TOTW: Not anarchist

Topic of the Week: Not anarchist

Topic of the Week – Here at Anarchist News, we sometimes receive article submissions that are not anarchist, don’t mention the anarchist word, and come from more of a leftist space. Often, these texts mention related words like “radical,” “anti-authoritarian,” “anti-capitalist,” “anti-state,” and “antifa” or talk about subjects that are of interest to anarchists, but not specifically by or about anarchists.

Is there a non-anarchist leftist group that you think it would be worthwhile for anarchists to take note of or one that you follow/work with out of personal interest? How do anarchists avoid the failure of leftism and the reification of social revolt that is ingrained by such things? What is your argument for or critique of the left and anarchists who struggle for leftist ideals?

There are 43 Comments

most things are not nominally anarchist, some go as far as saying nothing can be anarchist per se. if you say you take inspiration and learn from everything around you, where does that leave you with regards to this topic? then the topic mentions the left and leftist ideals in specific, and learning from their mistakes. i agree it's a mistake to be a leftist and the lesson is not to be one. Even struggling beside them, arguing with them or critiquing them is usually best to be avoided, unless you want to be a leftist or something.

ha! at the end there? you just made everybody a leftist

now there's only leftists left in the universe and you did that, ya fukin leftist

here comes your helicopter ride ya fukin pinko

Lumpy, that closet in the Far Rightard corner of your mind just went burst for no reason! It barely even makes any l other sense than revealing your potential true face.

Or next time perhaps learn to write sarcasm so it can be read as such?

aw come on, anyone who ever argued with a leftist is being a leftist about it?

you're just mad cuz i'm sarcasming circles around you, plus you're arguing with a leftist right now!

ya fukin LEFTIST!

opsec and all but don't people ever laugh at themselves, where you're from?

I think if it’s about subjects that interest anarchists then obviously I would be interested to read them.
Especially if it’s about the situation in different countries, let’s say Turkey for example…

Also using the word "anarchist" bears no value in making a text/action/project/etc anarchist, beyond the paper-thin face value of claiming to be "anarchist"?

In order to tell what is NOT anarchist we first gotta have a level of agreement on what IS anarchist... or else we're gonna have to accept a plethora of content that many might not take as anarchist.

I was gonna say, this site routinely hosts ancap content... I know this is kind of whataboutism and maybe I missed a totw about that, and I do feel much more sympathetic to left leaning rather than right leaning anarchisms and their fellow travelers, so the complementary question came to mind. It feels ironic- or is there a reason market libertarians seem more accepted here than libertarian socialists? I have my own thoughts on that, but anyway “Anarchist” will always be a fraught label used for strongly conflicting ideas and practices.

to engage with theory that's liberation minded even if the writer (or group) doesn't identify as anarchist. the sort of "anti-sjw" "fuck you i do what i want" attitude of a lot of anarchists drives a lot of folks away from anarchism and I don't blame them for it. anarchist spaces, online and off, are rife with ableism, sexism, racism and so on and so forth. if people don't want to fuck with that, yeah, I get it. me either sometimes. but if the theory of an essay or book or whatever is grounded in anti-authoritarianism and anti-capitalism then it doesn't actually matter to me if they call themselves an anarchist or not.

"anarchist spaces, online and off, are rife with ableism, sexism, racism and so on and so forth"

You got Raddle if you want perfectly PC ID pols-friendly moderation. Tho get ready having to fall into line with their Anarchist Guru Ziq, who's the alpha and omega of all anarchy, as per some academic texts...

“liberation minded” like many statist approaches. if you add the “anti-state” qualifier it becomes less ambiguous. “anti-authoritarianism” allows for government and states so long as they’re not authoritarian TM.

i think “driving people away from anarchism” -whatever that means, by whatever means- is great. it means their convictions were flimsy; their anarchi-curiosity, a passing phase. better to sift them out before you misplace your trust on these flimsy liberals and reformist half-measures

anarchists: i don't like the left
leftists: what are you, some kind of anti-sjw?!
anarchists: actually, i just find among them many of same problematic aspects that are present in the right
leftists: what are you, some kind of sjw snowflake?!

“the sort of "anti-sjw" "fuck you i do what i want" attitude of a lot of anarchists drives a lot of folks away from anarchism”

What are you talking about? Idk where you’re from, but in NA the influence of anti-oppression/social justice politics is very strong. I had a non-anarchist friend visit me once in the anarcho-punk house I was living in at the time, and after interacting with my housemates she later told me the house gave her “Live-Action Tumblr” vibes.

if one is considering individual articles for anews worthiness i see at least 2 categories(of non @) - not anarchist because it is dealing with or discussing statist issues ie elections or laws. or non anarchist in that the word or concept "anarchy" (and derivatives) is not explicitly mentioned.

the first category is obviously not for anews.

the second category can be (about) a lot of things, some of interest some not. not everything non-anarchist is therefore leftist, so topics like botany, for example, can be very worth looking into for anarchists.

the totw though, is asking specifically about @s working with leftists, leftist groups or toward leftist ideals.

for me, if it's leftist in the sense of Politics or Elections then no, because i see that as rearranging deck chairs. but prison abolition is something some leftists work on that seems worthwhile even if it is not the whole of what @s want to abolish.

my critique of leftism is basically haha left wing of capitalism, no thanks! and as for @s who work towards leftist ideals, why are you calling yourself anarchist?

although there's some contention about it, usually folks read "leftist" to mean anti-capitalist, specifically?

whereas you'd be referring to "liberalism" here but hey sporks, don't feel too bad because anarchist analysis is often really weak on this topic, west of the atlantic ocean. words have been almost completely amputated from their meanings, in the great american tradition of the likes of murray rothbard.

^but knowing what words means, seems to get a lot better once you head south, hit mexico or beyond, where folks apparently bother to read about it a lot more?

To the true anarcho-nihilist (temporary label for communicative purposes) all labels are identity veneers, just like ideology, religion, race, and gender, these manifestations of petty vanity are truly pompous and mediocre examples of utter stupidity!!

Ted K. once wrote:

'In our previous letter to you we called ourselves anarchists. Since “anarchist” is a vague word that has been applied to a variety of attitudes, further explanation is needed. We call ourselves anarchists because we would like, ideally, to break down all society into very small, completely autonomous units.'

- Ted K letter to the New York Times in 1995, read here:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-communiques-of...

strange to bring up Teddy without at least nodding towards his virulent homophobia, misogyny and other reactionary leanings. Not to mention how he's said to have sought therapy for being queer himself when he was young, then decided to go all "yukio mishima" about it instead of just ... i dunno, being queer? maybe blood for the thirsty blood gods seemed easier at the time?

*cough* NOT AN ANARCHIST *cough* but hey, at least we all hate society right?

just don't forget the WHY

Strange way to bring up virulent homophobia, misogyny and other reactionary leanings without bringing up Tesla, the US Constitution and other forms of patriarchy.

See how stupid and low effort your left-field nonsense is, lumpy? Think before you comment.

I'm not sure why my response to lumpy was removed. Did the moderator think it might have hurt his feelings to give him an example as to why saying the other commenter bringing up Ted without bringing up every other thing about Ted is not strange?

Let me restate my point.

It is not strange to mention a person that fits the context of the larger topic and not bring up everything about that person.

It was not strange for lumpy to bring up Mishima and not give a nod to the brilliance and depth of his credentialed writing career and masterful storytelling abilities.

It this an acceptable comment?

the mods know i don't feel anything, silly anon!

mishima was an open fascist so ... oopsie doo!
looks like ya walked right in to that one, hey sweetheart?

Maybe somebody in thecollective is a fan of Mishima and doesn't know or doesn't care that he was a fasho?

You are proving the other anon's point, lumpy.

You brough up Mishima without stating they are a fashy nationalist. Does this not fit within your scathing "strange to bring up X without at least nodding towards his Y", sweaty?

you get that I do things to set up little rhetorical traps, yeah?

it's not about your jackass sense of "fairness" or whatever you think you just proved lol

> strange to bring up Teddy without at least nodding towards his virulent homophobia, misogyny and other reactionary leanings

strange to bring up bakunin without etc.

strange to bring up proudhon without etc.

strange to bring up emma goldman without bringing up that 'race of weaklings' stuff.

is your anarchism all about being super woke, lumpy? who makes the grade, aside from yourself?

Perhaps he just didn't liked being queer?

Perhaps you're also takiglng everyhing out of proportion, as I didn't see a lot of his virulent homophobia, misogyny and other reactionary leanings" in his writings. Just someone being critical of progressive Left tendencies doesn't make them Hitler. His bigger jab at the Left was about them being "overcivilized", which sounds very accurate to me, as instead of seeking to abolish or negate thr process of civilization, all what the Left has been doing was pushing it further, deeper, down to nano-scale levels, like reforming language and seeking wide social acceptance for all the non-"cis" representations of identity. These politics are typical of the neoliberal order, not of any anticiv anarchy.

you could always read more about it if you like? on this very site, no less!

https://anarchistnews.org/content/call-out-volunteers-help-finish-editin...

follow up bad faith question for extra credit! only if it applies to you, of course
(this is another rhetorical trap for sad losers to blunder in to cuz it sucks to suck, ya fukin troglodytes)

why would you care if teddy was closeted? something unsettling for you, if his animus was repressed sexuality?

however if none of this applies to your situation and you're just expressing normal skepticism in regards to my credibility, fair enough! i'm just a shady, bottomfeeding troll in the sewer pipe of @news and you shouldn't trust me, quite true!

certainly not seeking your approval sweetheart, just some info to peruse if you're genuinely curious ;)

this "grift" doesn't seem like a very slick operation tho haha

"pls help me finish writing a book, random internet people"

big kisses and thanks to the mods for protecting me from anon comments.

your anticiv anarchy sounds terrible. will not subscribe to your newsletter. calling things neoliberal is not an argument, though it alludes to one.

Use rainbow colors and unicorns to make it more appealing to certain sensibilities? Oh and spread it thru Instagram? Then, a few hidden pics of Goa-Tse in discretely folded pages? Think of the potential!

TK was certainly pretty heteronormative leaning transsexual (look into his time with a shrink before he went on his bombing spree), but his main logical errors were in trying to start an anti-tech revolution, his main tract reads left-wing fascist in more of a sense that was more true to moussoulini than the trumpies.

“I don't believe in politics. I'm an anarchist, I guess you could say. I think people could be just fine looking after themselves.” -Woody Harrelson

Error
The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.

LMAO “anarchist infrastructure”

That image is pretty suiting for the usual lineup of saints who wish they were sinners -- mother t, Karl Marx, TK, che Guevara -- should start a rap group.

i just paid a sex worker named karl for a humiliation kink. he should definitely be in that lineup of saints too! bless his heart.

^this is hilarious, i'm pretty critical of the panthers tho, for the record

not sure I can trust anyone anymore who uses the word community positively and often.

I already didnt trust people who made it clear they knew whats best for other people -- especially if they were willing to speak for others, and act on this belief. over time I realized that people likely uncomfortable expressing this moralism in those terms are more comfortable doing so when using the language of community.

in one way, this looks like mapping an imagined set of less miserable relations onto the exchange relations of acquaintanceships, people they happen to live next to, people they buy things from, etc. aside from wishful thinking, this obscures how terrible relations of exchange society actually are. how amusingly difficult it is to get a community proponent to define it! "who exactly are you talking about?" mostly uncomfortable and incredibly vague responses follow.

more insidiously, its a yearning to be part of something larger and more powerful than oneself. this conformist desire needs to categorically determine who is and who isnt the community -- the threatening other. this thinking concentrates rather than diffuses power, leading to all sorts of authoritarian behavior. it also seems to be the core logic of politics: to define a community (polis), imagine the best way to control it (policy), and put it into practice (policing). this line of thinking can and has been used to justify just about anything, as long as its for the assumed good of the community.

Add new comment