Anomists vs. Anarchists

[KevlarPants]

Am I the only one that finds it deeply regretful that the "respect, freedom and self sufficiency" anarchists need to be called the same as the "fire, violence and car crashes" anarchists?

Me being the former, I give this a lot of thought, and to me, it's one of the main reasons why most people are extremely skeptical about anarchy. And it's totally understandable. If I didn't know anything about the "movement", I would probably not be very considering towards anarchy, because I would associate it with a piece of shit society where every jackass is free to hurt as many people as much as they please.

It's probably impossible that this will ever come, considering that we would have to popularize a bunch more (much lamer) words (anomy and anomists), but wouldn't it be pretty nice if there was a distinction between these two, much different groups?

Maybe if we give them the anarchy symbol. You have to admit it IS pretty cool.

[ColinAYB]

Am I the only one that finds it deeply regretful that the "respect, freedom and self sufficiency" anarchists need to be called the same as the "fire, violence and car crashes" anarchists?

Me being the former, I give this a lot of thought, and to me, it's one of the main reasons why most people are extremely skeptical about anarchy. And it's totally understandable. If I didn't know anything about the "movement", I would probably not be very considering towards anarchy, because I would associate it with a piece of shit society where every jackass is free to hurt as many people as much as they please.

It's probably impossible that this will ever come, considering that we would have to popularize a bunch more (much lamer) words (anomy and anomists), but wouldn't it be pretty nice if there was a distinction between these two, much different groups?

Maybe if we give them the anarchy symbol. You have to admit it IS pretty cool.
I think it's simply a matter of how anarchists portray themselves. If you want something to stick in the minds of people, you have to make it stick. It would take a vast anarchist movement of people who do good in their communities, based on the ideals they believe in so fervently. The masses at large would need something tangible to demonstrate that we are different from those who appear that they just walked out of Mad Max, and that we actually believe as we do because we believe it would be for the betterment of all. Building open shelters, perhaps?

All of that said, if that did change public opinion in the slightest, it would be akin to political pandering to try to gain support, which is a concept I'm uncomfortable with. The public may inevitably just view it as a charity, and lose sight of its mission, as might those who are working in the effort to change the public's perception. I don't know for certain, it's a tricky issue.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think it's simply a matter of how anarchists portray themselves. If you want something to stick in the minds of people, you have to make it stick. It would take a vast anarchist movement of people who do good in their communities, based on the ideals they believe in so fervently. The masses at large would need something tangible to demonstrate that we are different from those who appear that they just walked out of Mad Max, and that we actually believe as we do because we believe it would be for the betterment of all. Building open shelters, perhaps?

All of that said, if that did change public opinion in the slightest, it would be akin to political pandering to try to gain support, which is a concept I'm uncomfortable with. The public may inevitably just view it as a charity, and lose sight of its mission, as might those who are working in the effort to change the public's perception. I don't know for certain, it's a tricky issue.

I don't see it as pandering. For example when the black panthers organized neighborhood breakfasts for school children or when rural anti-capitalist activists open free clinics that employ local traditional healers to work with idealistic doctors from the city, is that pandering? Rather, it's an attempt to empower the communities to serve themselves.

Moreover, cast in a broader critique these aren't viewed as charity - especially when the authorities try to shut them down!

Finally, remember, there is a need to create the germ of the new society from the shell of the old. How better to do this than to build the groundwork for the provision of the necessities of life?

[ColinAYB]

I don't see it as pandering. For example when the black panthers organized neighborhood breakfasts for school children or when rural anti-capitalist activists open free clinics that employ local traditional healers to work with idealistic doctors from the city, is that pandering? Rather, it's an attempt to empower the communities to serve themselves.

Moreover, cast in a broader critique these aren't viewed as charity - especially when the authorities try to shut them down!

Finally, remember, there is a need to create the germ of the new society from the shell of the old. How better to do this than to build the groundwork for the provision of the necessities of life?

Yes, the Black Panthers may have done this, but it wasn't to show everyone what great guys they were. They did it because it was what they had set out to do in the first place, to organize and uplift their communities from the oppression that had for so long reigned down upon them.

That's not the most practical or useful thing to do if you want to initiate real change with it. The only way I see it happening is if 1) Something like what the Black Panthers did (patrol their communities, provide public services, etc.) is done, or 2) Open rebellion to gain autonomy in which to craft the anarchist society that is striven for, following the example of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

[KevlarPants]

Yes, the Black Panthers may have done this, but it wasn't to show everyone what great guys they were. They did it because it was what they had set out to do in the first place, to organize and uplift their communities from the oppression that had for so long reigned down upon them.

That's not the most practical or useful thing to do if you want to initiate real change with it. The only way I see it happening is if 1) Something like what the Black Panthers did (patrol their communities, provide public services, etc.) is done, or 2) Open rebellion to gain autonomy in which to craft the anarchist society that is striven for, following the example of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

And I think we wouldn't be doing it to show what "great guys we are". We would do it because it's a part of the society in which we believe in, and, to me, it's unhealthily idealistic to think that functional anarchy would just come in a sudden, sweet ass revolution sequence where we overthrow the system worldwide, feed the children, heal the sick and just kick ass in the name of freedom. Revolution comes as a last resource, because there is no way to reason with full on fascism. But luckily, most of us live in "free democracies", with a right to "free speech". It's our job to remove those quotation marks.

