακρισία, τον εγωτισμό, αλλά και την αλλοτρίωση. Άλλωστε κοινωνική επανάσταση δεν είναι απλά «μια έφοδος στα χειμερινά ανάκτορα», αλλά μια συνεχής διαδικασία που γίνεται σε βάθος χρόνου, σταδιακά, με καταλυτικό τρόπο, σε κάθε επίπεδο της ζωής, «μάκρο» και μαζικό, ή «μίκρο» κι εσωτερικό. Κοινωνική απεύθυνση λοιπόν, με σκοπό τη καθολική κοινωνική πολιτική συνειδητοποίηση.

Το ζήτημα της βίας είναι ένα επίδικο που απαντιέται αρνητικά, όταν πρόκειται να επιλέξεις στρατηγικές μαζικής υπερ-πλειονοτικής κοινωνικής επανάστασης. Και αυτό γιατί η κοινωνία, όπως και η αναρχική κοσμοθεωρία, αντίστοιχα επιθυμούν και προτάσσουν την ειρήνη και την αρμονία. Όμως δυστυχώς, όσον αφορά στη κοινωνική νοοτροπία, η επιδίωξη της αρμονίας και της ασφάλειας, εκπίπτει προς όφελος της «ειρήνης» και της επιβολής. Γιατί δυστυχώς η κοινωνία, καλώς ή κακώς προτιμά μια «ειρήνη» συντελούμενη με όρους επιβολής, ακόμη κι αν αυτή επιβουλεύεται τα δικαιώματά της προς όφελος της ασφάλειας και της ηρεμίας. Αυτοϋπονομεύει έτσι εθελόδουλα, ακόμα και την ίδια της την  ελευθερία. Όσο κι αν κάτι τέτοιο δε μας ευχαριστεί, αν θέλουμε να έχουμε τον κόσμο με το μέρος μας θα πρέπει να το λαμβάνουμε πραγματικά υπόψη. Και γι αυτό μένει σε εμάς το δυσεπίλυτο πρόβλημα να μετατρέψουμε με το λόγο μας, το φιλήσυχο νοικοκύρη σε ασυμβίβαστο μαχητή της κοινωνικής επανάστασης. Για να το πετύχουμε αυτό, θα πρέπει να έχουμε με το μέρος μας μια ισχυρή ηθική δικαίωση για τα δικά μας προτάγματα, και αυτή έρχεται όταν το σύστημα στρέφεται εναντίον ενός άδολου, ανιδιοτελούς, και κοινωνικά δικαιωμένου πολιτικού κινήματος. Εναπόκειται σε εμάς λοιπόν να προβάλλουμε το λόγο μας, με τον ορθό τρόπο, ώστε με τη θετικότητά του να καλλιεργηθεί η ηθική δικαίωση, και συνεπώς η κοινή θετική πεποίθηση γι αυτόν. Θα πρέπει λοιπόν να καταφέρουμε να κάνουμε τη κοινωνία να συναισθάνεται αφόρητα τη καταπίεση κι εκμετάλλευση, έχοντας αντιληφθεί απ’ τη μεριά της, ότι η δική μας πρόταση, είναι η μοναδική διαφυγή της προς τη πραγματική ελευθερία κι ευημερία, από ένα σύστημα καταπίεσης μιας ολιγαρχίας, για το οποίο δε μπορεί να υπάρχει αύριο. Δεν είναι απλό, αλλά έτσι είναι.
Η θέση αυτή, δε σημαίνει ότι στρέφουμε τις πλάτες μας στις όποιες εξεγερτικές πρακτικές, ή στη δίκαιη κοινωνική αντιβία. Αντίθετα, θα πρέπει να εκπονήσουμε εκείνο το σχέδιο, που θα επιτυγχάνει ταυτόχρονα, την αρμονική ένταξη των «εξεγερμένων», σε μια οργανωμένη μαχητική συντεταγμένη οργάνωση που πετυχαίνει τα μέγιστα αποτελέσματα και στο «δρόμο».

Η πολιτική πράξη είναι σήμερα κεντρικό πεδίο, αφού το ζήτημα της λήψης των αποφάσεων είναι το κομβικό στοιχείο της κοινωνικής συμβίωσης. Συνεπώς τα πολιτικά μας προτάγματα, που έχουν αναμφίβολα ηθικά πλεονεκτήματα έναντι του υπάρχοντος μετα -πολιτικού διαχειριστικού ζόφου, είναι προνομιακά ως αδιαμφισβήτητα ηθικά. Το πολιτικό επίδικο λοιπόν, είναι πρώτο σε μια εμπροστοβαρή στρατηγική, και μέσω αυτού, σε συνέχεια να αποκαλύπτεται ένας ολόκληρος αξιακός κώδικας σε ευθεία συγκρότηση, και που  φτάνει μέχρι τα βάθη της ανθρώπινης ψυχής. Η ευθυγράμμιση αυτή είναι ο δικός μας συγκροτημένος πλούτος, που καλούμαστε με όλους τους τρόπους να προβάλλουμε αλλά και να προστατεύουμε. Εκκινούμε από το φλέγον πολιτικό επίδικο, ακόμα και από τη καθημερινή μεταπολιτική επικαιρότητα, και αποκαλύπτουμε μια αξιακά συγκροτημένη σε ευθεία γραμμή πρόταση, που συμπεριλαμβάνει την οικονομία, τη κοινωνική ζωή, τις ηθικές μας, την συλλογική και ατομική διάσταση.

