Towards a million dangerous anarchies!

Meme of my dog for fun! It says Barkity Barkity, There is no Sustainable Technology  with anprim flag and a pug

A response to The Contemptuous and their first communique

I wish to begin this response by thanking several friends (who wish not to be named) for the conversations we’ve had while I have digested and teased out the communique by the group calling itself The Contemptuous. The communique was posted on Anarchist News on the 12th of April, 2023. I was informed of it by a friend, telling me to read it as soon as possible, as he considered it having “serious weight and interest.” I agree with him that the piece is important and it warrants conversation.

I write this response, not as a counter-communique or rebuttal but the next step in dialogue. I believe this is the goal of the first communique:
We represent a discontinuity in the overriding progressive narrative and will spit our venomous and unyielding critique into your vile and vacuous cyber-spaces and let others pick it to bones, and from there, deeper critique may actually flourish, authentic affinities [read: not solidarity] may develop, lines may be drawn, and perhaps (relevant) actions will follow.
I will not discuss any theories as to the authorship, of which I have seen some theories floating around. I will also not be following the organization or format of the communique, itself. Instead, I have chosen to express my ideas as follows:

My understanding of the communique and its purpose.
Where I and The Contemptuous agree both in delivery and analysis or areas needing clarification.
Where I and The Contemptuous disagree in wording or delivery only.
Where I and The Contemptuous disagree in content or analysis.

Towards a million dangerous anarchies!
Artxmis Graham Thoreau,
May Day, 2023.
____________________________________________________________________________

WHY SO SERIOUS?

I find “A Contemptuous Idea: communique #1” to be expressive of a pessimism of sorts. They mention that they are self-described anarchists for a decade to several decades. I admit, I am more understanding of the attitudes of elders of a movement (if we can call it such a thing) who feel the tendency is suffering than those who would simply walk in and denounce it as not radical enough.

Note, I am not saying it is defeatist. It is made up of the rage of radicals in a fundamentally anti-radical society. It doesn’t proclaim the good of human nature or prophetically trying to predict the coming revolution. No, Communique #1 is a declaration of war, a statement of belief, and serves (most importantly, I believe) to draw a line in the sand. A line between who or what? Between anarchy-as-negation and anarchism-as-affirmation, to borrow phrases from my own writing.

The Contemptuous seek to defend the spirit of Anarchy, or to quote Bakunin, they understand that, “[t]he passion for destruction is also a creative passion.” The Contemptuous are not defending the original content of Anarchism, however. They are critiquing the dogma of Anarchism, that of a society based upon humanism and progress. Their anarchy is dangerous, while the anarchism of their enemies is safe.

This is the ‘Beautiful Idea’ of The Contemptuous, to which they aspire to act out: to live free, regardless of the dangers that freedom brings. The Contemptuous write, “This specific project is one focused on the negation of what stands in the way of our unique and free lived anarchy.” See how they compare it to the anarchism of their enemies:
[...] in search of adventure with training wheels, a chance to be 'wild and free' but never ever impolitic, a chance to have loveless sex in a tent at a 'Temporary Autonomous Zone' [i.e., telegenic protest] with a stoned stranger (or any paralleling uncritical arrested development of a thirty-something, forty-something, etc.) without endangering one's prospects for getting a Master's Degree in Social Work a few years down the line.

The communique is written in an aggressive, combative tone. See their purpose of the use of such language, “We are here to wipe out the hypersensitive and brittle and our first weapon will be words, a weapon each of us has used and honed on her or his own for some time. We will set out to say what has been forbidden to express in this society, most atrociously in its current form.”

It would be considered “reactionary,” “right-wing,” “politically incorrect,” among other buzzwords. It is politically incorrect, as anarchy should be, for why would anarchic discourse seek to be amicable to the mainstream or intellectual morality? Being politically incorrect doesn’t equal being a Fascist, all liberal bickering to the contrary. But anarchists are not liberals, are they?

CONTEMPTUOUSLY CORRECT

The Contemptuous rightly see liberal and leftist influence among Anarchists being a tumor on anarchist thought and action. This does not just extend to purely ideological tendencies (which date back to the founding of Anarchist dogma) such as humanism, progressivism, and populism. This is littered throughout the text and I don’t feel the need to quote from it. However, as I said, these influences go beyond the ideological. Badjacketing, virtue signaling, and moral superiority are liberal/leftist attitudes. Many readers might recall a time in which they held their tongue, not because they lacked confidence in their argument, but fear of being excluded from spaces for saying the wrong thing. Too many “Anarchists”, in their attempt to remind themselves they are the Vanguard (Not Leninist, they assure us) of social progress, must suppress others. Twitter is full of badjacketing, such as the term “ecofascist” sometimes thrown at Indigenous traditionalist-anarchists (meaning those who prefer traditional communal lifestyles over industrial capitalism). Very decolonial!

The Contemptuous also correctly acknowledge how the label “anarchist” is often a term used to seem radical without being radical. The Contemptuous’s comment above on how this quasi-anarchism is performative radicalism, radicalism that doesn’t endanger future prospects in academia and labor, is too true. While we cannot gauge how common this tendency is, it isn’t too unfair to see how far anarchism has fallen in the eyes of .. everyone. We went from the International Conference of Rome for the Social Defense Against Anarchists (when 21 countries agreed to establish surveillance and counter-offensive measures against anarchists in reaction against a wave of assassinations of world leaders) to using online ideology tests to pick a new fun label for ourselves lacking all content. As The Contemptuous rightly say, “In recent decades, the North American anarchist subculture has become at once corpulent with bad ideas yet sclerotic in accepting new ones.” When Machiavelli asked is it better to be loved or feared, he forgot to offer alternatives: to be forgotten, or worse, tolerated.

I have already begun to touch upon it, but the beliefs stated in the “Eight Contemptuous Theses” are largely correct. I will relay my thoughts on these, numbered along the theses by quoting the opening sentence from the individual thesis and replying to the general ideas expressed.

The Contemptuous: “We are leagues apart from the anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.” Anarchists, as said above, are quick to adopt Liberal/Leftist ideas and behaviors. At best, the differences between an “Anarchist” and Liberal/Leftist are how much they dislike the police. Now, it isn’t wrong for an Anarchist to incidentally share beliefs with Liberals or Leftists, but it is suspicious when the moral bases of these groups are shared. For example: An anarchist might enjoy or see value in self-defense via guns. A leftist might as well. However, a Leftist would likely argue this on the basis of protecting “rights” (such as Trans rights or Ethnic-minority Rights) while an Anarchist would argue it based upon the defense of their autonomy or the love of their friends. Some might see these as the same, but a critique of “rights” is beyond the scope of this essay. (See instead “The Myth of Human Rights” by Bob Black).