And before we overthrow the system once and for all, we must strive for our communities and society to accept and know the concepts, benefits and faults of anarchy, that being, the way I see it, through displays of what non-anomist anarchy, that being, as you said, public services and voluntary crime, fire and health patrols. It IS the perfect society, and for it to work, everybody has to be in line. And that might take a long time, but goddamn, we have to keep the ideals alive and positive for future generations that aren't as fucking greedy and disgusting as us to adopt.

[Ocean Seal]

Am I the only one that finds it deeply regretful that the "respect, freedom and self sufficiency" anarchists need to be called the same as the "fire, violence and car crashes" anarchists?

In order to achieve respect, freedom, and self-sufficiency it must be wrested from the hands of the bourgeoisie and often times fire, violence and other methods must be employed. Where do you get the car crashes one from?

[KevlarPants]

In order to achieve respect, freedom, and self-sufficiency it must be wrested from the hands of the bourgeoisie and often times fire, violence and other methods must be employed. Where do you get the car crashes one from?

I wasn't talking about overthrowing methods. I know very well that we will probably have to burn some shit and hurt some folk, even though it should be avoided. I'm talking about people who want there to be no norms of any kind, even after anarchy is in place. People who just want to destroy and hurt, which is exactly what anarchy should be fighting and ending.

I'm referring to car crashes as a result of there being no bare-essentials traffic law, where irresponsible douchebags are allowed to speed in front of schools.

[Quail]

Have you ever met any anarchists that just believe in chaos and no rules? I very much doubt you have. The media like to make us look bad by writing bullshit about us, some of which seems to have stuck. I think that there is a time and a place for property destruction though (if that's what you mean by "'fire, violence and car crashes' anarchists"). Appropriate action gets demonstrations noticed and shows just how angry people are. Obviously the mainstream media is never going to portray property destruction and anarchists in a good light.

[Red And Black Sabot]

Sounds to me like arrogant "good protester" BS because the "fire, violence and car crashes" anarchists are the same as the "respect, freedom and self sufficiency" anarchists. I don't see what you're trying to prove by writing off vast segments of our milieu simply because they make you uncomfortable or do not suit your sensibilities.
It maybe an aesthetic preference or a very real need that drive certain people to choose certain tactics but that's up to them and the situations they are faced with, not you.
It's best to critique a tactic based on its utility and outcome.
Take for example students or lumpen proles. While workers can attack what oppresses them by simply witholding their labor (strikes directly and materially hurt the bosses) students and lumpen proles don't necessarily have that. It's understandable that to them, a confrontation might have to look like street fights with the police, occupations, or broken windows in order to achieve the same sort effect. Who cares if it scares the shit out of middle class twits and the elites? Sometimes that's more valuable than another community garden or free breakfast. It's entirely dependent on who is taking action and why.
Bottom line is it's not up to you to determine the tactics people use to get free.
Pacifism when imposed is authoritarian. As anarchists we'd do far better advocating a diversity of tactics and not condemning tactics just cause you and I might not use them.
A lot of the tactics you might object to can be part of a full scope of tactics that will lead to (it's our hope) anarchism. If confronting the police and destroying what obviously has to be done away with in order for us to have more breathing room or if creating ruptures from the spectacle and experimenting with temporary autonomy isn't for you and if you would rather build or create (whatever it may be) go do that. (why not do a little bit of both) But either way, maintaining an arrogant "good vs. bad" protester attitude however is not at all helpful and all it does is dry up support for our comrades out there taking very serious risks. Why do you think it was so easy to COINTELPRO the Black Panther Party? When liberals and progressives and squeamish leftists condemned them and when parts of the white left remained critical of their confrontational and armed aesthetic, it erased a buffer of support that could have saved some of their lives if not kept their project going for longer than it lasted.
Next time someone decides to fire bomb an RBC bank for example instead of saying "oh those were the bad anarchists" try explaining why an anti-capitalist or an indigenous person from Canada might not only hate that bank but feel directly oppressed by it's functioning.

[praxis1966]

All I really want to say to the OP is who says you can't do both? It seems to me that you've never met any of what I might call real anarchists. I mean really, what do you think we spend our time doing in between mass demonstrations? Sit around switching thumbs?

Personally, I choose to do my work organizing at the point of production. Others work with organizations like Homes Not Jails (http://www.homesnotjailssf.org/wb/). Still others are involved in campus groups as Red and Black Sabot described. I don't mean to be rude but seriously, you are operating on some very erroneous assumptions.

[AnonymousOne]

In order to achieve respect, freedom, and self-sufficiency it must be wrested from the hands of the bourgeoisie and often times fire, violence and other methods must be employed. Where do you get the car crashes one from?

