TOTW: Anarcho-Giving

No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think. - Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed

Anarchists, like most everyone, inhabit an impossible position, the position of being both “in the world and against the world”***, caught dreaming of heaven while living in hell, and part of this hell’s daily torment is the system of work, cost and money. Apart from those brave souls who avoid work entirely, we toil for a portion of our waking hours and, when we get home, hop onto anews to see the various anarchies of the day. Among the communiques (they did this, so we smashed that), you find a project calling for monetary assistance and, for the sake of this thought experiment, let’s say it is not a project of particular rigor or renown, but an anarchist project nonetheless.

Now you face a seemingly impossible task, you’re called upon to assess whether this project is worthy of your hard earned cash or not, to decide how far the magic and taint of money colors and compromises something living in anarchyland. Do you expect something in return, either in terms of the quality of the project, original writing, regular output, a sweatshirt or the like? Is this capitalist thinking, the idea that no one should get something for nothing? Do you recoil at such calls because you think anarchist projects should be self-funded, either breaking even or perhaps making a profit? Is this just asking anarchists to run better businesses? What might it mean for someone to make a living off of Anarchy, meager or otherwise? How does one judge the worth of a project in a society that already entirely equates worth with money?

There are 52 Comments

Do Heaven in Hell, by choosing anarcho-nihilism and abolishing all property and its value! No need for "communism" when everything and everyone are deterritorialized. Avoid paychecks, bills and fixed prices, and restore the real free markets made of non-arbitrary value and no "economy".

Revolution is either in 1000 years or just here and now, so what's your pick?

In theory it sounds good, but then the "hippie" feel to all the smug love and giving gives free reign to the sociopathic takers and manipulators. There's still gonna be some Manson or Jones type guru calling the shots for a bunch of non-cynical sheep.

Manson and Jones were produced by the authoritarian world, and especially in their cases they are offshoots of older religious (i.e. Christian) authoritarianism. There's many, lesser murderous, cases of these around you.

These types don't last long around an-nihils. Gurus are made for family-like tribes, and the docile dog people "need" their gurus to be told where the north is. Sheep need their shephers, and vice-versa. That's how authority works; it's a relationship! I know where the north is, because I look at the science, not the scientists!

"because I look at the science, not the scientists!'

so where does this "science" come from, if not the scientists?

if you mean direct observation of actual action/reaction in the living world, is that "science"?

Not sure what OP means, but I would define "look at the science not the scientists" as assessing the evidence provided by different people who claim to have the truth, instead of trusting them because of their expertise. That pretty much insulates you against the "Charlie Manson has all the answers" problem (though today I think the twin evils of "Fauci/Neil Fergsuson is always right" and "Trump is the second coming" are much bigger problems).

Worth reading Freud's mass-psychology paper BTW. Gives a theory of how groups with charismatic leaders work, which is similar to hypnotic suggestion and falling in love. Leader is in parent role, this in turn lets the followers all be brothers/sisters with equality. Doesn't give much of an alternative though, except replacing the leader with a cause which plays the same role. IMO true anarchic groups are based on the energy at the core, not the self/other divide or leader-as-parent; affinity is a kind of channelling of cosmic energy into particular actions, and this action binds the group. Stirnerian theory is useful as a replacement for the superego, kinda like a Clastrean chief: it gives the moral commands some people look for, but the content of the commands, is follow your desire, act with will, don't submit to moral commands. Turns the superego function against itself.

You call people sheep and then unintentionally call yourself a sheep lol. Shouldn't north and science be meaningless to you? Why do you believe science? What is science and north? How can you so stupidly not recognize your contradiction? Because you're a sheep, and you know what happens to sheep? They get slaughtered.

Wild sheep are pretty ballsy actually. But sheep have an instinct to herd for protection, which is what's made them domesticable even though they're nervy. Zebras are untameable. They're fine around other zebras, but if someone fucks round with their back end (like, tries to ride them), they kick. Virtually every domesticated species has a weak fight-flight response because it had no natural predators. Cats are the exception, and that's because they domesticated humans, not the other way round. Anarchists are more like zebras. Except idpol "anarchists" who are hyenas basically.

Fun fact about sheep though: they can't be locked-down (factory farmed) because they get super anxious and unproductive. They have to be kept in fields. Then they're kept in check by what's basically a false flag wolf.