The Contemptuous: “In the past few generations, anarchists have become some of the most domesticated people in the whole of the culture, a veritable ferment of ressentiment, hyper-conformity, and normalized mental disorders.” I will address my concerns with this more below, but for now, I will express my agreement. Anarchy is not a social space on its own, it is a place of struggle that may or may not be social. It is full of tension, disgust, wrath, love, hatred, passion, and much more. Conforming to the beliefs of Left-academics or believing some laws are good and others are bad is not Anarchy.

The Contemptuous: “Anarchists have almost fully internalized the false rebellion of woke progressivism, criticizing it only insofar as they act as its most bleeding edge (the loyal ‘conscience of the Left’).” If you haven’t noticed, the first three points are quite similar. This point is important however, because it is how Anarchists of today separate themselves from other Leftists. They take Leftist ideas (who get them from Liberals) and accuse the Left of not being progressive enough, or inconsistent with their treatment of the issues. For example: Anarchists correctly speak to how Liberal/Leftists don’t give certain interest groups agency to struggle for their autonomy, but go on to argue for these groups’ assimilation into mass society, which is primarily the direction Liberal/Leftists politicians and intellectuals want for non-integrated groups (Trans folks, Indigenous peoples, migrants etc).

The Contemptuous: “Contemporary anarchist thought obsesses over ‘the far-right’ while having next to no understanding of what the Left-Right spectrum means and therefore no idea of just what this diffuse enemy that seems to lurk in every dive bar and under every bed is…” This is an interesting one. The Far-Right, particularly in paramilitary forms, is a danger, but as The Contemptuous argue, if you simply conflate appearance with belief, you’re in for a bad time. I don’t blame some folks for not associating with some types of people (MAGA ball cap wearers, to use an example from the communique), as free association is a pillar of Anarchy, but we must be real: is an average Trump supporter the same as a Neo-Nazi? For Anarchists who say yes, if a Republican conflated (as they often do) Anarchism with Stalinism as simply “Leftism,” wouldn’t you seek to correct them?

The Contemptuous: “Many anarchists are media illiterates - the lessons of Debord and Ellul are given lip service but not internalized, probably in part because the majority of them didn't actually do the reading.” I admit this thesis got me the hardest upon first reading. Not because of the main argument, but the examples, “immigration, climate alarmism, 'fascism' through Trump, Black Lives Matter, COVID, AI, transgenderism.” I cannot quite tell if The Contemptuous believe these are not legitimate issues or issues worth consideration, or if they simply use them to prove a point. I do see however, how Anarchists will treat popular issues as a Populist (Anarcho-Populist??) does: Howl and rave until they’re no longer popular. Also, read Ellul!

The Contemptuous: “Anarchists place their political confidence in populist causes and loosely identified masses of Objectively Revolutionary Subjects…” We once again return to the issue of populism, bandwagonism, vanguardism. Many might read their comments on Trump Supporters and Canadian Truckers as apologism, when it is easy to see all it serves to do is attack Left-hypocrisy. I would find that the first period of anarchism (First International to end of Spanish Civil War) would have shown us the failure of mass struggle in the traditional sense (class struggle, nation-state “anti-imperialism,” etc) but NOPE, here we are. The Contemptuous seems to be pushing an anti-revolutionary, pro-insurrectionary line of thinking here that I also favor. Making monoliths of the working class, ethnic groups, genders, etc, is not only itself reactionary by Leftist morality, but doomed to take us back to square one…

The Contemptuous: “Because anarchists have a phobia of anything that smells ‘right-wing’, they are fixated on strictly emergent/structural theories of our enemies and can’t understand (or refuse to consider) any parapolitical/elite theory view.” I will say here, I am not familiar with parapolitical theory. BUT, any theory of power and control must be assessed before being dismissed. While we do have boots-on-the-ground enemies, they become radicalized by more than simple thoughts of their own. Existing structures, cultural assumptions, institutions, etc, are the cause of the foot-soldiers against freedom. The foot-soldiers are not the cause, but a symptom (albeit dangerous one). Take YouTube algorithms being found to push young (typically white) men to alt-right / far-right content. Is the youth to blame, or the corporation? That is a whole discussion, but as The Contemptuous put it, “we object to … the wholesale, party-line condemnation of parapolitics as ‘right wing’ by the truly binary and closed boundary system of cultural leftism.”

The Contemptuous: “In the end, anarchists act as a strange vanguard for globalism and transhumanism, which seem to be precisely the major goals of the real powers of our time.” Well fucking said. Zerzan has more than once pointed to the anti-globalization movement being an alt-globalization. I believe his expression may make this more clear. See:
So, you can't do without either the state or capitalism. You can say, you want a nicer form of capitalism. That was always a prominent feature of some currents of the anti-globalization movement and certainly the World Social Forum. They would say: “we want a bottom-up globalization, a people's globalization, etc.” Maybe you have a leftist politician instead that doesn't change things in a fundamental way. Some of us, however, were truly anti-globalization. We didn't want a globalized world. We didn't want an integrated world where everyone is plugged in.

Transhumanism and the issue of technological progress is an ongoing “debate” (more the gagging of a youthful and radical critique) and I myself have been called every political insult under the sun for suggesting we take a critical view of Industrial society and civilization in general. I am a great tool for leftists as a disabled, trans-feminine individual, until they realize my beliefs!

So.. that was the “Eight Contemptuous Theses.” What about the rest?

The Contemptuous go to give us a “summary” of sorts by stating that:

We are at war with Civilization and the civilized herds who take comfort and perceived safety in their self-domestication.

We are at war with Society and its agenda-driven trending, manufactured tensions, enforced values, and the social media-symbiotes who proudly volunteer to live as slaves to their screens.

We are at war with Technology and its faithful cyborg flocks all fingering their smart phones the way monks finger their rosary beads.

We are at war with Politics and the political mobs, those sheep in savior’s clothing ever ready to follow those who bleat the loudest into the next witch hunt.

We are at war with Identity and all of those willing to smother their uniqueness under the masks and disguises of its categories and definitions so that they can find their place in this contemptible world.

We are at war with all authoritarian control.

We are at war with the political, the activists, and the scenesters in anarchist clothing.

We are at war….because we are anarchists!