Oh yeah, I remember that time an anarchist threw a bomb and then suddenly we were all living in an Anarchist paradise. :rolleyes:

[Martin Blank]

Oh yeah, I remember that time an anarchist threw a bomb, and then there was a world war that cost the lives of millions of workers.

Fixed. :cool:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Gavrilo Princip and co. were Serbian nationalists, not anarchists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think it's p. much confirmed that the OP is confronting a menacing strawman

It's worth noting that perhaps the original anarchist, in the modern sense of the word (Michael Bakunin*) would probably fall more into the "car crash" side of things then he would into the "secular Jehovah's Witness" side of things. That's some anarchist activists remind me of, actually..."How do we preach the good word of Anarchy so the average people won't be afraid of us? Have you heard the good word about Anarchy, brother?"

*although that's not to say that he didn't endorse a good number of practical measures, such as revolutionary syndicalism. But he also spoke out for the destruction of all laws, and ultimately was interested more in destruction than creation. Bakunin was a dialectician, and in his "positive-negative-synthesis" scheme the destructive negation was by far the most important element.

[KevlarPants]

I think it's p. much confirmed that the OP is confronting a menacing strawman

It's worth noting that perhaps the original anarchist, in the modern sense of the word (Michael Bakunin*) would probably fall more into the "car crash" side of things then he would into the "secular Jehovah's Witness" side of things. That's some anarchist activists remind me of, actually..."How do we preach the good word of Anarchy so the average people won't be afraid of us? Have you heard the good word about Anarchy, brother?"

*although that's not to say that he didn't endorse a good number of practical measures, such as revolutionary syndicalism. But he also spoke out for the destruction of all laws, and ultimately was interested more in destruction than creation. Bakunin was a dialectician, and in his "positive-negative-synthesis" scheme the destructive negation was by far the most important element.

Well, this thread actually gave me a lot to think about.

I'm just a kid, and I'm still learning my way around this whole "anarchy" thing, despite forgetting that occasionally just because I already have a grip on some subjects.

But again, I wasn't really referring to how anarchists work towards anarchy, because I, myself, think that some violence will have to be employed, unfortunately.

I was talking about how certain anarchists think that our society should work, and how certain anarchists believe in that bullshit Darwinist, chaotic system.

[Delenda Carthago]

Am I the only one that finds it deeply regretful that the "respect, freedom and self sufficiency" anarchists need to be called the same as the "fire, violence and car crashes" anarchists?

Me being the former, I give this a lot of thought, and to me, it's one of the main reasons why most people are extremely skeptical about anarchy. And it's totally understandable. If I didn't know anything about the "movement", I would probably not be very considering towards anarchy, because I would associate it with a piece of shit society where every jackass is free to hurt as many people as much as they please.

It's probably impossible that this will ever come, considering that we would have to popularize a bunch more (much lamer) words (anomy and anomists), but wouldn't it be pretty nice if there was a distinction between these two, much different groups?

Maybe if we give them the anarchy symbol. You have to admit it IS pretty cool.

To me its more painful to see anarchists categorising themselves on the matter of their sex, their gender, their feelings towards the animals and the environtment and their feelings towards violence. Anything but what anarchism used to be: a working class movement.

[hatzel]

certain anarchists believe in that bullshit Darwinist, chaotic system

Is that so? I mean, is that actually so?

[KevlarPants]

Is that so? I mean, is that actually so?

High School is a very silly place.

[Zanthorus]

Fixed. :cool:

Yes, because World War One was all about some trifling over the assassination of the Archduke and had absolutely nothing to do with such small details as the increasing tensions between the major imperialist/colonialist powers...

[miltonwasfried...man]

I am an anarchist and a communist, plain and simple. Yeah those words may have been dragged through the dirt but they are nonetheless the words that describe us. Anyone who meets me will come to realise I believe in peace not violence, love not hatred, true equality and freedom for all. Then they will learn the true meaning of anarchy, whereas any individual who will instantly dismiss someone as an "violent utopianist" or whatever is most likely already set in their ways and will be very resistant to learning our true ideals.

[Manic Impressive]

Have you ever met any anarchists that just believe in chaos and no rules? I very much doubt you have. The media like to make us look bad by writing bullshit about us, some of which seems to have stuck. I think that there is a time and a place for property destruction though (if that's what you mean by "'fire, violence and car crashes' anarchists"). Appropriate action gets demonstrations noticed and shows just how angry people are. Obviously the mainstream media is never going to portray property destruction and anarchists in a good light.
Have you never met self declared anarchists like this? I find that very hard to believe as I meet so many of them. They are attracted to destruction and rebellion but have no theoretical knowledge and are not interested in it.
I believe it is the medias fault for portraying anarchism like that and they are happy just to fit the mould of what they believe anarchism to be. The punk rock scene also plays a factor in this as well.
I know you'll say "well they're not anarchists" but they see themselves as such and they'll tell others that they are and thus re-enforce the stereotype.

p.s. I've got a friend who is one of these "anarchists". I asked if he was going to the last big protest we had and he said "naw man I'm going down to Cornwall to go surfing" :lol: