There seem to me to be two main ways that people come at fighting oppression. One way is to think about how all the things are similar/the same. I think antifa is that style in practice if not in theory. The other way is the style of (for example) Black Lives Matter, which takes a group of people with (what many consider to be) a primary identifying characteristic and organizes around that.
This week’s topic is near and dear to our hearts. Sometimes entertaining and often frustrating, trolling as a phenomenon is endemic to modern discourse, and this is especially true of political spaces. From people who veer discussions wildly off-topic with seemingly unrelated opinions to those who provoke frustration or even anger with opinions with which we disagree strongly, we are presented daily with complicated social interactions both online and offline.
Most often when we talk about anarchy, we are referring to that which pertains to the anarchists and anarchisms of the United States, and then to a lesser extent Canada, Mexico, Australia and the various countries in Europe. Very often the rest of the world is either forgotten about, or the anarchists in other countries simply cannot be found.
This week's topic is a question from our sister site Anarchy101.org. Check it out if you haven't already!
Do you tend to call what you're against the totality? civilization? power? capitalism? the state? kyriarchy? society?
I have gone through stages of using capitalism, civilization, and christianity as thing-i-was-railing-against. Is it more useful or harmful (and in what circumstances) to combine all-the-bad, or separate things out?
For better or for worse the Internet has become an essential tool for communicating among anarchists. Traditionally anarchists have relied on face-to-face interactions and local social centres to build trust and solidarity. Yet, our communities are now sparse and spread thin. Aside from the obvious security concerns due to infiltration when we are involved with the “struggle” there is no popular alternative to the ritual of establishing rapport in localized ways.
Intimate violence is something that occurs within any community, and among anarchists in general there has been a long running attempt to define and resolve it in a way that is supposed to reflect our politics. Tools such as call-outs and accountability processes were adopted and developed with the intent of countering a culture in which intimate violence is denied, hidden, or thrown back at the person claiming to have been wronged.
What's your list of things that you think all anarchists either should do or already do? Are they concrete things or abstract? How often do you live up to your own list? What are the things that are crucial (like, if folks don't do them they're not anarchists)? Put another way, is your list mostly definitional or aspirational (remember, Ursula Le Guin says she's not good enough to be an anarchist). Is your list a response to current events or to your life thus far?