It isn’t hard to admit that the phrasing is.. edgy. The targets of their rage are shared by many anarchists, particularly of the post-left and anti-civilization trends. One can read it as an egoist anti-civilization critique quite easily. But, do these make sense?

Civilization, (Mass) Society, Technology, Politics, Identity (essentialism/opportunism) are valid targets of an anarchist attack. These aren’t particularly new critiques either. I’ve seen some anarchists, particularly Communist-Anarchists, state that anti-civilization is just some new fake radical perspective. How would they explain early critique of industry and civilization by Henri Zisly (1872-1945)? Or the radical ownness of Stirner (1805-1856) or Novatore (1890-1922)? The Contemptuous state nothing new. They rightly claim that anarchism is not a blueprint, moral system, or dogma:

For one thing, Anarchy (or anarchism) ISN’T a blueprint or rulebook, and any aspiring system that requires adherence to expected behavior, politically correct thought-filters and left/liberal spatial boundaries is already obsolete as a vehicle of liberation, and our enemy. Slaves, morons and masochists follow ideologies, but not willful self-creators, who understand that Anarchy—like all of life—is too complex, chaotic, subjective, free, improvisational and frenetic to be encompassed by any one modelization.

Finally, The Contemptuous acknowledges the deradicalization, or in their words, “institutionalization” of anarchism. Anarchism, like Marxism (Che shirts, anybody?) has become a commodity to be bought and sold, an action to be performed for the Spectacle. Anarchist publishers of today (in North America, which is the focus of the original communique and the end of my knowledge) are safe publishing progress-praising tracts, and not anything beyond their Party-line. By suppressing other views and outwardly denouncing all else as anti-anarchist, they maintain a “politically correct” or “respectable anarchism.”

This is where I end the section of agreement. As one notices, I agree with much of the actual content throughout the piece, including the general intent.

All power to the anarch, who claims the power for her own.

3. ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

Now begins where I agree with the substance, but not necessarily the way it was expressed. I will also approach areas I feel need clarification, but not necessarily that I disagree. Some may see this as nitpicking or cowardly avoiding disagreement. Well, too bad!

Some phrases appear that I believe should be reconsidered or elaborated upon. I will list them in no particular order, alongside my views on the words.

Transgenderism: This stuck out to me immediately because I am transgender. While transgenderism at one point simply meant “the state of being transgender” it can no longer be disconnected from the growing bigoted view towards trans people. Right-wing talking heads like Ben Shapiro and others at Daily Wire view the trans issue as an agenda or ideology of anti-family, anti-Christian subversives. It sees the existence of trans people as purely ideological, hence the “-ism”. Michael Knowles recently spoke on the need for the “eradication” of “transgenderism” for example. [What else would he mean but the end of trans people themselves?] What do The Contemptuous mean by using this phrasing? Is it a case of outdated wording, a polemical tool to seek outrage, or something else? If I understand them correctly to mean simply the movement towards assimilating transgender people into modern society, I would agree (See my zine / essay, “Locating a Green and Pink Anarchy”). However, if they mean that there is a conspiracy of sorts among trans and trans “allies” towards something else, I caution The Contemptuous to engage in further dialogue with trans folks on this issue.

Normalized mental disorders….Disaffected eccentrics I felt quite confused by these both from Thesis 2. What do they think motivates the grouping of the mentally ill and eccentrics (often of which are the same)? Is there necessarily an issue of this? Should we, Uncivilized Anarchists, not understand that Domestication, Urbanization, Industrialization, Civilization lead to deep personal and social crises? Are these not victims of the alienation and destruction of autonomy, meaning, and ecology? I understand Thesis 2 to attack the social circle attitude of anarchist spaces, but what does it necessarily mean in relation to these named subjects? I understand the notions they express in relation to hyper-conformity and hostile attitudes being negative for our spaces. This also has been expressed before by essays in Green Anarchy (Ex: “The Nature of the Left,” “The Left Handed Path of Repression,” and “Leftism 101”) as well by the equally notorious Ted Kaczynski in Industrial Society and its Future:
By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed), and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism
[...]
The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes) for a long time.

Had Thesis 2 been expressed in this manner, I believe I’d be much more inclined to agree with it. It may be obvious I tend towards such an analysis in my explanation of my agreement with Thesis 2 above.

Civilized herds, cyborg mobs : I felt these merited being merged into one point, despite them being expressed separately. They come from the summary talked about above. What do The Contemptuous mean by declaring war on the “civilized herds” and “cyborg flocks”? I believe they may be seeing the issue of the citizens of the world recreating / reproducing their own conditions. As Fredy Perlman said:
The practical everyday activity of wage-workers reproduces wage labor and capital. Through their daily activities, “modern” men, like tribesmen and slaves, reproduce the inhabitants, the social relations and the ideas of their society; they reproduce the social form of daily life. Like the tribe and the slave system, the capitalist system is neither the natural nor the final form of human society; like the earlier social forms, capitalism is a specific response to material and historical conditions.We are at war with Identity: To be at war with identity is strange, as The Contemptuous published this communique to mark their identities as anarchists against the quasi-anarchists. They might argue it is less about identity and more about principle. Sure, then it might be best then to say you’re not declaring war on identity but on essentialized identity or identity opportunism (often called identity politics or weaponization of identity). I am sympathetic to those who feel alone in an alienated world, attaching to identities of various sorts to feel they’re a part of something, anything.

Let us make an example, such as those who are in the LGBTQ+ “community” (which I don’t believe actually exists, but for sake of brevity..). There are those who are Trans and affirm their identity in spite of violence or threat of it. They are feral and wild in their identity. (See “Uncivilized and Queer” by Jason Rogers in Oak 2 or the Baedan journals). YET, there are those who demand more gay CEOs, trans police (or police at Pride.. Oh god). Worse, those who use their identities as a cudgel.
“You can’t say that to me, I am xyz” or “You’re xyz, you can’t speak on this” are indeed things to struggle against. Identity is part of the Uniqueness, something to be Owned by the Unique (to use Stirnerian terms), not to be treated as a fetish/idol. If this is what The Contemptuous argue for, then I am with them!

The queer lumpen (the populist wing of the pharmaceutical industry, that latter being -Good, Actually- as of last year, please keep up)’. What does this even mean? Are they relating the issue of say, puberty blockers (which the authors mention at one point) or HRT to being “the populist wing of the pharmaceutical industry? This seems to connect to the issue of Thesis 5. There is much to be said on how the modern conception of transness might be manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry (and I imagine Leftists would be far too scared to!). There is also dialogue to be had about the pharmaceutical industry, policing bodies, monopoly on medicine, and the “medicalization of life,” to borrow from Ivan Illich. But how The Contemptuous link “the queer lumpen(proletariat)” to this is odd without elaboration.

Rigorous political theory plainly shows politics is driven by tightly organized minorities, not shambling and loosely united populist groups that are largely the hallucinations of left-wing activists. What do The Contemptuous mean by politics? Politics, by definition, one that John Moore used as well, means “the science and art of government.” So, are The Contemptuous concerned then with moving the science and art of government forward? Are they not interested in antipolitics? What is the concern here, unless to point out how political (Leftist) anarchists are misguided even in their own theory and praxis? In that, I would agree. I think the discourse of politics vs antipolitics has lapsed in recent years and is due for a rejuvenation. Maybe this can help begin that.

Finally, what defines a common denominator for anarchism? This is not a phrase to respond to, but a question in my mind throughout the piece. The Contemptuous are seeking to make a divide essentially between ‘real’ and ‘fake’ anarchists, or perhaps better to say ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ anarchies. What then, at its base, defines an anarchist? A commitment to freedom? How do we define freedom? Liberals believe in freedom, too (or profess to), are they anarchists? Surely not. Are anarchists interested in anti-insert-something here? Say, anti-capitalism? Fascists, Marxists, Socialists are (in words) anti-capitalism, are they anarchists? Do the people behind The Contemptuous share any affinity with Left-wing anarchists? If so, what? These are questions I have recently found myself unable to answer as I begin to see anarchism not as a political project, but an antipolitical one. Maybe this dialogue, as discussed above, holds the answers?

4. CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR

I have two areas of disagreement here, which are related. Firstly is the premise that the media is inherently liberal and that anarchists tail that which is discussed. Second is that progressive liberalism is necessarily the direction society is going and anarchists are just acting out historic progress.

In Thesis 5, it is stated that:

The latest ProgLeft cause that the corporate media tells them is important is simply given the anarchist gloss: accept the framing as true, and then just give the anarchist spin on it, whether it is immigration, climate alarmism, 'fascism' through Trump, Black Lives Matter, COVID, AI, transgenderism - whatever The New York Times, NPR, and the Bezos Post decided is Very Important this month. All that’s required to be a self-debasing member of this flock is to habitually repeat the academically-formulated credos of the progressive Left’s cultural programmers.

I don’t believe we can quantify what anarchists are necessarily responding to. The Right has its own programmers and foot-soldiers, which I discussed above. What is the role of Anarchists, if we can say there is one, in fighting issues pushed by the media, like xenophobia/immigration? While we can surely say many anarchists (especially anarchist organizations) do follow the carrot of the media, I am thinking we thread this needle with more care to understand the role of Propaganda and its power over so called Radicals (See Ellul’s Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes.) But it is fair to say Anarchists uncritically absorbed issues of Trump-fascism and COVID-19 from the media (Left or Right), especially “Antifa” types.

Another issue is how the media, especially Progressive or Liberal media recuperates radical ideas and sells it as a respectable, commercialized form. Women’s Liberation has become Women’s Rights, for example. Ideas can be grassroots and become strung to academia, NGOs, etc. This occurred to Debord and his Society of the Spectacle. Would we dismiss his writing for being discussed in liberal spaces? No, and we know The Contemptuous appreciate his writing, they even refer to him!

I also think that The Contemptuous have a misunderstanding of the media. It is not Left, Liberal, or Right in the traditional sense. It is a corporate monopoly. A liberal and conservative outlet can be owned by the same parent-company and simply market in different ways for a larger audience. There is no principle at play, besides profit. Comcast, Disney, AT&T, Paramount, Sony, and Fox are the 6 major corporate media owners. Do The Contemptuous really think these companies are interested in pure ideology of Left or Right? Yes, some’s interest can be assisted by Progressive or Conservative tendencies, but these are tools to political power and capital.

As discussed above, I don’t think history is necessarily aligned with progressive liberals. This might sound odd to say progress is not necessarily progressive. If we abide by the (ironically) liberal idea that history is determined, going in one direction (towards an “end of history” to borrow from Neo-Liberals and Neoconservatives), then, we would have to admit this is true, but we shouldn’t! History didn’t need to happen, and it doesn’t go one way. To be clear, when I say progressive, I mean a particular brand of political thinking based on urban morality, assimilation into that morality, and its enforcement. To see a strong historic example, read on the Progressive Era of the USA (1896 - 1917). It is a system of thought based on efficiency within an industrial society. Not all programs of this period align with today so clearly. Eugenics is more associated with the Right than Left or Center Liberals of today, for example, despite it being born from the Progressives. “Kill the Indian, Save the Man” is/was a Progressive notion, and this is where I wish to develop my idea.

We can define two competing trends of historic development: Assimilation and Extermination. Liberals and Leftists love the idea of assimilating any and all divergent groups into the fold of Society. The Right generally does too, but to a lesser extent. The further “Right” you go, you find favor of exclusion and or extermination. This differs Neoconservatives from the Far-Right, which Anarchists typically conflate. Neoconservatives are more interested in “Americanizing” peoples they deem worthy, while Far-Right actors uphold more essentialist views of race, gender, etc.

Generally, yes, most Americans are in favor of some form of Assimilation, but the attitudes of it vary. “Kill the Indian, Save the Man” is still at work today. Instead of boarding schools, it is affirmative action and instructing silly Indigenous people about atheism and rationality over their kooky and superstitious traditional beliefs. It means more Indigenous Oil executives. To be a devil’s advocate, perhaps the line between assimilation and extermination is thin, as assimilation means cultural extermination/genocide.

Among some factions of the Right (the Far-Right, in particular), we do see growing belief in extermination or exclusion (physical or lawful, such as deportation or criminalizing gay marriage, respectively). See the new anti-Trans laws (or literally any other issue, especially immigration). Where the Liberal/Left want to expand the laws to bring the Trans and others into the fold of Good Society / Brave New World, the Far-Right wants nothing to do with them. There is corporate media that pushes such a line, such as particular hosts of Fox News or writers for the New York Post. Wall Street Journal represents a more “centrist” position, to add more complication to this.

I think there is a HUGE opportunity for media analysis in Anarchism, to understand the role it plays in pushing and manipulating narratives. But simplifying it as “ProfLeft” and “corporate media” does not do justice to the issues at hand. By doing so, The Contemptuous limit their scope of critique and understanding of cultural hegemony. I admit for myself that this is an entirely new realm of thought for me and I am still feeling my way through it. The progressive influence on neoconservatism versus traditional conservatism makes such issues unique and difficult, because we realize neoconservatives are just as much interested in globalism and technologization/commodification as liberals, they vary only on how the loot of it all is dispersed.

____________________________________________________________________________

I value the original communique deeply. I think that The Contemptuous is a sight for sore eyes among a highly sanitized space. We need to ask hard questions, ask difficult questions, and be able to laugh and love one another without fear of being exiled from our spaces. This does not mean we tolerate attitudes that give strength to authority, racism, sexism, colonialism, and other

In Summary, The Contemptuous are interested in one thing: To become ungovernable, especially by other anarchists.

any correspondence can be directed to tmwg1995@protonmail.com and I am sending this directly to the authors.

As I always say, sorry for formatting issues! Some areas don't seem to want to cooperate.. Take an edited meme of my dog as compensation.

There are 52 Comments

Meant to say "This does not mean we tolerate attitudes that give strength to authority, racism, sexism, colonialism, and other negative beliefs" in first paragraph of the closing section..

"ArtxmisGrahamThoreau"

Do you reside at the Nude House? Honest question.

Use of the "x" at some odd section of a name, and the use of well-known anarchist family names. You tricked a few people online and now you're thinking anarchists are that dumb. Well, newsflash! Yeah, indeed lots of people are fucking dumb, including in anarchist circles even tho the ratio is slightly better in those IMO. Society does that to our brains. I personally got an ADD syndrome that keeps me from things like being seriously dangerous at chess, but at least I can see the obvious details, da-UH!

re: the nude house comment - not gonna lie, the writing style of OP is disturbingly similar to a now supposedly deceased former resident of the imaginary nude house ; the give-away for me was repackaging huge slabs of text by another author, slapping some quotation marks on the text, add a few inane comments of your own to the swiped text and wa-la, you've got your own essay and you are now an Anarchist Author...I hope I'm wrong and I hope this isn't who I think it is but yeah, it does seem really fucking suss.

Artxmis is a relatively known anarchist writer. You can read their contributions in Oak Journal and hear their voice in an anarchist podcast which they host.

The same could ALL be said for AG. Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice, someone gonna get cut.

Thanks, mini, whomever you are!

Being called "relatively known" is weird but I'll take it!

I have no clue what this means. What is the nude house? Also, it's a response article, so yes, many quotes. Inane? I attempted a thoughtful but relatively concise response, but go off. Weird behavior, really.

Terminally online extroverted anarchist writer doesn't know what the Nude House was? SOunds legit,,,.. lmao

I looked i up. I realize now you mean Anarqxista Goldman. Given I've been using Artxmis as a name for 3 years and engage in several projects and live in Illinois.. that doesn't add up. Nice try, super spy

I also added the X to my name as a form of gender affirmation, are you a terf?

"I also added the X to my name as a form of gender affirmation"

The gender-neutral ⟨-x⟩ suffix replaces the ⟨-o/-a⟩ endings of words that are typical of grammatical gender in Spanish or other Latin rooted languages.

Sometimes people will replace the e in women with an x for obvious reasons.

Artemis does not fit these reasons and you replacing the e in Artemis with an x and claiming gender affirmation is making a mockery out of folks who do it for the aforementioned reasons.

Perhaps don't accuse people of being terfs when your are expression of gender affirmation is not clear and called into question.

The moderators should fuck off and stop deleting actual replies to actual comments.

"I'm telling you how to affirm gender. " seems sus!

My terf joking aside, if you actually think I am AG (or the dude behind it, rather), actually bring evidence and not spreading dangerous rumors. As mentioned, I've had this name for over 3 years and host a podcast and it is apparent I am not European (which i believe guy behind AG was) and while he was well into middle age years, it is obvious I am not that..

Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@uncivilizedpodcast

Also, yes, the x does represent affirmation for me, even if it doesn't fit what you think it means and to call it a mockery is extremely weird. Apparently we need to abide by rules for gender now, which is indeed sus.

Whoops! Hard to tell sometimes. Sorry
Artxmis *

I'm a bit surprised but i'll accept that anarchists in some places haven't been hearing this kind of anti-dogma dogma, consistently since the 90s? "The Contemptuous" to me, are just the latest link in the chain of post-leftist critique, which I also value. It has merit, I tend to agree with more than half but there's better versions of most of these arguments already sitting on the shelves of the anarchist library.

I associate it with @news, it's part of what drew me here a long time ago. The Left needs to be critiqued from the ultra left and/or post left and/or anarchist perspectives that escaped its worst tendencies.

On the other hand, anyone who claims to have arrived at a rigorous anarchist analysis without ANY influence from the leftist traditions will have a hard time persuading me that they aren't just wandering in the libertarian conspiracy wilderness, adjacent to the far right. Put another way, these people tend to be fairly incoherent a lot of the time, as this writer makes a good case for on topics like media, trans issues or the use of the word "politics" as if you can ever escape it.

Like, it's not that easy folks. You don't escape politics by just having a superior attitude about use of the word, you just have an anti-politics politics, which you still have to convince me isn't gibberish. it's not my first rodeo lol, sell that shit to the starry eyed kids. maybe they'll find it edgy and deep? i'm contemptuous of this sort of contempt because the arguments underneath feel lazy. not always but often! and this is likely a "canada and the US" sort of thing because that's where the legacy of boomer mccarthyism still shits out absolutely jackass levels of incoherent nonsense about leftism that doesn't immediately get torn to shreds because it gets birthed in blighted echo chamber where most of the participants can barely fukin read.

These are classic problems to an older anarchist but I appreciate the stirring of the pot and I suppose this discussion needs to be always happening in dimly lit backrooms, full of grumpy @s. More power to'em.

"politics as if you can ever escape it."

Im curious why your definition of politics is so expansive? - I could be wrong, but it resembles how Ive often seen socially-oriented (socialists/communists/and anarchists branching from these lineages) speak of politics/the political: often a vague stand-in for relationality itself, decision making generally, or really any human activity.

to me this understanding (and defaulting to such a broad definition) seems to give incredible power to any framework of politicians, police, and supporters that almost any anarchist values and practices ostensibly would be against (anti-) or without (a-). who would love the idea that politics is inescapable more than politicians!

this is why I see anti-political and a-political anarchist traditions largely outside the left/socialist sphere as not only adhering to a radical understanding of politics (its awful. no, thanks), but crucial for carving practices from this position instead of believing, acting from, and reinforcing the notion that politics/the political is inescapable. the same problem can be applied to capitalism-- that it has infiltrated all aspects of human activity. wishful thinking?

wouldnt it be more beneficial (at the very least far less suffocating) to define and approach politics for what the word entails--- a polis (society!) idealized by politicians, and enforced by supporters and police? and if this is not the desired set of relations, then perhaps something else can be?

sure caspar! your emphasis on preference of language is just as fair as mine but maybe the difference between us is I think words don't really have that much power in general? call it whatever you want, i don't care. semantic arguments rarely interest me.

you can make your claim that politics isn't a good word for "relationality" just like I can argue that you're trying to separate yourself from the great beast using puffs of air or taps of a keyboard, when the beast uses bombs and bullets to prove your words means nothing, when it so chooses.

do you see my point? I agree that shifting ones thinking can help as a developmental step but once someone has a functional understanding of power from an anarchist perspective, you are still trapped, or escaping the trap, or chewing off your own leg in the trap or if you're very, very lucky, existing quietly in the margins, somewhere outside of the trap.

last thing i'll say, politics isn't when i'm relating to my friends and loved ones willingly, it's just everything else that I have to do because of the various metaphorical or literal guns to my head

that's fair-- for the most part, I do think language strongly describes and affects understanding, decision making, and outcomes. a you are (or better yet, become) what you speak, kind of thing. in thinking the beast is everywhere, it probably will be. anyhow, thanks for the response in a somewhat hijack of a thread!

i don’t think they EVER said there was NO influence (there are lots of influences on individual anarchists and the general perspective), just that the contemporary Leftist influences are even worse than the previous negative ones and it just gets exponentially worse.

“canada and the US" what does that even mean, that the Left is so accepted in canada that there is no need to critique it up there….jez, wonder who is a closet socialist? as you just call everyone lazy and incoherent and accuse people of hanging out in “libertarian conspiracy wilderness” dog-whistling they are right-wing and illiterate without ever laying out any contrary critiques, just that you’ve seen it all before. wow lumpy, how insightful, may i kiss your precious crumb-covered keyboard?

thought I explained it pretty clear?

outside of the "unique" form of historical illiteracy mostly located in canada and the US, people don't have to deal with the legacy of rothbardian libertarianism and similar attempts to clownishly rewrite history. you don't encounter the same degree of delusion and it's difficult to export it because people aren't as easily fooled ... because they read more and have a collective memory about labour politics. although i've heard steve bannon has been making great strides in a few places! he's carrying that torch around the world!

it's not even that interesting to me, just a sad, wet, fart of a fact that conspiracy gibberish plays better to more gullible audiences

Lumpy, how can I too travel the world to meet these enlightened anarchists and their insightful grasp of class analysis you have learned so much from?

you don't need to anymore? you can use the internet!

instead of only reading shit that confirms your biases or snarking at me about it?

while i am appreciative of ATG's good faith engagement with this piece, i think ultimately it is for naught. i don't think the contemptuous are dealing in good faith disagreement at all. i think they are as full of resentment as they claim other anarchists are. i think they are not describing real people, but have made up a type of anarchist to get mad at and who is easy to poke fun at and ridicule. the contemptuous have a large vocabulary but lack the sense to know how to wield it well. i think they want to be able to use "woke" with a hard r and are sad they can't in decent company. i think they think they can be entirely separate from all other beings and that actually that is the only true freedom. i think the contemptuous can only come in after the hard work has been done and claim that they were those that did the work.

Anon (one of many),

Thank you for the reply and recognition of intent. I will say, I disagree it is for naught! Even if we agreed that the authors' intent was to be egoistical, resentful shitheads, responses would be necessary to show why that is and not bad expressions, which I think is found in the communique. There is a lot of doom and gloom in anarchist spaces and some overreaction is to be expected (and maybe even welcomed!). Curious on your thoughts..

As just one individual of The Contemptuous, I cannot speak for the group, but only for myself. I would like to comment briefly here, as to confirm and ensure that opening up dialogue was a primary goal of ours. To be honest, blowing off some high-pressured and long-built-up steam was another. Since all of us in The Contemptuous spend very little time in the cyber-reality, and frankly, almost as little engaged outside of our small tribe or in massified culture and its corrupted venues, I would prefer that the discussions mostly be amongst other folks here rather than with me or The Contemptuous. We put out the communique to be picked apart and to initiate conversations amongst anarchists who are outside our group and in these forums. Honestly, we were not too optimistic about it, initially getting back about what we had expected, although this post is somewhat encouraging. I will very occasionally and very briefly check in at times, less to debate or argue points, but more for clarification on what was intended in the Communique, if I can, when time and space permits me to.

First, I would like to thank and applaud Artxmis Graham Thoreau for the very detailed, rigorous, and open mind in relation to this piece and for their general analysis. Obviously Artxmis takes being an anarchist seriously and honestly, not as a temporary and misconstrued costume or identity to wear, a rarity these days and in this format. Artxmis also seems to take seriously and critically the current world we inhabit, as well as its histories and trajectories. Again, very rare.

So, just a few specific and hopefully clarifying comments:

In reference to Artxmis’s comments on what I believe was the fifth “Contemptuous Theses”:

“the examples, “immigration, climate alarmism, 'fascism' through Trump, Black Lives Matter, COVID, AI, transgenderism.” I cannot quite tell if The Contemptuous believe these are not legitimate issues or issues worth consideration, or if they simply use them to prove a point.”

I believe the intent here was to point to how, when, and where anarchists frame, discuss, and act in relation to these contexts (not any specific aspects concerning them), unfortunately taking their cues from the Left (vanguards, academics, politicos, activists, trends, popularized culture, pressures, etc), rather than from themselves, their own thoughts, and their directly-lived experiences, and apart from Leftist situations and performances. Artxmis seems to begin to flesh this out some in the response to the next thesis and at other points in the response.

I think it is also important to very briefly point out that some people have taken the communique as so anti-Leftist and even using some so-called “right-wing language” that we are “soft on the right” or even “trumpian”. This shallow and misdirected slander is absurd, reactionary, and revealing. We despise all politics, but focus on the Left so hard mostly because it is the political persuasion that has most penetrated and negatively effected what should be an apolitical and anti-ideological anarchist space. We have been pushing back on this for years and it just got worse and worse to the point where there is, sadly, very little difference between most anarchists and Leftists. Now, the anarchist space is primarily a bunch of boiled anarcho-Leftist frogs wearing the costumes and slogans of each new cause of the day.

(...no more room....to be continued)

(....continued from part 1)

And, in reference to the herds, well, we all choose our level of complicity each and every moment, and yes, specifics are on a spectrum of difficulty depending on our own situation, but we are all a part of it, but, we also have personal agency. I do not wish to elevate the herd to enemy status, but I also do not find affinity with them as a whole. It is all on an individual and situational bases for the others and me, and it always fluctuates. It is best read as an aversion to herd mentality and its mode within the cyber-reality, which I believe is what primarily guides this sick culture. Yes, as far as attack, there are much clearer and much more powerful targets than individuals in the herd, but a general anti-humanist disgust is often hard to get passed.

Yes, Identity Politics, is of course what was meant by “being at war with Identity”. While I understand the desire to even temporarily embrace an identity for empowerment with other fellow travelers and kindreds, especially for self-preservation, it usually tends towards over-defining, fetishizing, or developing politics and almost always at odds with uniqueness.

“The queer lumpen” part definitely could use elaboration, and my hope is that the individual responsible for that phrase will continue to elaborate in future communiques, but I read that as a reference similar to Artxmis’s supplied Ivan Illich’s quote (who has a lot to offer, by the way). The medical/pharma/industrial/techno reality has a lot to be said about it here. I certainly think this was a slightly unhashed-out section, but that leaves lots of room for openings and elaboration. It is one of the inherent limitations of an opening communique…

In reference to the next section, The Contemptuous are obviously apolitical, I hope this was not confusing. What was meant to be expressed is something along the lines that political theory and studying the workings of politics reveals certain dynamics, motivations, strategies, players. One of which is that populism is a manipulation of part of the populace by using specific and oversimplified elements, language, and ideas that are part of their popular vernacular to control or even to create crisis and conflict with other parts of the populace who they may also be manipulating in similar, yet differently-flavored ways. Artxmis seems to understand this in their expression of how corporate media seems to function and their goals overtly as Left of Right, but in reality, as a more sophisticated form of control. This is an area for much more examination and discussion.

Finally, I will leave the “defining a common denominator for anarchism” up to each one of you and those you are in relation with. I know what it means to me, and I don’t see a lot of it out there, but I think Artxmis is on the right track naming it as “authentic” or “inauthentic” and by relating it to freedom and autonomy rather than politics, cultural trends, or anti-isms. You are absolutely correct Artxmis, “We need to ask hard questions, ask difficult questions, and be able to laugh and love one another without fear of being exiled from our spaces….The Contemptuous are interested in one thing: To become ungovernable, especially by other anarchists.”

Thanks for the thoughts, the time, the care, and the words!

ps. i may not check in here for a couple days, a few weeks, or maybe never again……good luck out there!

X,
we despise all politics, but focus on the Left so hard mostly because it is the political persuasion that has most penetrated and negatively effected what should be an apolitical and anti-ideological anarchist space. We have been pushing back on this for years and it just got worse and worse to the point where there is, sadly, very little difference between most anarchists and Leftists. Now, the anarchist space is primarily a bunch of boiled anarcho-Leftist frogs wearing the costumes and slogans of each new cause of the day.
I would hope anyone with half a fucking brain could understand this. We don't combat the Right (as vigorously, though we can't forget their creeping infiltration) in our spaces because the Right hasn't near as much of an influence on anarchism than the Left. Of course, our opponents will see this as good, which leads to a deep misunderstanding. There's a misconception that Anarchism is the Left-Wing of the Socialist movement (I believe Kropotkin, maybe Bookchin said this). This is true, but not in the way they think. Anarchism of today isn't "better" than Leftism, it an actor of it, to put it another way, "Anarchism is Left of the Left," in all the worst ways!

What was meant to be expressed is something along the lines that political theory and studying the workings of politics reveals certain dynamics, motivations, strategies, players. One of which is that populism is a manipulation of part of the populace by using specific and oversimplified elements, language, and ideas that are part of their popular vernacular to control or even to create crisis and conflict with other parts of the populace who they may also be manipulating in similar, yet differently-flavored ways.

This makes more sense and was my assumption . It can be difficult sometimes, especially via text forms, to distinguish rhetorical and literal commentary

It is best read as an aversion to herd mentality and its mode within the cyber-reality, which I believe is what primarily guides this sick culture.

I like this. There is a lot to be said / asked about the role of the Shepard in such herds, who or what they are (technocrats, politicans, intellectuals, etc, or none??) It also opens up the danger of some leftist forms that seek to remove the Shepard, making voluntary servitude even more self-enforced and pervasive.

I appreciate the response and recognition of my intent to extend dialogue. I also appreciate the clarifications. It seems we are closer to the same page than I thought! I'm glad we can have these conversations. If I can ask on this platform, what was the writing process? You mentioned someone wrote the line about "queer lumpen", was there a sort of division of labor on which issues were tackled?

Hope to (not, assuming you're already off cyberspace!) hear back

AGT

Sockpuppets are on fire tonight. DID all up in here amirite?

you're a silly little goose

i was really hoping that the contemptuous would fall off the map back into the obscurity from whence they arose. and i apologize for, once again, giving them attention.

their communique is written so as to be hard to parse, what with run-on sentences, odd parentheticals, shifting subjects, etc. since i am not, thankfully, in any of their minds, trying to get the true meaning of thier issues is a guessing game, wherein they hold all the "correct" answers. this makes good faith criticism difficult by design.

for instance, this is one of the first paragraphs —

"Virtually no one outside of the broadly left- or post-left anarchist subculture takes those same strands of North American anarchists seriously, except insofar as they are concerned these anarchists will, inexplicably, harass and attack ordinary and relatively powerless people depending on what the mainstream news has most recently told them is an important issue and an official enemy. "

i gotta say, contemptuous, this reads as of you want anarchists to be harassing and attacking ordinary and relatively powerless people. or, is it that the bad anarchists are letting mainstream media pick their enemies?

you see, it is hard to tell precisely what is intended with this. and this is early on in this lengthy screed.

then contemptuous say —

"We feel we have to watch our words and refrain from joking, we feel many subjects are beyond discussion unless we are willing to risk a screaming argument, we feel we have to assume a fistfight might develop over some minor or imagined slight, we feel calumny and moral blackmail reign supreme. "

what are the jokes you want to make? at whose expense? maybe it isn't all about you after all. maybe the people you want to joke about have said no and yet you still want to be an asshole. you seem to want to call people names but also want them to listen to all your oh so wise words. i mean, you have taken on the moniker "contemptuous", seeing as lower, worthless and beneath notice all whom you feel are inadequate anarchists and yet you all still have the temerity to want them to listen to you.

wanting anarchy & anarchists to live up to the name is all well and good, but thinking that insulting people, calling them the herd or volunteer slaves will be of any help in that project is delusional. and that is what i find odious in this communique. the idea that insulting those you ostensibly desire to be on your side will bring them to your side rather than push them away.

look, i don't think we have to be pleasant and nice all the time. there is a place for bluntness and insult, even. but to start there, to make contempt the basis of your project, that to me is mere arrogance, a desire for superiority, nay, a knowledge of one's superiority, which seems highly misplaced in anyone calling themselves anarchist. how can you make claims to non hierarchical positions from the starting point of superiority?

color me dubious.

wow. way to project onto The Contemptuous all of the typical tropes that those under the spell of marxism, leftism, and socialism (whether they understand this or not) and never deal with the actual critique. just about all of what they express is all too real, maybe stated a bit nasty, but since when are anarchists this delicate. we claim to be at war, yet wither at the slightest of raised voices that we disagree with. your view of anarchy seems naive, and frankly, a bit silly and oversimplistic. i think i'll color you with some other adjectives offline.

“I do not want to nor can I espouse the cause of atheistic communism, because I do not believe in the supreme elevation of the masses, and so I deny the realization of Anarchy meant as a social form of human life together … Anarchy is nectar for the psychic I and not sociological alcohol for the collectivity” - Renzo Novatore

their actual critique is that anarchists are too liberal and bend too much with the winds of popular culture, is that correct?

but you are right that i disagree with their tone and approach to trying to solve this. (or even if this is a problem at all. or the real problem. ) i don't think it is possible to bring others in by insulting them.

as to the metaphor of war, yeah i don't like that either. being able to fight in situations where fighting & winning are feasible is one thing. thinking every damn thing is already a fight (& winnable) is, frankly, exhausting. you can call me soft but i'm soft like water and will do damage nonetheless.

who is "trying to bring people in"? we are not evangelical or vanguards are we? i'm not. i am a free autonomous being in union with those i have affinity with.....i know this runs contrary to political tendencies, ideologies, and religions, which is why i am an anarchist! do we really need to recycle through this over and over?

are you online again?? i thought your superior tendency spent weeks offline? yet you all seem to be here a frigging lot. apparently free autonomous beings are attached to rebuttal.

i'm impressed by your clarity and good faith.

also disappointed in people x-baiting you. (what the actual fuck)

I appreciate it! And yeah very weird behavior..

Did you have thoughts on original communique?

yes, and i agree with i think all of your points -- including the general agreement with the original post -- but not the patience or energy to go through it piece by piece and be articulate.

so jus tcoasting on your work like the surfer i guess i am, lol.

i'm still baffled by how anyone can know any history and pretend that you can separate "the anarchist space" from the leftist tradition. you can easily argue it should GO SOMEWHERE ELSE and you're probably correct? that's worthwhile to explore?

but you can't hop in a time machine and pretend it isn't where anarchism came from. that's fukin stupid and revisionist and uniquely i-don't-care-how-dumb-i-sound-when-talk arrogance. do better.

I somewhat agree. I think Post-Leftism (or the intent, maybe not the "culture" of it) had it right, Anarchism was (or is) rooted in radical liberalism, much like Marxism, as they are twin-thought of the IWA/First International. HOWEVER, it is important to remember the roots of Leftism vs Rightism, which was essentially more vs less equitable governance (or style of). Anarchism might have come from that context, but it is easily argued it cannot flourish until it goes beyond (or negates) Leftism. Hope that makes sense. But I agree, people who ignore it really confuse me. What is the goal? To seem more radical?

The CNT just like '20s radical labor organizing was into a kind of state formation, tho without being into electoralism, which made it unusual within the so-called modern world. In this, it is also comparable to Marxists, that rejected "bourgeois democracy" for their "proletarian" state left by a Red bourgeoisie.

I think we got a pattern that is more relevant than you might think. In Western countries you got (usually) academic (usually) White petty bourgeois worshipping some sharply anachronistic view of "anarchism", to the point of sometimes engaging into a form of LARPing or at least an historical revivalism in their narrative, so that they'll approach the world of today with the ancom perspective from before WW2... rooted in movements that as we all know got defeated by several kinds of state forces, from the state socialists to the fascists. This crowd of "anarchists" always gave me the impression of holding the most defining character of the capitalist bourgeoisie, that is being wannabe-aristocrats. This character is prevalent in all bureaucracies I've seen, where the upper managerial cadre is going to separate itself from the "populace", while of course claiming to be this people they are working "for". This pattern pervades through all of capitalist society.

The point is this "anarchism" will be favored by these types, for it being innocuous for the contemporary social order and its state, and giving them the impression of being a safe zone from where they can do their "organizing" without endangering their social status, and prospects for later social mobility (up the bureaucratic ladder, most often). I know several previously-ancom individuals who followed this trajectory, and are locked down on it for good.

I wonder if it ain't the same deal in poor countries where you have these tendencies being predominant.

your guess is as good as mine but i'm resigned to hoping it's intentional i guess?

historical revisionism should at least be done intentionally? lol

as opposed to what i've often found, which is just gibberish statements about how "The Left" somehow infiltrated something that is an offshoot of it, using time travel... or something? I'm not claiming that most of these anarchists know that they showed up to the party with rightwing brainworms but where the fuck else did that level of incoherency come from?

plus! there's better ways to do the same thing, like you can make interesting claims from an anthropology or indigenous perspective about an ancient anti-authoritarianism that has existed in all human societies since ever.

anyway, appreciate your efforts!

that's absurd. there is also a long history of anarchists who have lived outside of the left too.....individualists, egoists, and more. and, we should not define ourselves by one part of history...

I agree, the many great individualists without knowing they were individualists rolled on their own groove, they weren't a branch off the main left/right thread which is the result of the materialist dialectic put onto steroids and amphetamines. Can we all just calm down and look into the ontological roots of radicalism?

exactly.

i do understand that people, animals, plants can be harmed easily and yet can also be resilient as fuck despite the harm done.

i am saying i disagree with the notion that because you are damaged it is okay to then harm others, maybe even especially if you call it praxis.

lol, i am probably a minority of one on this here on this site about this but i think a practice of taking care is as valuable as knowing how to fight.

Add new comment