Tough tough. Capitalism makes it tough, you need money for everything, even for stupid crap that's useless and good for no one, like "independent journalism" which is just snitching at demos via live-streams and twitter.
Why do I mention this, if this is not an anarchist project? To avoid pointing fingers at anarchist media projects, easy way out.
Even bare lives without projects nor anarchy require cash to subsist in this economy, at least a minimal amount from time to time.
Specially those living in clandestinity that cannot needlessly expose themselves for risk of getting caught, need lots of support of others earning money through legit means or at least fronting or laundering money from other illicit means.

"What might it mean for someone to make a living off of Anarchy, meager or otherwise?"

Does that imply selling anarchy as a product (or the theme, flavor or branding of a different product) or anarchy as a way of life?
If "direct actions gets the goods" you are living off of anarchy(?). D.I.Y. and whatnot. Tbt: and

Is there an anarchist sense of pride that forbids busking and begging as undignified? How is the street performer or beggar with hat for coins different from the online performers with cashapps or whatever?

"How does one judge the worth of a project in a society that already entirely equates worth with money?"

Not just of a project, but of each person and how much they can contribute, whether in monetary terms or their usefulness. Basing your own self-worth or the worth of others based on their ability work (the quality and quantity of said work) seems like an un-anarchist mistake but how could we ever imagine it not factoring in? People are judged (and misjudged, over and under estimated) and valued consciously and unconsciously for each of their traits and qualities.

Divagations aside, I think if you want something to be done, and money helps get it done, you put money to it, no doubt. Not expecting any perks in return other than the satisfaction of seeing the thing you like to see get done. You are vicariously participating via your cash! But if you're short on cash, you shouldn't be giving money to an anarchist project that is doing nothing you want, out of a sense of duty. I'd be hard pressed to give money to someone I don't know and wasn't close with in real life. On the other hand, if you're rich, sure spread the cash among the different projects and people, better spent than on some superfluous item like an extra pairs of fancy shoes. Have all anarchists be your sugar babies if you can afford it.

These thoughts are incomplete, I think sometimes money or no money, the most visible and discussed projects are overplayed. A better funded food not bombs, or news site (glorified retweets or blog)? What would you do if you had A LOT money? Would there be underground tunnels laced with explosives under every major city? Would you fund your own covid vaccine factory and distribution for free? An anarchist hospital? Would you fund a delivery service for anarchists? Would you fund a Tomorrowland or Burning Man style festival yearly? Would you buy acres of land and reforest them? I think since anarchists are mostly always broke, and against the grain to boot, they're not used to imagining actually being able to do big things and projects (might even be for the best sometimes). I've never been one to fantasize what I'd do if I won the lottery, other than go "yay, subsistence security". Just wondering all over the place, couldn't get my thoughts organized.

"Capitalism makes it tough, you need money for everything"

Chump rationale right there. You're simply making "capitalism" tougher by assuming it as an absolute totality defining your life choices, especially when it comes down to "getting stupid crap that's useless".

If you're another legalist that's one thing, but asserting these beliefs as a kind of concrete reality is another. Very Marxian deterministic thinking. If you wanna grow a garden you don't need to buy fucking land. If you wanna eat you don't need to buy 100% of your food. if you wanna print stuff to distribute manage to get access to the printers at some office or nonprofit. If you wanna fuck you don't need money for everything in your dating... Abandon the path of stupidity, plz. "Money" is vastly overrated, and a vehicle for social anxiety.

Capitalism certainly makes people focus on money as an intermediary to their needs, but even without figuring that in we do need resources to live, or to do anything. Gifts don't have to be cash to have the same questions attached. Do we feed that beggar? Do we loan our tools to that guy just getting into homesteading that we know doesn't know how to maintain them? Do we let someone use our printer?

The messed up and atomizing configuration of this society makes it so that the pretty good printer sitting is my room is not answering to some people's needs (that do exist) as there's no way to know in the first place. An anarchistic village or network with a bunch of resources put in common would counter this, but apparently not enough people are down for this, even among our so-called anarchists.

"Capitalism certainly makes people focus on money as an intermediary to their needs"

Money is only an intermediary device to get any goods. I don't think it is a bad idea by default but just like with the energy grid your can see how this is a double-edged sword and a failed object of pride or self-empowerment when it is controlled by mass-level of managerial parasites.

Agreed people are too prone to assume capitalism makes things impossible/is an inescapable totality. But the problem with doing stuff autonomously is 1) how to learn to do it and 2) how to get away with it (since if you don't have money you're probably not allowed to do it).