Βασικός πολιτικός στόχος του αναρχικού πολιτικού κινήματος οφείλει να είναι, η επιδίωξη σχηματισμού συνελεύσεων, γειτονιάς και αντίστοιχων στους χώρους εργασίας. Η επιδίωξη αυτή προκειμένου να υλοποιηθεί, απαιτείται συνεχής συνεπής και με συχνότητα προπαγανδιστική δράση και παρουσία σε βάθος χρόνου. Σκοπός είναι η αριθμητική αύξηση των υποστηρικτών των προταγμάτων της γενικευμένης κοινωνικής αυτοδιεύθυνσης, και η πραγμάτωσή τους μέσα από τις ακηδεμόνευτες πολιτικά (και αναρχικά), κοινωνικές συνελεύσεις.  Η δημιουργία των συνελεύσεων θα πρέπει να προκύπτει από κοινωνική ανάγκη, ως έκφραση πολιτικής χειραφέτησης, και ανεξάρτητα από την όποια πρωτοβουλία της αναρχικής συλλογικότητας της περιοχής. Για να φτάσουμε στο σημείο να επιτύχουμε κοινωνικές συνελεύσεις, απαιτείται η δημιουργία ρεύματος επιρροής στο κοινωνικό υποσύνολο που απευθυνόμαστε. Και για να γίνει αυτό, χρειάζεται οι ομάδες να είναι προσανατολισμένες σε αυτό το στόχο, ώστε μέσω της εξωστρέφειας, όχι μόνο να δημιουργήσουν ρεύμα επιρροής αλλά και να ενισχυθούν οι ίδιες.

Τακτικές

Είναι επιτακτικά ζητούμενο η ενίσχυση ομάδων με νέα μέλη και υποστηρικτές. Στη συγκεκριμένη φάση που διανύουμε, κρίνεται στρατηγικά απαραίτητος, ο εμπλουτισμός του κινήματος με νέα μέλη, που θα ανανεώσουν τις διαδικασίες μας, θα δώσουν ενέργεια στους παλαιότερους να συνεχίσουν, και θα εμπλουτίσουν με νέες απόψεις, εμπειρίες, γνώσεις, αλλά και οπτικές το κίνημα. Η προσθήκη νέων συντρόφων  θα επεκτείνει μέσα στο κοινωνικό σώμα τις ζυμώσεις για το δικό μας επίδικο, για τη κοινωνική επανάσταση. Θα πρέπει η υποδοχή των νέων μελών να γίνει χωρίς αξιακές εκπτώσεις αλλά και με την ανεκτικότητα, σεβασμό κι υπομονή που αρμόζει σε όποιον ασπάζεται τις αρχές μας, αλλά δεν έχει τον ίδιο βαθμό συγκρότησης. Άλλωστε η διαδικασία συλλογικοποίησης είναι και παράλληλα εκπαιδευτική, ιδιαίτερα για τους παλαιότερους, πέρα από αντιεραρχική -εξουδετερωτική άτυπων ιεραρχιών των τελευταίων.

Η δημιουργία κύκλων υποστηρικτών της ομάδας, με σαφές περίγραμμα του ρόλου τους αλλά και του εθελοντικού περιεχομένου της όποιας συνεισφοράς τους είναι σημαντική, αφού ο κύκλος των υποστηρικτών είναι ο πνεύμονας της κάθε ομάδας. Την ενισχύει με τη παρουσία του στις εκδηλώσεις μας, συνεισφέρει οικονομικά, και το σημαντικότερο μας γειώνει με τη καθημερινότητα, με τρόπο καταλυτικό στην όποια ιδρυματισμένη μας αντίληψη, αλληλεπιδρώντας διαλεκτικά «το έξω» με «το μέσα» της ομάδας.

Τακτικές επιλογές για προτεραιοποίηση της πολιτικής επικοινωνίας, σε συγκεκριμένα κοινωνικά υποσύνολα, με τις ανάλογες  επικοινωνιακές πρακτικές,  δίνουν σαφή όρια στη στόχευση του αγώνα και δυνατότητα για μετρήσιμα αποτελέσματα. Επικοινωνιακές πρακτικές, τακτικές στοχεύσεις, αξιολόγηση, απολογισμός, μπορούν να είναι στη φαρέτρα του αγώνα, απαλλαγμένα βέβαια από άγχη, αγωνίες και καταναγκασμούς. Μέσα στη στρατηγική πάντα θα πρέπει να προβλέπεται ο «έρωτας» για έναν αγώνα χωρίς ψυχαναγκασμούς, με εξαίρεση τους συνειδητά συζευγμένους με την αναρχία, αρκεί να μη τη λογίζουν σα κτήμα τους βέβαια…

Βασική προτεραιότητα στο πολιτικό αγώνα θα πρέπει να είναι η επίτευξη αποτελέσματος, μέσα από τη παραγωγή πολιτικού έργου που θα επηρεάζει τη κοινωνία. Για να επιτευχθεί το αποτέλεσμα θα πρέπει να υπάρχει σαφής ιεράρχηση των προτεραιοτήτων στα στάδια του αγώνα της ομάδας. Πρώτα η ταυτότητα και η δράση της ομάδας, δεύτερα η κοινωνική απεύθυνση και η αναγνώρισή της ως πολιτικού πόλου, τρίτο οι εσωτερικές σχέσεις. Δε είναι δυνατόν να ασχολείσαι με το τρίτο όταν δεν έχεις λύσει το πρώτο ή το δεύτερο, που σου δίνουν υπόσταση. Ναι η αποτελεσματικότητα δε θα πρέπει να καταστρέφει ποιοτικά χαρακτηριστικά, όμως και κύρια, τα ελάσσονα ποιοτικά ζητήματα δε θα πρέπει να στρέφονται ενάντια στα μείζονα και σημαντικά παραγωγικά -οντολογικά. Η ιεράρχηση των προτεραιοτήτων, είναι ένας κρίσιμος παράγοντας, στη κατεύθυνση της αποτελεσματικότητας του αγώνα, που θα πρέπει χωρίς να αλλάζουν οι ελευθεριακές ποιότητες, να φέρνουμε αποτέλεσμα. Συνεπώς, το λειτουργικό προέχει του ποιοτικού , και όχι το ανάποδο. Γιατί το λειτουργικό σηματοδοτεί την ίδια σου την ύπαρξη, ενώ το ποιοτικό, δίνει την υφή της. Το ποιοτικά λειτουργικό είναι ο στόχος.

6. Εφαρμογές και πολιτικό κίνημα.

Μοιάζει μάλλον πρώιμο στη φάση που βρίσκεται σήμερα το πολιτικό και κοινωνικό κίνημα, να θέτουμε ζητήματα «εφαρμόσιμης αναρχικής», ιδιαίτερα όταν ο κόσμος μοιάζει να γυρνάει το ρολόϊ προς τα πίσω. Χωρίς να θέλουμε να αδικήσουμε τους ηρωικούς πιονέρους της «εφαρμογής», πιστεύουμε ότι οι όποιες νησίδες είναι ηρωικές, αλλά αποσπασματικές και προσωρινές, αν τουλάχιστον δε συνοδεύονται, αν δεν έχουν στη πλάτη τους ένα μαζικό κοινωνικό κίνημα, με ένα στιβαρό πολιτικό βραχίονα, την ευθύνη για την απουσία του οποίου, έχουμε όλοι εμείς που είμαστε έξω από τις αυτο-οργανωμένες προσπάθειες.

Παρόλα αυτά όμως ένα αναρχικό κίνημα, οφείλει να έχει προβλέψει τι κάνει με τα ζητήματα εφαρμογής των πολιτικοκοινωνικών και οικονομικών του προταγμάτων, και ειδικά τις αυτοργανωμένες προσπάθειες.  Κι εδώ αναδύεται ένα πρόβλημα:
Στη τωρινή συνθήκη κάθε οικονομικό, επαγγελματικό, κοινωνικό, ακόμα και πολιτικό εγχείρημα θα πρέπει να έχει, συγκεκριμένες πρακτικές, ώστε να είναι βιώσιμο μέσα στο περιβάλλον. Όσο κι αν τα όποια εγχειρήματα φιλοδοξούν να κρατήσουν αποστάσεις από κρατικούς θεσμούς, εκ των πραγμάτων αναγκάζονται να υπαχθούν στη νομιμότητα, των αδειών λειτουργίας, των προδιαγραφών παραγόμενου έργου, της φορολόγησης, και γενικότερα των γραφειοκρατικών εκείνων θεσμών που επιτρέπουν σε μια επιχείρηση να λειτουργεί. Και αυτό γιατί στο σύγχρονο περιβάλλον, κάθε οικονομική, επαγγελματική δραστηριότητα οφείλει να συντάσσεται και να συναλλάσσεται, μέσα στο οικονομικό νομικό σύμπλεγμα. Γι αυτό τα οικονομικά -επαγγελματικά εγχειρήματα, αναγκάζονται να κάνουν συμβιβασμούς επιβίωσης, για νομικούς, οικονομικούς, φορολογικούς, ή ότι άλλο λόγους.
Το αναρχικό λοιπόν πολιτικό κίνημα, που δε θέλει καμιά σχέση με τους θεσμούς του κράτους και του κεφαλαίου, καλείται να πάρει θέση απέναντι στα αυτοργανωτικά συνεργατικά εγχειρήματα, θα πρέπει ή να τα καταδικάσει ως κομμάτι του συστήματος, ή να τα στέρξει, να τα υποστηρίξει, κάνοντας πια αυτό με τη σειρά του, τους δικούς του συμβιβασμούς σε σχέση με τα προτάγματά του. Το δίλημμα είναι εξαιρετικά δύσκολο, ιδίως για μια πολιτική κοσμοθεωρία που επικαλείται τη συμφωνία μέσων και σκοπών.