Crowdfunding seems practical to me. Most humans are poor. The ick-factor in regards to professionalism (crowdfunding paying the salary) is understandable, but only if you don't trust power. I mean, if the project can be funded by the individual's excess from normie wages, I suppose that power is still there ... just washed "clean" by it being excess from the normie world. In commie circles, excess wages are sneared at, so I would not want to be reactionary and swing the other way, thinking that excess was somehow an indication of something like financial innocence.

I'm pro-crowdfunding; I like diversity, and I'm realistic.

Agreeing here... crowdfunding has been a great new trend lately. The problem when it comes to more openly-anarchist funding is how the politically-charged character might get in the way (or the contrary, sometimes) of more "mainstream"-friendly funding. Like funding for vaccines to prisoners might work well, yet funding to anarchist prisoners, not the same.

The anarchist infrastructure for crowdfunding appears dodgy and unreliable these days, aside from maybe the ABC. I've seen 2-3 anarchist solidarity funds appear over the last few years and they went down the memory hole after a while... that's fucked. When you start this such a politically-charged crowd fund the LEAST you gotta make sure is that the infrastructure behind it (1) will last and (2) is liable. You don't wanna have prisoner funds to end up in the wrong pockets...

Also another reason why mainstream crowdfund resources work well: their wide recognition and legal status makes them tax-deductible, so that there's a level of benefit from giving, so that not only billionaires can use charity to legally dodge taxes, but middle class people too. This is relevant to the current GME shit... as many of the stonk holders have vowed to give a lot of their earnings to charity. There's brokers like Fidelity that allow for your earnings to go directly to charity, but when your crowdfund scheme has no official recognition that can't be possible.

Your comment about the paperhands (stonks) reminds be of the robber barons of the guilded age (think Carnegie) having a bunch of museums and the like built and then bequeathing them to the state; the governments would then propogandize for the robber barrons. "See!" the state says. "Without the robber barons, we would have no museums to walk through!"

When the stonk holders promise to give to charity ... idk. Is that not at least similar? Since (at least in the USA with corporate personhood and the actual legal obligation these public-corporate-persons have to make all decisions profit the shareholders) ... there's no way to participate without greasing the wheels of ... slaughter and destruction. Capitalism is all about infinate growth on a planet of finite resources. The eye is on the sky now, someplace new to colonize. I'm rambling. This is far from news to many hear.

Your concern about prisoner funding stumped me. I guess one must send funds directly? I've only used ABC websites and that was to get addresses. Maybe if an ABC treasurer could lend us their time ... idk. I guess it's a "trust fall" (corporate-culture joke).

Ideally, does not an anarchist avoid engaging the machinery of the state? (On that question about establishing a 501-c3). Or is that dual power and therefore a bad? For it all must be destroyed, there's nothing to do but abolish -abolish the state, the citizen, kill the cop in your head, destroy what destroys you. It's all typeset to me. I'm kidding! But just to say that ethics are hard. I've heard on anarchists setting up an organization as a church, I've heard of anarchists holding public office, I've even heard that the rule of corporations over the state is anarchy? Idk. Who is holding the militaries these days anyway? Faschism used to be called corporatism until the 1930's. Not sure what happened there.

Cf course, a corporation ain't more anarchist than the cops are. it is part of the State. That's the history of how corporations emerged; they ain't some autonomous private island above or even outside the government. They're archipelagoes.

The fact some organization or institution makes its members attain repulsive levels of structural privilege doesn't mean "freedom". I hear that some tendency in capitalist morals are confusing both notions (privilege and freedom), so let's not embark in such mind-warped conflation.

Yes, I came across the notion that those levels of corporate freedom being anarchy in a International Relations class. It was gross to hear. I can picture some multibillionair lifting their head from a coke line and saying such nonsense. Or maybe it was posed by regulatory organizations with an accusung finger. Thank you for helping clarify that.

About corpoartions being different islands in the archipelago: what do you think of that old "corporations and stipes" flag from the anti-globalization movement? The makers took the USA flag and teplaced the stars with corporate logos. Was that more than just pointing out lobbying and the like? I don't know who is really more powerful these days. How large are the privatized militaries? Hmmm. To answer my own question, I suppose that's why anarchists say they are against the state instead of the governments. The state is all of it. I haven't been around anarchists talking about political realism much. I might pursue that more if you or anyother readers have research suggestions.

"I guess one must send funds directly? I've only used ABC websites and that was to get addresses. Maybe if an ABC treasurer could lend us their time ... idk. I guess it's a "trust fall" (corporate-culture joke)."

Perhaps you could expand on that instead of vague *wink wink* hinting at possible unreliable practices by this group, or you accusing them of such? I dunno, let's see what you gotta say, as this might save supporters some solidarity money.

I'm sure it's all fine. The original question or concern came from an anon wondering if anarchist mutual-aid organizations set up outside of the state (no tax identification number) could be accountable for ( could there be embezzlement). One, embezzlement happens all the time (even in state-registered non-profits), and, two, the reputation accountability is pretty fierce amongst anarchists (my term). This, coupled with the strong hearts of the individuals running the ABCs, has me completely unconcerned. I do think it is best to know the ABC chapter members or the prisoner directly if you are concerned about embezzlement.

I don't know, but I imagine if an ABC treasurer did speak publically, tbe question of embezzlement would be a mute one. "Yes, all the money comes from my eccess wages; embezzlement what?"

If entirely online ABCs start happening ... idk. What a scummy thing to do; front online as an ABC. That why I say give funds directly to the prisoner if you are concerned. I have given funds to mutual aid groups online without having met any of the people. So .... don't look at me! :-)

There are bonds that the State and its operators will never understand because they upturn the usual criteria of evaluation. In a world based on profit and the will to power human beings generally unite to get a few steps up the social ladder – to earn something more, have major opportunities of success. On the contrary, relations among anarchists seem deliberately conceived to make them social failures. In the space of a few years you can throw away any possibility of a career, of having a bank account or even simply a passport. Often one’s freedom is at stake. For some life itself. Which is why these relations will never be understood by those driven by competition and obedience.

Isn’t it a wonderful mystery that individuals ready to burn the quiet life in order to conquer freedom for themselves and others still exist?

In the reign of intelligent machines, algorithms, cost-benefits calculations, such an attitude seems highly irrational, you will agree.

Agnese, Stecco, Nico, Sasha, Giulio, Rupert and Poza are some of these wonderful exceptions, of these defective rejects, these surprises. Generous, in solidarity, resolute. Like the actions they are accused of.

Action – not doing, programming, activating, calculating or archiving… – is precisely what distinguishes the human from the machine.

Like everything that has to do with freedom, actions against power are repressed, also twisted and slandered so that they lose all meaning. Yet they are hard to die – suspended in a time of their own.

"burn the quiet life in order to conquer freedom for themselves and others "

that is one of the most obnoxious statements i have seen coming from a supposed anarchist. "conquer"? for others? seriously?

beginner anarchist: “Can I-”
beginner anarchist: “But wait, you didn’t let me finish. What if it’s something un-anarchistic, like running a profitable business?
beginner anarchist: No, but isn’t that against anarchist principles?
advanced anarchist: DO WHAT THOU WILT
beginner anarchist: Wait but, isn’t that kinda fucked up tho?
advanced anarchist: *Levitates away

I exploit other people's hard labor coz them lazy or poor and they didn't manage to become a landlord like me lol. Am I allowed to keep doing that if I'm anarchist?


I like to go after young females' beautiful butts... Can I also grab them at will if I'm anarchist?


I'm an Anarchist! So is that okay to snitch on other people and send them to the cops to avoid prosecution?


Is it ever any other way? If that’s what you will, who will stop you? Hopefully the people you intend to harm, since someone coming to their rescue is less likely. Help usually arrives too late.

For example, when you comment your awful comments that always go in the same direction, no one can stop you from posting them, but sometimes, not always, they’re removed after the fact. Other times, you get a reply telling you to go fuck yourself with your bullshit.

Perhaps because the comment, even in its vaguely obnoxious sarcasm, has a serious meaning. Implying that anarchy, or even being anarchist is not about the liberal "thou what you wilt", but rather do what you will, without becoming an oppressor to others... and even yourself.

Like in a way, being a sexual predator is also a form of self-oppression as you are not free from your impulses inculcated by society, you become dominated by those, further more indoctrinated and morally-broken, often by the prison system. It is known how rapey men also got a history of being abused in their youth.

True power starts with power over yourself, before the other powers. That's what Nietzsche was saying. So no, anarchy ain't just about "do whatever the fuck you want", as what you want might be fabricated, twisted wants, of which the irresistible urge to fulfill might just express a lack of fulfillment in life, a lack self-power, lack of pleasure in doing.

(brings up how people have treated twists in the past that we no longer consider twists)
and what if you're doing twists with other people who like those twists?

i agree that there are things that people shouldn't do. but the anarchy (imo) comes in when we're talking about what the responses are to those behaviors. so yea, learning how to and supporting others in, responding well (including violently sometimes), is less cop-like than attempting to protect against those things ever happening...

maybe i'm off topic.

exactly. believing in anarchistic principles does not mean one will only behave accordingly. such expectations are bizarre and unrealistic. the challenge comes in how undesirable behavior (to anyone involved) is dealt with anarchistically.

Imo my desires are "twisted" when their object involves enforcing them upon somebody else, in disregard of their consent or intent.

I would like to take the sadly famous example of adults who're at least partially into kids, but that's a spiny subject I'd rather avoid. So let's say like the sarcastic example above...

You grab someone without them sending you prior signals that are clear enough, that they're into you. That is sexual assault. The desire that brought you may be twisted, as it disregard the other's view of the situation, or at best, it was based on your imagined projection of what their intent is, without verifying anything. So this is why I avoid grabbing a women's (attractive, sexualized part of the body) just whenever I feel life. Also because it'd make me feel like a total piece of shit.

BUT, there's also another kind of "twisted", that's equally problematic. It's when desires are being sublimated or substituted by censored social activity.

So are you claiming that 1) humans are naturally born only desiring activities to which others consent/which do not dominate others, and 2) there is no sadistic or masochistic component to unalienated/untwisted desires?

If so, what's your basis (historical, anthropological, psycho-developmental...) for these assumptions?

(PS: I'm not actually trying to argue that anarchists should go round raping people, just, I arrive at it by a much more circuitous route)

"So are you claiming that 1) humans are naturally born only desiring activities to which others consent/which do not dominate other"

where the fuck did they say anything like that?

No, these are your assumptions, interpreted as mine.

Humans are born as parasites. As they grow up, infants quickly learn, with such displeasure that their desires cannot be fulfilled whenever they want so they gotta learn ways to get satisfaction through communication and acculturation. Instead of learning how to hunt and fish, they learn how to negotiate and imitate. You know the rest of the story.

So society generating a complex and diverge bunch of people with sometimes conflicting wants, needs and expectations, and also different values and views, may require for anarcho a much more sophisticated and adaptive approach than just "do what you wilt" Crowleyian liberal hypocrisy. Very little guys get what they want by just rob & rape; they always got some communicational approach (or "circuit"!?), often pedestrian, which effectiveness varies from one guy to the next.

I still believe that, especially in the perspectives of Emile Armand and Reich and Foucault, anarchism can bring new ways of engaging others that wouldn't require this load of hypocrite "circuitry" that is very present among normies for them to mate, that would be inclusive to people not having the sensibilities for being in couples or even group-based relations (i.e. "polycules"), dating and all that sort of socially-constructed crap.

Hello, superego.

Wakeup call: "you" are not distinct from "your impulses". This Kantian idea of "freeing" "you" from "your impulses" is actually a fantasy of your superego (internalised parent) of finally being free from the bioenergetic sources of life. It's the psychological equivalent of bosses wanting "freedom" to exploit their workers.

Agreed re: sexual predators generally have split desires, they're projecting an internal dominator/dominated relation. But this isn't some bad habit they learnt by rote in sex offender class and never thought to question. It doesn't mechanically follow from outer systems either, at most they shift the opportunity-structure for it. You seem to think the "true" self, separate from its heteronomous "impulses", is 100% good, is this right? And if so, how can you explain the damage done by superegos (which may well also be the part acting in the case of sexual predators)?

"Wakeup call: "you" are not distinct from "your impulses"."

Unless you believe they are biological, the psychodynamic theory asserts that they are learned through interaction with the external h, in the fixing/non-fixing of desires during childhood. So no, "your impulses" are not me, or you.Because these impulse

Unlike the motherfucking communards I can see a distinction between being influenced by other people and being part of a same corporeal magma with them... Relevance here is that "impulses" are at least partly inculcated by interaction with the world, and can also be attenuated, amplified or maybe even re-codified so they manifest differently. So they're not "me", but an "It".

"You seem to think the "true" self, separate from its heteronomous "impulses", is 100% good, is this right? And if so, how can you explain the damage done by superegos (which may well also be the part acting in the case of sexual predators)?"

No this is just you, again, reading too much into what people are writing. No one here claimed about any purely autonomous ego as this can't exist. Only consciousness is autonomous, maybe, but also is something beyond the self, imo.

Some of us recently gave a little bit of cash to someone in order for them to get a new device and simcard for online communication where they are located (in another country from those who contributed). The device and internet access are being used to meet in a temporary project / affinity group, via video conferencing, to get some of their writing translated from their home language into English for hopeful upload to (it has already been published on their local regional anarchist library). So, I think this is an example of small scale outright fundraising that has resulted in a relatively healthy temporary relationship of improved communication. None of us are pro-tech per se or pro money, for sure. But we are in favor of connection and so the microfundraising has strengthened new friendships and allows us to collectively work on this writing and translation project together. There is no expectation of long term relationship as a direct result of the exchange of money. If long term relationships come out of this, they will develop organically. But, and I think the point is that, the collection and gift have contributed to the setup of a situation in which long term relationships are likely to develop -- which is a much nicer thing than mutual obligation.

It is always a hint from society to care about gain and loss, and few people can avoid it. The calculation and trade-off of interests is the current situation faced by many people. There seems to be an attitude that generous altruism can change capitalist ethics. But this view is very hypocritical and foolish. Because Puritanism itself is such an ethics - it is precisely because of altruism, in order to benefit the society, so we should be thrifty, be careful and work hard. So it's always going to happen over and over again: in order to fight capitalism, we need to develop anarchism projects; in order to develop anarchism projects, we need to be Puritans.

So the paradox arises. Is there something called "anarchic banker"?

When bankers ask people to follow altruism, they think it is good to be reckless; but when bankers want to ensure their own interests, all accounts must be calculated in place. When a bad friend builds a relationship for convenience, altruism is good. When a friend no longer needs a relationship, selfishness is good. Factory owners and entrepreneurs advocate altruism when they ask people to make contributions, and change their face when they pay wages. This is the interpersonal relationship of capitalism.

Therefore, it is necessary to talk about interests on the table in the face of encroaching friends, entrepreneurs and bankers. Many NGOs disguise themselves with beautiful ideals, but they strip their employees like entrepreneurs.

Both capitalism and socialism are asshole societies. Even innocence is a trap. People who fall into the bottom of society often believe in social fairy tales, which is the basis of Christianity.

So I tend to think that anarchism is not an ideology, but a struggle after understanding all the above. Some might say it's dark, cold, ugly and heartless. But for those in distress, it's warm in the cold. Just like Foucault's point of view, there is no "human" there. A free fighter is inhuman.

There are no "anarchist bankers.". The key to opposing capitalism and power is to reverse Puritanism ethics. Life is not brought about by frugality and health preservation, but by extravagance. Giving is not selfless dedication, but a process of struggle and creation. Hedonism is not to obtain the satisfaction of scarcity, but to create a terrible pleasure machine.

Those lost youth will not be saved because of frugality, it will only return in squandering. Time will not become more because of efficiency, but will be restored in freedom. Anarchism should not be afraid of money - there was no lack of money in the late capitalist society - but it should change the ethics of making money with money and exchanging time for money. It just lacks some flame, desire and profligate passion.

In this era of prosperous financial capitalism, the question of "what is your desire" becomes crucial. Because the strategy of financial capital is how to control your desire.

"How to measure the value of a project"? How to revalue?

What do you think of the Hawala system? That's *kinda* anarchist banking.

Don't really understand the system. Maybe it's a tool, but if people still act according to economic rationality, it will only recreate capitalism. So it still involves a critique of the economy itself, and a critique of the subjectivity of struggle.
For example, you mentioned the gift economy, which Tiqqun and Marcel Mauss have studied in a very informative way. The gift economy involves a metaphysics that constitutes potential capitalism and law. For example, gifts and profligacy may actually be a way to maintain authority. A "taonga" has its own "pouvoir spirtuel", which constitutes the Maori concept of law: "In the accepted and exchanged gift, what leads to the obligation to return the gift is something flexible and non-constant that the recipient receives. Even though the gift has been given, this something nevertheless belongs to the giver."
Then "the only way to prove oneself as a person favored by the spirit of wealth, or as a person of authority, is to squander and distribute the wealth, thus depressing others and putting them "under the shadow of his name.""
Thus, "in some feasts of quotidian wealth, one must give away everything and leave nothing. The richest people are also the ones who squander the most. The basic principle is confrontation and competition. The political status of individuals in alliances and clans, as well as the various ranks, could be achieved through this "guerre de propriété" (battle of property), just as it was achieved through war, luck, inheritance, alliances and marriage. In fact, everything was treated as a "lutte de richesse".
The economy of gifts is still an economy that may well become a struggle for the reputation of the rich and the patriarch. Moreover, the Potlatch had to be repaid at a high interest rate: "All gifts had to be repaid at a high interest rate. The annual interest rate is typically between 30% and 100%."
So I think the gift economy is still not profligate because it expects a return in the form of psychic power, so it is essentially an exchange.
Sorry if some of my words may have caused misunderstanding. What I was trying to say was neither "Workers defend their rights
", nor "consumption" or the gift economy. Because.
If workers defend their economic interests alone, they obviously cannot defeat capitalism, but rather become part of it. But why do I say "put the issue of interests on the table" and then fight inhuman way? Because the aim is not to gain as much profit as possible, but to gain as much power of darkness as possible through the struggle. To squeeze the capitalist, or to express a preference for life.
Likewise, if we treat profligacy as consumption or gift economy, it will still not change the status quo of capitalism. The point is how to form a "desire machine" and in this way counteract the control of life by finance capitalism.
Criticism of cybernetics is not enough, because ultimately it is capitalism itself that must be opposed.

Is using refrigerators being supportive to the animal exploitation industry just because fridges are used for meat and dairy? No, a fridge can be damn useful for plenty of more ethical purposes.

Hawala is a system of transferring funds by removing traceability and possibility for the freezing of funds, through using compartmentalization of transfers across several instances that are unrelated on the surface. Think of it as a Tor for money transfer, in some way. For an example of how this can work:

- You wanna send 200 USD to some anarchist in Indonesia, and you wanna insure they'll receive the equivalent of 200 USD.

- You buy the equivalent of 200 USD in some crypto currency (ideally one that ain't too volatile), then give this amount of crypto to a support group based in Indonesia.

- Support group has a reserve of money to cover for potential losses and exchange fees for money transfers (in the case of crypto, likely losses in value due to volatility)

- Support group buys money in the local currency, for the same amount in crypto equating to 200 USD, to give it to the recipients or their peers authorized to give it to them. They can add extra paranoid security if they want, by transferring to another crypto currency in-between, or dividing the payment in several parts.

- Recipient gets of 200 USD worth of local tomatoes at some point. Control freak government is puzzled as to where all these fresh, local, organically-grown tomatoes come from. They think it may have come from some local farm that's supplying all the grocery stores in the region, so they don't bother going after the farmer...

So it seems, anarchist funding, at least in US and Canada, has shown some absurd retardation in adopting such a system, rather depending on awful funding intermediaries like Paypal (???) or just bank transfers. Like every time I tried to push anarchist support groups to adopt more confidential means of transferring I was answered with a smug reply, when there was a reply at all.

It's like if you're unwilling to look into safer funding schemes that can avoid compromising any party in a payment, what are you doing in anarchist support in the first place? It's groups insisting on organizing actions through Facebook as if there's no other way of getting participants.

I don't get how we got big brain theorists all over this site who can't understand hawala, or how beneficial it can be. Like where's your head at?

...but if you want it easy, there's this online service called TransferWise that is purportedly a kind of hawala, tho not sure it's as confidential as an anarchist funding scheme could be, if you ppl would get your shit together in a century or two, maybe?

In addition for a real-world example, the Al Taqwa Bank was the biggest hawala scheme to have been ever "thwarted" by any government. All the Dubya Bush admin could do was to freeze the operations of this bank (whose recognition as a bank is only a cover for their schemes, keeping a tiny reserve of like 50 millions to cushion for transfers) for several years; yet they could never really manage to trace back to either the recipients or the patrons. But the bank was founded by Muslim Brotherhood people -and also a porminent Swiss Neonazi- so it was (rightfully) assumed to be funding Islamic terrorist networks like Al Qaeda.

I had only heard of Valhalla, a place where warriors aspire to be. Maybe anarchists need Valhalla more.
But you have a point. hawala, while not free of capitalism, poses a challenge to traditional banking. If it's stable, there's no reason not to try it. I believe that many poor people would be saved by it.
But the potential problem is that, as I often laugh at myself, the "threat" of anarchism sometimes seems like a joke. The threat is much more serious because of the mafia or various other forces. This is clear if we think of "conscious" anarchists as icebergs on the surface of the water. The drive for capitalist crime goes far beyond the need for anarchism. It makes me feel like a total comedian.
It is not without its negative effects.