Στο τι θέση θα πρέπει να πάρει θα χρειασθεί να κάνει λεπτομερή ανάλυση της πολιτικής του φιλοσοφίας, αλλά και να επέμβει στη κοινωνική του φυσιογνωμία. Τι είμαστε σήμερα; αναρχικοί ή αναρχιστές; Πιστεύουμε στη σταδιακή ωρίμανση, ή όλα είναι έφοδος; Υπάρχει αναρχισμός πριν την αναρχία; Είναι ρεφορμισμός η στήριξη συνεργατικών εγχειρημάτων; ποια είναι η εναλλακτική πρόταση του αναρχικού πολιτικού κινήματος, για όλους εκείνους που το πιστεύουν και θέλουν να ζήσουν μεν, χωρίς να προσφέρουν άμεσες ή έμμεσες υπηρεσίες στο κεφαλαιακό σύστημα δε; Με ποιο τρόπο απαντά ο χώρος μας στη πραγματικότητα της επιβίωσης; Σε αυτά τα ερωτήματα καλούμαστε να δώσουμε απαντήσεις. Γειωμένες ρεαλιστικές και άμεσες. Όταν θα μπορέσουμε να δώσουμε απαντήσεις σε αυτές τις ερωτήσεις, πιστεύουμε ότι έχουμε μια ελπίδα να καταφέρουμε, να διαμορφώσουμε ένα ισχυρό συστατικό στον αναρχισμό στον ελλαδικό, αλλά και παραδειγματικά στον έξω- ελλαδικό χώρο. Και αυτό το συστατικό, διευρύνει το κύκλο ζωής των αναρχιστών και αναρχικών  μέσα στο κίνημα, με έναν εγκάρσια βαθύ ποιοτικά τρόπο, αφού κεφαλαιοποιεί κόσμο που βρίσκει μεν εναλλακτικές λύσεις έστω και μέσα στο υπάρχον, αλλά και αυτοκαθορίζεται ως ανήκων-ουσα μέσα στο πολιτικό μας σύνολο. Αντιφατικό; μάλλον όχι και τόσο.

Παρατηρώντας τη λειτουργία του χώρου τα τελευταία 40 χρόνια, εύκολα μπορεί να διαπιστώσει το νεολαιίστικο χαρακτήρα του, γεγονός που μας οδηγεί στο συμπέρασμα, ότι όσοι μπαίνουν στο πολιτικό χώρο στη μετεφηβεία τους, βγαίνουν όταν προκύπτει η ανάγκη για επαγγελματική αποκατάσταση, οπότε και χάνονται από τα πολιτικά δρώμενα. Είναι σίγουρο ότι, πέρα από τις όποιες απογοητεύσεις που δικαιολογημένα έχουν εισπραχθεί από τους συντρόφους που έφυγαν από τον αγώνα, η ανάγκη της επιβίωσης και συνεπακόλουθα η επαγγελματική αποκατάσταση, για πολλούς λόγους -έλλειψη χρόνου, κούραση, υποχρεώσεις-, απομακρύνει από το πλήρωμα του χώρου σχεδόν το σύνολο του κόσμου που τον υποστήριξαν. Μένουν πίσω ελάχιστες εξαιρέσεις, και σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις με αρκετές προβληματικές στη στάση και τη συμπεριφορά. Συνεπώς, αν ο αναρχικός χώρος επιθυμεί να πάψει να είναι ένα νεολαιίστικο αποκλειστικά κίνημα, θα πρέπει να δώσει απαντήσεις που τίθενται πιο πάνω, ώστε πέρα από τις όποιες οργανωτικές πολιτικές δομές και υποδομές, θα πρέπει να απαντήσει και στο βασικότερο ερώτημα όλων: της επιβίωσης.

Μια άλλη παράμετρος, είναι ότι υπάρχουν άνθρωποι που έχουν ανάγκη να πράξουν, να δημιουργήσουν, να εργασθούν διοχετεύοντας την ενεργητικότητά τους σύμφωνα με τις δικές μας αξίες και ποιότητες. Άνθρωποι πρακτικοί, διόλου θεωρητικοί, που δε μπορούν να περιμένουν να γίνει η κοινωνική επανάσταση για να ζήσουν αλλιώς την ίδια τους τη ζωή. Είναι πολλοί και αξιόλογοι οι σύντροφοι αυτοί, που ο «θεωρητισμός» και η απουσία πρακτικού πνεύματος που μας διακατέχει, τους απογοητεύει, και τους στρέφει, στο συμβιβασμό, και στον αποχωρισμό από το πολιτικό μας σώμα. Έτσι ο χώρος χάνει ανθρώπους που έχουν τεχνογνωσία και θα μπορούσαν να συνεισφέρουν δημιουργικά, στήνοντας υποδομές για λογαριασμό της κοινωνίας αλλά και του κινήματος, και συνιστώντας ταυτόχρονα ένα έστω ημιτελές πειραματικό πρόπλασμα, μέρος ενός εξαιρετικά σημαντικού, άτυπου δικτύου. Σε μια τέτοια περίπτωση, όταν πια καταχτιέται η επιβίωση του προπλάσματος, θα πρέπει ως οργανωμένο πολιτικό σώμα, να μεριμνούμε για τη διαρκή διασύνδεσή του με τους αγώνες, σε μια αμφίδρομη σχέση που θα το αποτρέψει να μετατραπεί σε στείρο εναλλακτικό lifestyle.

Συμπερασματικά, και θεωρώντας ότι ο δρόμος προς τη κοινωνική επανάσταση περνάει από στάδια ωρίμανσης σα το καλό κρασί, νομίζουμε ότι θα μπορούμε να αποδεχθούμε, το όποιο νομικό πλαίσιο μπορεί να υποστηρίξει τέτοιας μορφής εφαρμογές, αφού αυτές είναι η πραγματική συνέχεια μιας ζωής δίπλα σε εμάς, ή και μαζί μας. Πρόκειται για συμβιβασμό διαβίωσης, όσο συμβιβασμός είναι αυτό που μας κάνει να ζούμε μέσα στο υπάρχον. Πρόκειται για μια πρακτική που βοηθάει το σκοπό μας, όπως όταν κάνουμε μπαρ οικονομικής ενίσχυσης ή ότι άλλο. Ζούμε σε μια πραγματικότητα, από την  οποία οφείλουμε για χάρη των συντρόφων μας να αξιοποιήσουμε όλα εκείνα εφόδια που μας βοηθούν στο να κτίσουμε το όραμά μας. Ούτως ή άλλως δίνουμε τη ζωή μας με τη μισθωτή σκλαβιά, γιατί να μην υποστηρίξουμε τα συνεργατικά -εναλλακτικά είναι η αλήθεια, εγχειρήματα, προσδένοντάς τα με μια ανεξάρτητη σχέση με το δικό μας πολιτικό καράβι, αρμενίζοντας όλοι πια μαζί, εκκινώντας από το δικό μας λιμάνι;

Γ. Τα επόμενα βήματα

Τα έξι (6) σημεία που περιγράψαμε πιο πάνω, και η συγκεκριμένη στάση απέναντι σε αυτά, είναι ένα σύστημα δράσεων και πρακτικών που κατά την άποψή μας λειτουργούν ως προϋποθέσεις αλλά και πυλώνες, για τη δημιουργία και ανάπτυξη ενός στιβαρού αναρχικού πολιτικού κινήματος βαθιά ριζωμένου. Ενός κινήματος που ανεξάρτητα από τις εκάστοτε συγκυρίες αλλά και το πληθυσμό του,  θα είναι συγκροτημένο και σε ετοιμότητα, ώστε σε περιόδους πλημμυρίδας των επαναστατικών προταγμάτων, να αξιοποιήσει ανάλογα, τη θεμελιωμένη του θέση μέσα στη κοινωνία.

Αναγνωρίζοντας τις συνθήκες που επικρατούν σήμερα στο χώρο, και λαμβάνοντας σοβαρά υπ’ όψιν μας τις όποιες αρνητικές πρακτικές συντελούνται, θα πρέπει όλοι όσοι από εμάς αντιλαμβάνονται την αναγκαιότητα της κατάστασης και τη κρισιμότητα των στιγμών, να ξεκινήσουμε μια νέα προσπάθεια. Ένα νέο ρεύμα μέσα στο χώρο, που με την ορμή της εξωστρέφειάς του θα επηρεάσει και συμπαρασύρει ενεργά, ακόμα κι εκείνα τα κομμάτια του, που μουδιασμένα παραμένουν σε εσωστρεφή διάθεση και στάση -αν όχι αδρανή κατάσταση, ή κι εκείνα ακόμη που με τρόπο μηχανιστικό επιτελούν την «αγωνιστική ρουτίνα».  Θα εντάσσει τους νέους συντρόφους σε ένα γειωμένο ως προς τις προοπτικές πολιτικό περιβάλλον, αλλά και με ρόλο για όλους. Θα αποτρέπει τη φυγή συντρόφων απ’ τα σπλάχνα του κινήματος, δίνοντας περιεχόμενα και ρόλους που μέχρι τώρα αγνοεί. Θα αποτελέσει πόλο επανα-προσέγγισης για τους χιλιάδες πρώην συντρόφους που είναι «εμποτισμένοι» με το πρόταγμα, αλλά είτε η απουσία προοπτικής στο πολιτικό διακύβευμα, είτε έμπρακτης αντιστοίχισης στην ίδια τους τη ζωή, τους έχει οδηγήσει στη πολιτική απομόνωση και στην ανάθεση. Τέλος, η υλοποίηση των πρακτικών αυτών, θα δώσει στο κοινωνικό σύνολο την εικόνα ενός σοβαρού και αξιόπιστου πολιτικού κινήματος, που η πρότασή του, αποτελεί ρεαλιστική επιλογή, για το μέλλον της.

Μια κίνηση που θα βάλει μπροστά την υπόθεση μιας δημιουργικής αναρχίας. Μιας αναρχίας που αντιμάχεται τους εχθρούς της με τις προτάσεις της και με τις δράσεις της, και όχι με τη στείρα αρνητική κριτική. Μια αναρχία που απαντά προταγματικά με εξωστρέφεια και κάνει το δικό της αγώνα σεβόμενη των αγώνα όλων των συντρόφων, αλλά επιλέγει να διαφοροποιείται δημιουργικά και όχι ανταγωνιστικά έναντι των άλλων. Μια αναρχία δημιουργική.

Ξεκαθαρίσματα

Ξεκαθαρίζοντας κάποια πράγματα, να πούμε ότι το κείμενο αυτό αποτελεί μια πρόταση. Η πρόταση αυτή έχει αξία για όποιον βλέπει σε αυτή κάποιο νόημα, αλλά και διαβλέπει τη δυναμική υλοποίησης. Ως πρόταση, παρ’ ότι η υλοποίησή της απαιτεί εθελούσια δεσμευτικότητα, δεν έχει υποχρεωτικότητα, και δεν διεκδικεί δάφνες αρτιότητας ή συνταγής επιτυχίας. Άλλωστε είναι ανοιχτή στις όποιες διαφορετικές εκδοχές  ως προς τη μεθοδολογία, αρκεί αν μην αλλοιώνονται ποιότητες και ο στόχος.
Θα μπορούσε να υποβληθεί από οποιονδήποτε. Εμείς απλά πήραμε το θάρρος της υποβολής της, αλλά και ταυτόχρονα να τη κοινοποιήσουμε και να τη μοιραστούμε. Ως πρόταση, επιδέχεται κριτικής, τίθεται σε διαδικασία επιλογής, οπότε και απόρριψης. Ελπίζουμε στη καλόπιστη υποδοχή της.

Δ. Επίλογος

Εκτιμώντας τις όποιες μέχρι τώρα προσπάθειες αλλά και τον αγώνα των συντρόφων στο μέγιστο βαθμό, προτρέπουμε να προχωράμε στη δημιουργία ενός κινήματος που θα συμπεριλαμβάνει όλους, αρκεί να αφήσουμε πίσω μας τα βαρίδια του παρελθόντος. Το ίδιο το εποικοδομητικό πνεύμα της όποιας κίνησής μας, θα είναι από μόνο του αποτρεπτικό, για την όποια στρέβλωση και δυσλειτουργία συναντάμε σήμερα.

Έχει σημασία στη παρούσα φάση, να δρομολογήσουμε σε αυτή τη κατεύθυνση μια προσπάθεια αναδημιουργίας του κινήματος με σεμνότητα, σεβασμό προς όλους, και σοβαρότητα. Θα πρέπει όλες οι δυνάμεις, να συνασπισθούν προς την ίδια κατεύθυνση, ώστε να πετύχουμε τα μεγαλύτερα αποτελέσματα. Μπορεί να μοιάζει με τεράστιο έργο και θα πάρει χρόνο, αλλά όλα μπορούν να προχωρήσουνε, όταν ξεκινήσουμε. Και για να ξεκινήσουμε θα πρέπει να αντιληφθούμε άμεσα, ότι η περιχαράκωση και η εσωστρέφεια θα πρέπει να λήξει. Ήρθε η ώρα της να λήξει. Ας αποφασίσουμε έστω και τώρα, για μια νέα εποχή, την εποχή της μαχητικής δημιουργικής αναρχίας. Γιατί οι όποιες αντιστάσεις στο επερχόμενο δυστοπικό μέλλον, δε μπορεί να είναι άλλες παρά αναρχικές. Κοινωνικά αναρχικές. Είναι οι μόνες αντιστάσεις που μπορούν πραγματικά, να αποδομήσουν αξιακά τον ολοκληρωτικό καπιταλισμό. Σε εμάς λοιπόν αναλογεί να ξεκινήσουμε τον αγώνα για την αντίσταση, ξεκινώντας από τον ίδιο μας το χώρο. Κι εφόσον τα καταφέρνουμε, είναι σίγουρο ότι οι δικές μας αντιστάσεις θα γίνουν τέτοιες και στο άμεσο περιβάλλον μας, στις πόλεις μας, στη χώρα μας, θα γίνουν αντιστάσεις της παγκόσμιας κοινωνίας. Αυτές είναι που θα φέρουν τη τελική επικράτηση, πάνω στο φάντασμα που πλανιέται πάνω από τα κεφάλια μας, που θα σημάνει τη κοινωνική απελευθέρωση από το κράτος και το κεφάλαιο.

_______________

Με το κείμενο αυτό, συναρτώνται τα κείμενα:
1. Για μια επιτυχημένη πολιτική εκστρατεία
Όποιος σύντροφος ή συλλογικότητα επιθυμεί το κείμενο «Για μια επιτυχημένη πολιτική εκστρατεία», ας στείλει στο mail: risingutopia@espiv.net  από το mail της συλλογικότητάς του.

Rising Utopia

για μια δημιουργική αναρχία                                 1/3/2019

The post Για μια δημιουργική Αναρχία appeared first on Void Network.

CALL OUT for actions

The post EXARCHIA: Solidarity to squats and all spaces of struggle- ASSEMBLY Announcement appeared first on Void Network.

Guy Debord, Attila Kotányi & Raoul Vaneigem, Theses on the Paris Commune

The principle of authority is so built in to every aspect of our society that it is only in revolutions, emergencies and “happenings” that the principle of spontaneous order emerges. But it does provide a glimpse of the kind of human behaviour that the anarchist regards as “normal” and the authoritarian sees as unusual. … It could be seen in spite of commercial exploitation in the pop festivals of the late 1960s, in a way which is not apparent to the reader of newspaper headlines. From “A cross-section of informed opinion” in an appendix to a report to the government, a local authority representative mentions “an atmosphere of peace and contentment which seems to be dominant amongst the participants” and a church representative mentions “a general atmosphere of considerable relaxation, friendliness and a great willingness to share”. The same kind of comments were made about the instant city of the Woodstock Festival in the United States: “Woodstock, if permanent, would have become one of America’s major cities in size alone, and certainly a unique one in the principles by which its citizens conducted themselves.”

Colin Ward, Anarchy in Action

In 1970, Anarchy magazine (nº 116, October), published three short essays under the theme of “Instant Anarchy”. The first of the three was a piece by Graham Whiteman entitled the “Festival Moment”, in which we are offered an anarchist reading of the woodstock music festival (and of festivals in general).

As this week marks the 50th anniversary of Woodstock, we thought that there could be no better way to celebrate the occasion than to recall the anarchy of the event and to shake up its current status as a “historical monument” a little.

Instant Anarchy

1: Festival moment

Graham Whiteman

THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF ANARCHISM is concerned with the question of authority. Anarchists believe that a viable social organisation is possible without the assistance of a cruel, unjust and inherently evil coercive authority—and that mankind would be a happier, healthier and infinitely better species if it existed in a condition of freedom. Given this belief, all libertarian thinkers have attempted to construct theories of social organisation based on freedom and co-operation. But, from the earliest anarchist writings, down to those of the present day (see ANARCHY 62), the approach has been an intellectual one.

In the last few years, however, some most notable ad hoc experiments in this field have been made by people uncommitted to any political creed. It is possible that, through the medium of the open-air “pop” (the most convenient, if misleading word) festival, we are witnessing the beginnings of an “instant anarchy”.

At first sight, the linking of a large-scale music festival with the idea of social freedom may seem a paradox: they are mostly designed by profit hungry promoters (see Financial Times, 6.7.70), in order to squeeze as much money as possible from their long-haired patrons. The audience is dependent—for their food, drink and general comfort—upon the facilities provided. These provisions are likely to be expensive, as are the fees charged for admission to the site. It lies with the nature of those attending a festival to transform what is basically an economic exercise, into an experiment in non-authoritarian (if temporary) community living. Without attempting any snapshot sociology, it is clear that participants in the sub-culture of youth are anarchic in their life-style: they have rejected the handed-down values of the parent, the teacher, the politician. To put it simply, the “heads” can manage very well without the heavy hand of authority, even if their ideas of useful living conflict with those of the well-read anarchist.

The concept of open-air music festivals is not new. Pop festivals, however, with their drugs, nudity and general freedom, have only been with us since 1967, and, since that time, some thirty festivals—involving a rough total audience of three million—have occurred in the US alone. Britain was rather late in following the fashion, but has since produced quite a few (Bath, Isle of Wight, Plumpton, etc.). To date, the most widely reported and discussed festival took place in New York State, in August of last year; because of the film illustrating it, those who were not present are able to see that this event—Woodstock—was notable in many ways. It has perhaps, a special relevance to the anarchist.

Woodstock lasted over three days, and the audience has been estimated as consisting of “half a million freaks”, coming, ostensibly, to see some of the major pop musicians. The site was labelled, among other things, as the “10th largest city in the US”. If it was a city, then it was certainly an unusual one. During the three days, there were no murders, thefts, fights, race-riots or any of the worse things that modern urban man accepts as “normal”. Despite some of those problems that daily occur in cities (traffic jams, the disposal of rubbish, overcrowding, the straining of basic amenities), the film is able to show us people smiling, laughing, just enjoying themselves and their freedom; the interviews emphasise the important place that freedom has in the lives of these people. They regard it as a basic right, to be jealously guarded from the encroachment of the policeman and the parent; Woodstock was a massive affirmation of this right.

The Village Voice (21.8.69) confirmed this view. According to their reporter, the most amazing aspect of the festival was, again, not the music, but “the physical stamina, tolerance and good nature of a basically indoor, urban group of people caught in wretched outdoor conditions. It showed more dramatically than any planned demonstration could have that hip kids are fundamentally different from the beer-drinking, fist-fighting Fort Lauderdale crowds of yesteryear” … “people shared what they had, overlooked their differences, kept their cool, and generally smiled all weekend”.

Unfortunately, not everyone realised the significance of Woodstock. The film shows us local traders, who are delighted at the crowds—and the money they have brought with them. It also shows us local residents who are anything but delighted, not only because their lawns are being trampled and defaced with rubbish, but because they have been confronted by a huge mass of people who are patently disinterested in tight suburban conformity—people who have long hair! people who go naked in public! people who use drugs! and people who do not have the slave mentality. These are the same residents who were pleased, when, after the festival, the Chief of Police was deprived of his job. He had offended his superiors by not arresting people inside the festival-grounds. It seems that part of a policeman’s duties is to stop citizens enjoying themselves.

The Establishment Press too, where it is not being outrightly hostile, is generally bewildered by such manifestations of co-operation and fraternity as can be seen in Woodstock (a pleasing exception was Barry Norman, in the Daily Mail of 25.6.70). Having a direct interest in the maintenance of exploitation and conformity, the large dailies concentrate on the more superficial, sensational facets of the pop festivals, and ignore their true significance—just as, with a political demonstration, they deal almost exclusively with the demonstration itself, and not the issue that promoted it. So, we read headlines, such as “Nude Girl Dances” or “New Drug Worry At Festival”. As might be expected, they hardly believe that large groups of people can gather and live together, without going dangerously berserk, especially when those groups are made up of people who find no attraction in the life of the obedient cog in the great economic machine.

Accepting that “Woodstock” reinforces Kropotkin’s optimism in the basic sociability of human-beings, it remains for us to ask certain questions. The crowd at Woodstock was continually urged, throughout the course of the festival. to remain calm; they were constantly congratulated on their behaviour. Would this behaviour have been any different if a Hitler or a Stalin had taken over the stage and made a speech? To answer this, we must return to the “freaks” themselves. Much of the music they favour has a strong element of violence—complete with guitar-smashing and screamed vocals; it might appear that this would be reflected amongst the audience. But no, the music seems to be a form of catharsis; the audience apparently grow more pacific as the noise-level increases. One remembers a heartwarming scene in the film, where people gaily trample down fences, and one is forced to doubt the willingness of the festival crowd to be led, or manipulated. As long as the harassment is verbal, they just ignore it, or employ that terrible weapon, the laugh.

Food, drink, sanitation and provisions for shelter are usually provided at the larger weekend festivals (though they tend to be badly organised). At Woodstock, these were indeed provided (and mismanaged) and they had only to last for three days. Could the audience itself have organised these things and kept them going for a week, or a month? It is probable that necessity would have forced them to: there was much voluntary sharing of food at the festival, and this gives the impression that co-operation might have overcome any attempt at exploitation. Lastly, the members of the audience, in co-operating, were “looking after their own”, drawing on the common strength of their own alternative culture. What if a group of middle-aged Americans had arrived, complete with prejudice and sons in the National Guard? The crowd at Woodstock had to pass through just such people to reach the site, and what happened on that site was an example to the latter. Admittedly, one must be a little cautious with one’s enthusiasm, when one examines the composition of the pop festival audience. As the director of the Woodstock film (Michael Wadleigh) put it. “If you put 400,000 adults together in a field for three days, would they have produced a better record?” One naturally doubts if they would—through no real fault of their own.

In a society that deliberately sponsors alienation and a blind obedience to all authority, it is much safer to live and react in a manner pleasing to those in control. The main example provided by festivals is that it is possible to live without the ministrations of an authority, once an instilled prejudice towards that authority is forgotten. The slave has to deny the validity of the slave-master.

There is an element of romance in some anarchist literature, a nostalgia for a golden past, a desire to return to innocence and simplicity of living (e.g. Tolstoy). From this view, there often follows a wish to retire into the countryside, and build a community based on mutual aid, free from those evils which appear to be inherent in city-living. The modern commune movement is an extension of this concept. Rock festivals provide a temporary illustration of this desire. One of those with experience of a large outdoor festival agreed. “You’re ‘escaping’ from the city, you know? You can smoke, fuck, whatever, and mostly they are going to leave you alone” (Rolling Stone, 6.8.70).

One wonders if a temporary experience like this can have a more permanent significance. Woodstock, if permanent, would have become one of America’s major cities in size alone, and certainly a unique one in the principles by which its citizens conducted themselves. Something lasting could well have come from a display of pop music—and pop music is basically a transitory experience, as is the whole spectrum of pop-culture.

A community functioning on the principles of harmony and freedom might have a better chance of survival if, initially, it was a smaller unit than that which forms the audience of a festival like Woodstock. However well-intentioned a group of people are, the common problems of living inevitably provide opportunities that could be exploited by the self-seeking; these opportunities would be magnified, where those to be led are great in number (sheer density of population, is, of course, an argument against democracy). So, until the organisation of a community is functioning, it might be advisable to limit the number of individuals concerned. Naturally, it would be of the utmost importance for those individuals to keep a jealous guard on their freedom; it would rest with them to collectively resist the encroachments of the potential boss or policeman.

Any community has to work to survive. Without entering into the common anarchist theories of industry and agriculture, it is possible to say that the means of production can be held in common and used in such a way that fair and plentiful distribution of basic necessities is maintained. Anyway, one feels that the “heads” would find the rigours of competition just too much of a “hassle” to be worth bothering with. Those who also find working too much of an inconvenience would either have to live off the charity of those who are willing to support them, or leave the community and re-enter “straight” society. It is probable that most would find that working for themselves under a mutually organised system of industry and in support of a non-capitalist idea is not too taxing, either spiritually or physically.

Those things that provide for the actual mechanics of living (e.g. housing, schools, hospitals, etc.) could be easily and cheaply provided—perhaps with the “Drop-City” structures in mind. All extra services would grow organically. Basically, housing itself, for instance, is expensive only when the price of the necessary land is itself exorbitant; one would assume that the land for our community is already available—the crowds at a pop-festival do not have to leave. They would merely be making use of what is already theirs! The ever-attentive policeman would have a difficult task in evicting several hundred thousand people, and would even the elusive conscience of society sanction the forcible removal of a group of people who just want to build their own homes, make their community, and start living in freedom?

The children born and brought up in such a city, under such a libertarian ethos, would be an added guarantee of the success and viability of the anarchist community. They would learn from their parents’ errors, come to maturity and found their own communities, and, in turn, a new generation of children would inherit the example. Co-operative communities would mushroom until their very number made it impossible for them to be ignored. One then pictures an unemployed government, sitting in the midst of its redundant army and police-force, realising at last that the master is neither necessary or wanted.

Those who think that this is but an idealistic dream are the same people who thought that it was impossible for people to gather en masse in a peaceful fashion—a terrible pessimism. The anarchist vision might, in the end, be realised as an off-shoot of something unconnected with social change: the gathering of people to enjoy themselves. Thus, Malatesta’s definition of revolution as being “the creation of new living institutions”, the example provided by those institutions and an educative programme arising from them, might all arise from the much-maligned pop-festival: a process of “instant anarchy”, feeling its way and being shaped by necessity, rather than a programme taken from the text-books.

Graham Whiteman

…

Ultimately cities will exist only as joyous tribal gatherings and fairs, to dissolve after a few weeks. Investigating new lifestyles is our work, as is the exploration of Ways to explore our inner realms—with the known dangers of crashing that go with such. We should work with political-minded people where it helps, hoping to enlarge their vision, and with people of all varieties of politics or thought at whatever point they become aware of environmental urgencies. Master the archaic and the primitive as models of basic nature-related cultures—as well as the most imaginative extensions of science—and build a community where these two vectors cross. —MILES in International Times 78 ( April 24-May 7, 1970)

…

Woodstock opened on Friday, August 15th, with Richie Havens, and closed on Sunday, with Jimi Hendrix … words here are unnecessary …

_____________________________________

text source: https://autonomies.org/

The post 50 years anniversary: The Anarchy of WOODSTOCK (+rare photos) appeared first on Void Network.