Oh yes definitely, my èntourage of anarch knights in suede and leather engage in daily verbal jousting matches to prepare themselves for the ultimate authoritarian insult.

Maussian gift economy is precapitalist and anticapitalist. There's informal hierarchy involved (status accrued by generosity) but it's radically subversive of accumulation. In its basic hunter-gatherer forms (according to Mauss) it involved sharing one's mana (spiritual substance) with others: an object made or used by one person always carries part of their soul (we might say: their desire, agency, or labour-power) and having this "mix" with someone else's substance is a way of creating a kinship tie with the other person (we might say: affinity, social connection). In peasant societies, gifts are associated with big occasions (marriages, funerals, births) and religious festivals (think Christmas and Easter in Europe) and operate as a kind of moral economy: still anti-accumulative to a degree, often with a redistributive expectation (rich/high-status people are subject to demands to spend), but now more associated with stable wealth systems and patriarchal households (e.g. dowries). Still not popular with capitalists though: I've literally seen World Bank morons whining about peasant women in Africa: "they need to stop spending all their money on wedding gifts and wedding dresses and start saving for development projects!" ... Money is actually just a very reified form of the traditional mana-gift system, turned into something more and more abstract (gifting money is gifting a highly abstracted representation of mana/labour-power, albeit one corrupted by various systems). Ergo nothing inherently wrong with instrumentally getting, spending, donating money, albeit obviously it's preferable to do things in other ways.

How to live economically as an anarchist: the obvious answer is subsistence, in an anarchist world then each community would produce what it needs and any surplus would be distributed as gifts between communities. Only possible with a land-base, is the main problem. Next-best is scavenging and stealing from the system, followed by either living off wealth transfers (e.g. welfare), workers' co-ops, or petty commodity production. I think petty commodity systems are compatible with a high degree of anarchy, as we see in El Alto for example, although the work-ethic and intolerance of stealing start becoming problems in that kind of society. I wouldn't shame people for doing wage labour but it's obviously a blow to autonomy and dignity. Worth it if it's doing something you enjoy doing, or something useful in other ways, or for survival IMO. Seems to be a major line of recuperation among today's anarchists, particularly if they go for the work-family-consumer lifestyle or go into "responsible" middle-class jobs. Not everyone though.

Funding anarchist projects: how I remember this stuff being done in the past, is everything is done on a shoestring and on a volunteer basis, so people are donating labour instead of money. The low outlays are then covered by participants or fundraisers. This was back when activism was emotionally rewarding, people could live autonomously off welfare or student grants/loans or small amounts of cash-in-hand work, and people didn't burn-out so easily. So maybe there's more need for money now. But I'd say where possible, substitute time/energy for money, and do things free or cheap.

when there are perceived inequities, discontent follows. yet, how could there possibly NOT be inequities in any social situation/environment - depending on one's perspective. like every other aspect of life, anarchistic responses to perceived inequities (and to those responses, etc) are what make them anarchistic. not pre-defining some system of socializing/socialized behavior that fits someone's idea of "anarchy".

any time a social (economic, political, etc) "system" is defined/designed/created/desired/etc, it is destined for failure in this anarchistic perspective. any "system" that does not allow for complete spontaneity and contextuality is doomed if applied to anything approaching a mass society.

True egoists give nothing. They TAKE everything. A culture of Anarcho-taking is what the post-left has taught us. Stirner!

"True egoists give nothing. They TAKE everything"

Nah, that's capitalists. Also re-read Stirner. You seem to have fast-read though it. ADHD I knows! But take your time next time. And COMPREHEND, you bird brain.

Yes. Nature doesn't care about privatizing. It just gives, by being.

While we are all forced to work in the system I think crowdfunding from other anarchists and ideally pooling volunteer labour is the least morally compromising way of getting the resources for community projects. Money though as a whole is a corrupting force and needs to go long term.

Really though? It depends what our moral basis is, but it seems that a Robin Hood esque approach would be superior to funding via other broke anarchists?

I feel like the whole outcome of the Revolution Will Not Be Funded critique was more ppl hitting each other up for money more and scamming it less. Meh.

Add new comment